Government, industry join forces to entrap and endanger motorists.

My thoughts exactly.

agreed. these cameras are a waste at most intersections.

now if they could realize that removing center turn lanes and replacing them with gardens & barriers is a horrible idea. I see accidents every day people making u-turns in the intersection and getting creamed by somebody making a free right not paying attention.

damage in each accident is less than center lanes, number of accidents is way up

I hate getting tickets more than anything else, so I have figured a revolutionary idea to stop getting traffic light tickets. I stop at red lights.

I also fail to see how getting caught running a red light is entrapment or endangerment by the "man".

Let's stop blaming government, profit mongering, free enterprise, and poorly manufactured speed detection equipment and drive like courteous human beings.

Problem solved .

By the way, my good friend was T-boned in fatal accident from a red light runner. If this "unholy alliance" technology was around at her red light, I probably would not be responding to this post

Sorry about your friend, but what makes you think a red light camera would have saved your friend? A careless driver that is not paying attention to a redlight surely wouldn't say "Whoa! A red light camera."

I've seen the darned camera flashing at every car that stops before making a right turn on red, as during rush hour people line up to turn on red and keep traffic flowing. Just because they aren't stopping exactly at the white line is no reason to issue them a toll ticket. That's just government money grabbing and red-light Illinois are just a bunch of blood suckers. Their cut brings in millions of dollars to their company as they enforce this false perspectiove of traffic law enforcement. I never see drivers blowing red-lights with the T-bone risk. It's all about the money.

I saw this morning a redlight camera go off twice with all cars stopped and none within the intersection.

It was before dawn, so all it did was blind us and gave the company extra photo$ to review.

With all due respect, I am in favor of enforcing the traffic laws by any and all means available. Many people have no respect for the traffic laws at all. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Tens of thousands of people die on our roads each year, I don't know what the stats are, but I suspect a huge percentage of accidents are caused by people too self-important to obey laws like the speed limit and stopping for red lights and signs. If people would slow down and stop for traffic lights we wouldn't need the cameras.

johnnykarr
Way to go couldn't have said it better myself.

Dude, you hit the nail right on the head! I certainly don't intend disrespect to anyone, but I firmly believe that the people yelling the loudest about speed and traffic cameras are the same ones who routinely speed and run lights. (If any of you are saying, you're wrong I don't do that, well, I'm very proud of ya, keep up the good work!

I agree with the article. Those who think it is as simple as just stopping are naive. Sure, everyone should stop at red lights, however, the cameras are often set up so that some "violations" are inevitable. Shortened yellow lights are one method of ensuring that someone who is otherwise traveling in a safe manner does not have adequate time to stop. These cameras are basically set up to make money for the government and camera companies. Independent studies (ie. those conducted by those with no monetary interest) show that safety decreases when these things are installed. They need to be banned everywhere.

Couldn't agree more.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

johnnykarr is right on target, but I do agree with others that yellow light durations are quite often way to short. I have talked to a local cop about that in the past and the response was along the lines of if you are not exceeding the speed limit, it should be safe. I am somewhat skeptical of that from my own experiences, but at the same time I don't think there are "conspiracies" to entrap motorists at red lights with fines. On the other hand, locally where I live in a suburb of southwest Houston,I see countless instances all the time (virtually every day) of drivers arrogantly rushing through red lights when there is plenty of time to stop. These are not cases of yellow light being too short; they are totally blatant. Another constant problem is people who sail up a clear "go straight" lane next to a backed-up "turn left only" and then cut in at the last minute to turn left, usually cutting in while in the intersection. I have personally witnessed numerous "near misses". This sort of recklessness promotes "road rage".

My thinking is we need cameras to catch these incorrigibly arrogant people with "black and white" evidence. The way to punish them is to exact onerous fines, in the range thousands of dollars, and then force them to pay punitive court costs if challenge the charge (clogging up the court system) and they lose. Another way to keep in them under wraps is pull their license for - say - 1 year if they repeat with the same offense within a period of 2-3 years. Causing an accident while committing a red light or turn lane / illegal u-turn offense should be cause for automatic revocation of license and driving ban for at least 3 years.

