Red light cameras as "must-have"

There is never a shortage of people who believe politicians' lies.
On a related note Santa Maria, CA, is temporarily stopping their red light camera enforcement, (it isn't making enough money).
www.santamariasun.com/news/3441/santa-maria-to-lose-red-ligh...

Yes, it remains so obvious to us Marylanders that the decision to deploy Red Light & Speed Cameras is highly motivated by shortages in government funding at a number of levels. So far the stance of politicians has not been focussed on by the electorate at an upcoming election, but who knows, 2010 may be the year in which someone is actually defeated in their bid for re-election based upon GREED. I truly hope so.

Fred

I hope so also, but not just in Maryland. These cameras need to be banned everywhere. Those elected officials who promote them need to pay a political price. It has happened in a few places already, but hopefully will happen in alot more.

In MA, the ok went through as it slipped in by Gov. Patrick that towns can do it. Another revenue generator. I've been updating that old topic.

The government redistributes money. Maryland is spending way more than it has been taking in, so they devise all manner of ways to redistribute. So far they've raised sales tax, legalized gambling, and began using red light cameras. I'd rather they do this than raise income tax. Let the spenders, the red light runners and the gamblers have their money redistributed...

Ideally we would elect officials that are honest and frugal. But we don't.

There never is "Enough" money and there will never be. They keep raising taxes and looks like they will continue to seek other ways for revenue. I expect Speed Cameras next in California.

I was just in Arizona on vacation and I wondered how these speed cameras affect tourism. I was fortunate enough to have been warned and had my POI Factory speed camera downloads, which worked great, thank you. There were also mobile units of which I saw three going north bound on the 17.

Now if I had no idea and received several tickets from my vacation in Arizona,
I doubt I would be in a hurry to return.

I hope California thinks about this before they employ the speed cameras.

They have increased the Highway Patrol enforcement; I see a car pulled over both directions daily on the way to work. That was rare before the "budget crisis."

I Could not have said it better myself, money is the root of all evil.

I am still looking for a politician who keeps his promise till his term ends :0

If Red Light Cameras were meant for Public Safety, why they don't install them in every junctions where they have traffic lights?

Actually "The love of money is the root of all evil".

Not sure it's the love of money that's bad. It's more how you earn your money, whether it be a private person or government.
Government's need to constantly spend more and find new revenue is the root of all needless taxation though.

Oh my God well said this is so true alot people don't know, frig i didn't even know myself, it makes alot of sense.

(Government's need to constantly spend more and find new revenue is the root of all needless taxation though)

Boy, if that's not the truth. Just look at all the people who voted Bush in for his second term as president.

Boy, if that's not the truth. Just look at all the people who voted obama in for his last term as president.

I'm OK with the gambling as that is voluntary and is easily avoided, but the cameras impact everyone who drives down the street and are harder to avoid. I'd much rather see a tax where a small burden is shouldered by many, rather than these cameras where the unlucky motorist who gets caught by a short yellow gets to shoulder a big burden. Worse still, independent studies show that these cameras actually decrease safety, so you actually make things more dangerous out there. More preferable would be that the government would spend the money they already are getting more wisely so the additional funds aren't needed. Bottom line for me is it's time to do whatever is possible to get rid of the cameras.

Simple really "DO NOT SPEED" and I promise you you will not get a speeding ticket. DUH!!!!!

BWAHAHA. Officials like that are like BigFoot-ain't no such thing.

You might as well say, "If you don't drive at all then you won't break any traffic laws."

Maybe the driver's license requirements should be more selective. A lot of problems would be alleviated by reducing the total number of cars on the road, especially single occupancy cars on the freeways.

My city (Hillsboro) is planning to install its first red light cameras in January. The intersection is terrible, sure, but I think the real problem is that three directions are backed up by intersections too close nearby -- we sometimes sit through 1-2 full cycles at the stop line because there's no room to clear the intersection, or have to slam on the brakes in the middle of the (very wide) intersection because traffic stopped hard. I suspect most of the people who run the red there do so out of frustration with not getting a chance to go on green.

The city claims they're trying the cameras because officers have a hard time patrolling this intersection (they get stuck in it too), but I'm concerned it will catch on quickly. A neighboring city already uses cameras.

I'm still looking for a politician who keeps his promises till his oath of office.

Hopefully it won't be Obama's last term. He'll need 8 years to straighten out Bushie's f_ups (wmd war, by the way did they ever find and weapons of mass destruction? Oh yea, it was bad intel. He was an embarrassment to the American people. Must of bribed his way through college . . . "Mr. President, they just blew up . . . 'Just a minute, I'd like to find out how this story ends (first grade class)'"

So let's legalize drugs and prostitution and let the government redistribute the profits from those ventures to something other than more AK-47's for the gang bangers.

My concern about red light cameras is the possibility that abrupt stops to avoid a ticket can lead to being struck or striking a car by the following vehicle. Visitors to a city will not know the normal driving rules don't apply at selected interscetions.
The city does not have to pay those costs so they are ignored.

Found this website, has some interesting info.
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/index.htm

It is all a matter of perspective and planning. If their goals were reasonable, then there'd be enough money.

The simple fact is that governments are run by people who like to "build things" as monuments to their presence even if there is no money on hand to fund the construction or to maintain whatever it is that was built. And they like to increase the number and amount of services they provide, raising the bar for such things. The public is to blame as well, for believing and accepting that such is their due.

