I looked, but didn't see this posted.
I'm sure it's all about the safety. Nothing at all to do with revenue!!!
Anyone wanna buy some ocean front property in AZ???
....they're not going to give up that revenue without a fight!
It's nice to see some clarity from the Feds on this, but as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow states in violation will figure out a work-around ASAP to keep the money coming in.......
IMHO if we're going to rid ourselves of the red-light and speed cameras, it's going to have to be legally challenged on the basis that it's unconstitutional to subcontract the camera systems because it gives for-profit companies a clear incentive to stretch and even break the rules just to make a buck. If States/Counties, etc had to pay for, operate, and maintain the equipment themselves, the vast majority of them would pull the plug IMHO......
That is what I thought was interesting in the article. Moving the "line" did the same thing as "adjusting" a yellow...
As long as the rules are the same across the country, then it might work. But safety is not the priority for all intersections. And someone always figures a way to increase revenue.
Can a freedom of information request tell us exactly how our local cameras are operated? I personally think it should be posted at the intersection where a pedestrian could read it. There seems to be too much variance on how these things work.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2020