Red light cameras purpose: Reduce accidents or increase revenue?

for the money? no way

Perhaps the best answers to your questions would be from the General Directorate, Transportation Policy and Safety and the office of Transportation Safety.

Of the two most common elements in the universe, one has an atomic weight - Hydrogen. Stupidity hasn't been effecively measured.

And I agree. It is a means to replace revenue streams that have decreased due to the economy and our incessant demand that government provide more and more services. But again, RLCs are not for the driver that acts and remains within the parameters set by current laws.

I think both

Before they installed the camera on Rt19 and Ridge Rd in Port Richie in Florida, they had somebody check the amount of cars that went throught the red light. After they installed the camera they checked again. More cars went through the light then. It seemed a lot of drivers were too busy looking at the sign than the light.

From my personal observance when visiting Maryland, people stop at red lights, slow down for speed cams. Does this increase revenue? How else will society change its behavior? Human nature will not change, that is for certain.

My employer bumped up my company match by 1/2%, was it out of the goodness of their hearts? Given that people are laid off, highly doubtful. It's to maintain the ratio for a defined contribution plan and boost the contributions of non highly comped employees. But it would be crazy for someone getting a free 1/2% to deny the benefit for them. The motive is one thing, the net effect is another. My .02, I'm all for red light cams.

I have an idea that will reduce driving accidents to zero. DON'T LET ANYONE DRIVE! This of course would be impractical and we should not accept that. Nor should we accept photo enforcement just because they claim to improve safety. In any case, there is quite a bit of evidence out there that shows that these cameras actually decrease safety.

Photo enforcement or police enforcement...what is the difference? Both are out to catch speeders...at least the camera corners have warning signs...I have never seen a sign on a street or freeway saying ...Police ahead with radar guns...There is also evidence that shows fewer red light runners where the cameras are installed...

Police enforcement is selective. Photo enforcement is like a dragnet behind a trawlwer, scooping everything up.

The problem is that the 'enforcement' is often coupled with entrapment; either speed limits have just changed (and often for no discernable reason) or they are set way too low for the road.

Traffic lights are often reset so that they shorten the yellow time knowing that the timing is such that unless you almost literally stomp the brakes you get a ticket.

A couple of years ago I was hauled over by a police officer just inside the town limits (which were well past any habitation) of a small village and ticketed for doing 55 in a 30,

I protested and the officer told me there was a speed limit sign.

I took the ticket and then went back to look for the sign.

There was a sign.

It was completely covered with vines, and was barely visible. This, and the lack of any cues that we were approacing civilization clearly set the stage for harvesting drivers - and because this was in tourist country, a court appearance was likely to be extremely inconvenient!!

I didn't have a camera - besides, what good would that do? How would I prove that this was the same sign?

So I did the next best thing.

I pulled down all of the vegetation and completely cleared the area around the sign.

I then went back to where the officer was parked in hiding, stopped, got out of my car and walked over to his and told him that if I were he I would personally be out patrolling, since I'd removed all of the vegetation (and I had dragged it into the woods so he couldn't string it back up again).

He threatened to arrest me for obstruction of justice!!

I suggested that this would be appropriate and offered to follow him to the local jail (because then I would be seeing a judge that afternoon) and the oficer then declined the offer.

I was back in the area again last summer. Knowing the trick (I had a waypoint defined) I saw that my sign was again covered up by growth. So I pulled over, cleared the sign and then again stopped and chatted with the same officer as I had the year before.

He wasn't happy.

There's also lots of evidence that there is a huge increase in rear-end accidents in controlled intersections.

Further, it turns out that at many intersections red light runners aren't what the majority of tickets are for; They are for people who don't come to a complete stop ahead of the stop line for right turns.

There is ZERO evidence that accident rates for this type of offense are reduced and that ticketing people who slow to check the oncoming traffic - or better yet who stop past the line to see the traffic, because the line is too far back is in any way effective, especially when the ticket arrives a month or more after the fact.