It's all very noble, but the reality is that if any private company or individual ran their operation the way that governments do they would be bankrupt and/or in jail for fraud.

Politicians and bureaucrats are not constrained by the typical rules of finance - their view is that money can be generated from new sources of revenue or left for our children to pay, whether it be taxes, lotteries, tickets and such - cutting back services to reflect the financial reality is, for some reason never a seriously considered option. As mentioned, just look at California.

As just one example, if they would stop building freeways, the traffic will eventually self regulate because people will not continue to flock to live where the daily commute takes 5 hours each way . . .

The operative phrase should be that they must 'live within their means'.

If they did, they wouldn't be so desperate to fill their coffers with the profits from these forms of unfair taxation, which in my opinion might be defined as 'fees paid to govermment agencies where there is no good or service received in return'.

Or those that voted in the current president.

But as mentioned don't speed or run red lights and you won't have a problem. Myself I like these just have so that I have a warning of other jamming on the brakes to not go through the light.

Ahhh yes.. a TRUE kool aid drinker.. Hehehehe

The old canard...get with 2009 my friend. Your still regurgitating NYTimes BS.

Ya... How embarrasing to go after those that blew up the twin towers.
Because..afterall, he should be BOWING, and declaring EVERYTHING BUT VICTORY. (Had to love that lame speech last week huh?)

Bwwahha.. And of course you know all about obama and his college records right? Oh! Thats right, he hasn't release a SINGLE record of his past, college or otherwise.

Huh? Did you miss those two planes?
Wow!!!

Soon you'll have to face the facts that your messiah has been completely ineffective, his efforts have been and continue to be rejected by the majority of AMERICANS.
But hey... You stick with your 'points'.. Perhaps reality and facts will catch up with ya one day.
(shakes head and walks away..)

Have a nice day.

Get back on track-quit bashing specific politicians.

As much as anything, I also like having the cam database so I can have some heads up that the guy in front of me may jam on his brakes w/o the usual warning. I always stop for the red light cameras, and even if you are allowed to turn on red after waiting 5 seconds, I don't go until it turns green again. It's not worth $100 to get somewhere a minute earlier than if I had just waited for the light to go green again.

Thanks for all the chuckles, in this thread, definitely, brightened my day

Yes, especially when I read some feedbacks about government & politicians

.............. WHAT!?

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

Dood...

Now there's someone who knows what he's talking about.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

...does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Went down to PA (Philly area) for Thanksgiving, and made what I'd thought was good time down Rt 1 (Roosevelt Ave). Arrived at my sister's house, mentioned the clear sailing, and she eviscerated the good feeling by mentioning "oh, you know about the speed cameras on Rt 1, right?"

Well, no. I did not.

Here's the thing: I didn't barrel down the road at high speed, but the speed limit is a frustrating 40 mph. Did I go 43? 47? I don't know; I don't recall. I usually go at or near the speed limit and I don't run reds, but it was a "oh what could it hurt" sort of thing. Lightish-traffic and a "I'm not really doing anything dangerous" mentality. Was I wrong in the absolute sense of the word? Yes, but I guarantee you that a patrol car wouldn't have stopped me for what little I was doing. A speed camera, though?

I'm literally almost worried sick about it (for me it's the weeks of anticipation more than the tickets themselves). And there are 4-5 such cameras on this road... 4-5 tickets? AND I think this is an "enforcement zone": doubled fines.

I feel for ya--my GF got nailed by the speed cameras when she went to visit her sister over the Thanksgiving holiday. I offered to let her use my GPS, but she "doesn't like gadgets," but I bet she likes tickets even less......

Ultimately, that's what annoys me so much about speed cameras--the threshold is too low to be about safety IMHO. Sure, go after people doing 10+ mph over the limit--most of the time that's just reckless. $180 for doing 43 in a 40? Gimme a break........

NP

yeaa pretty shitty.. just found out there are installing red light cameras by the end of this month and will be operational by the end of Jan 2010.. guess i really gotta be careful now lol

Hopefully speed cam will not come to CA.

Thank you God in advance!

Everyone thinks it so unfair to get a ticket even though they do it to themselves by not obeying the laws. Of course as soon as someone blows the light and slams into the side of your car, you are the first ones to complain about the lack of enforcement.

Obviously you dont pay attention to studies that show RL cams dont increase saftey...
That you ignore all the posts that point to these results.
On the contrary..accident rates go up.

But hey..you keep thinking that. Not everybody can be a rocket scientist ya know.

Some laws are silly.

Ever pull the tag off a mattress or pillow? Did you know that's a FELONY?

Accidents always have happened and always will happen. Without red-light cameras, one of the consequences of running a red-light is DEATH, and yet some people still do it. Do you seriously think that a $150 ticket will change their behavior?

Lastly, there's many things that could be done to improve safety without resorting to tickets and fines. Longer yellows to allow intersections to clear, count-down lights, etc. If it's all about safety, then why do cops HIDE when setting up speed traps--don't they want us to see them and slow down?? Or, maybe they just want the money..........

If you would take the time to read the tag, you would discover that it's only illegal to remove it "before" the sale to the consumer. The consumer can do whatever they want to do with the tag. Been that way since the law was passed.

Do you really think that where there is an RLC and someone runs the light the 'death consequence' is no longer on the table?

Since the accident rate (and stress levels) increase where there are such cameras, one might even be able to tie an increase in mortality rates at equipped intersections to the presence of cameras.

How quickly did she get the ticket?