Further; Evidence or not, the simple truth is that unless they get adequate revenue from a camera they will remove it, dangerous intersection or not.

Then, of course there are the statements of the various mayors, city counsellors, police chiefs, policemen and state legislators that they are simply 'cash cows' to consider.

That alone obviates any 'safety' argument.

I find this thread to be hilarious. Did you ever meet someone who gets a parking ticket, belly aches about the $160 fine and then says they're going to fight it? That's what the anti red light cam crowd reminds me of. Some sort of Constitutional right to break the law and not be brought to bear.

Yesterday, I worked late, on all days, a Friday. So I was in a hurry to get home. I ran two red lights and sped, knowing fully there are no cams in the county where I live. I don't condone what I did, after all, I just got a speeding ticket in Jan for 52 in a 25 and was let off the hook. But let's face it, most of the bosses have been working only 2/5 days (telecommuting for managers 101) for at least 3 years now, the emotional aspect of putting in another 55 hour week on salary got the best of me and my Bavarian car. So I sped and ran 2 red lights and probably got home 2-3 min faster. Put some cams up where I live, and I would not do that. From my own personal observation in Maryland and NYC, when there is a cam, people stop, lo and behold, sometimes even on yellow. No rear-end accidents, believe me.

Uh, it isn't the same thing.

Put it this way;

You park your car and, while you are parked they change the legal parking times and give you a ticket. Gonna fight that?

Another; You park and the meter has JUST expired (you are, in fact just loading your trunk with your purchases) so you get an AUTOMATIC ticket - no leeway, no randomness, just a ticket issued 100 milliseconds after the meter goes 'tick'.

Another; WHILE you park you back up, crossing over the lane's edge, so BANG, they issue you an immediate ticket, again, no one gets away with it. Note, you didn't actually PARK with your car crossed over the line, you just made a temporary incursion into it - and because you nosed into that spot while parking, you were issued a ticket for crossing the line.

Best of all, just listen to the city councils and Mayors of the cities and towns that have these systems; They deploy them for the revenue. They are quite clear about it. They evebn order the yellow ligh times shortened to increase the harvest.

Then, there is another issue;

Before red light cameras police would watch intersections during rush hour. they aren't there any more.

So now. when someone makes a left turn or runs a red light GOING THE OTHER WAY during rush hour, he DOESN'T get a ticket because those lanes aren't monitored.

It is ALL about the money.

All of us are here for a reason downloading the POI file for the cams. It's obviously not so that we can beat them, because it doesn't work that way. It seems that we want to be aware of where they are. Factor in that the alert goes off many times where a cam doesn't even exist, and that means we are willing to be alerted more than 100% of the time. The end result is that we stop at lights when we are supposed to, whenever the POI file tells us to. That's not what many people do. To bring the rest of society on board they'd have to buy a GPS and load the POI file, which they most likely don't want to do, or we have to fine them when they run lights with cams. In theory, I'm not against a red light camera on each and every stoplight which would make the GPS obsolete. Is it really an inconvenience to stop when you are supposed to?

The fact that municipalities can earn revenue more easily from those who break the law is an intended consequence of technology. It's also more difficult for criminals to snatch children from amusement parks due to fingerprinting and surveillance, but you don't usually see them openly debating the topic and claiming the unfairness of the situation.

And I'm sure that cameras in every home that 24/7 are monitoring what people are doing will save life of more than one person (drowning in bathtub, domestic violence, etc.). Is this enough for you to understand stupidity of your comment?

EGADS!!!
Illinois has been going NUTZOID with RL cams!
They are popping up around here on a daily basis.

Ticks me off..bigtime.

My take on it? If you have a bunch of these in your township. Well, I'll go elsewhere.
Nice goin g'ment!
Your businesses can kiss my butt. I'll spend my hard earned money elsewhere.