I completly agree with this artical! not only are camera lights unfair and dangerous, they are also insanely expensive! Ive gotten one camera light ticket in my life and after that time i have become extremly paranoid before crossing an intersection! i dont know how many times ive went through a yellow light only to see the camera lights flashed for another car and i completly almost had a heart attack! just the other day i was sitting in my house in front of the window doing homework, it was raining and then there was lightning! my heart jumped i was so scared beccause i thought i just got a camera light ticket. so now for some reason my brain connects flashing with camera lights! those things are horrible especially if they have that kind of psycological effect on people. not to mention ive even had nightmares. the worst part is that sometimes the cameras lights out here in cali are broke so sometimes they flash when the ligth just turns green, and when you go through a green light and get flashed it freaks you out, that has happened to me quiet a few times, and i would have to rethink the situation and make sure that the light was in fact green and ask myself if there was anything at all that i did to break the law!! im telling you folks, these lights need to be banned!

Dude, your approval of my lack of red light / speed camera tickets gives me a warm spot (more commonly called a case of Red-Axx). You complete miss the point, it isn't about wanting to run red lights or speed. You would understand that if you had ever gotten an automated traffic ticket for some one else's driving. I can control myself and accept responsibility for my own actions. I can not control you and refuse to be responsible for your actions.

The expense involved, made you a better driver!

Yikes

Try a doctor.

I agree they need to go, only because I believe I would rather see a few cops hired to do the same job, at least that way you have reason on your side.

Maybe, since red light cameras don't seem to stop accidents, how about swapping out all the red light cameras for mobile speed cameras? Do you think that might slow down all the speeders? Around here, speeding is much more prevalent than red light running, and potentially more dangerous.

The public needs an attitude change. A change that encourages a habit of respect for laws. Maybe more speed cameras would do that, huh?

Until you can go back to issuing a ticket to the DRIVER and not the OWNER of the car, nothing will change. Use real police, not robots that enrich private corporations.

Because you are suspecting what is a reason it must be sooooooooo true. Like 200% true.

Just how it is that all this enforcement does nothing to improve safety but somehow is being turned into "free money" for government? And all the time there are new "crimes" introduced?
And "...enforcing the traffic laws by any and all means available..> in your post will justifies, let say, confiscating cars from people deem by "officials" as potential accidents causer? Or maybe take away cars from all people, that don't have government approved reason to own a car?
Accidents will always happen. And if you want to limit their numbers that's work mainly for traffic and car engineering.

So personal driving habits have nothing to do with accidents?

The easiest (and best, in my mind) is for everyone to obey the traffic laws, especially around the cameras. If they don't rake in the money, and cost more than they make, the government will have them removed.

I don't see how they improve safety. I think it encourages people to blow red lights at intersections that don't have cameras. If anything, they're making it worse. If we're going to expect every driver to follow every law, we might as well make driving illegal.

I am having trouble understanding the argument that issuing a ticket to the DRIVER and not the OWNER of the car is a requirement for change. Surely, the owner of a vehicle which received a ticket has some control over the driver(s) of that vehicle.

Accessory to a crime (although "crime" is strong here) is a well established principle of law. Let's carry this to a bit of an extreme. Someone's teenage son is a bit wild and drives too fast. Say the laws of the jurisdiction in which that family lives do not enforce tickets when the owner of the vehicle was not the driver. Say the owner of the vehicle continues to let the teenage son drive it. Say the vehicle is the cause of an accident that kills the occupants of another car. Say those occupants are part of YOUR family. .....

I guess I really am responsible for your actions. It therefor make sense to punish me for your actions. You're right and I'm wrong, I yield to your superior logic.

I won't argue 'what-ifs' with you but since when does the law hold one person responsible for actions of another who is of lawful age?

The "accessory before the fact" "accessory" and "accessory after the fact" laws apply, do they not?

Thought your example was a bit histrionic.

The way I understand it, the operator of the vehicle should receive the charge of violation assuming, of course, that the operator was fully aware. Shouldn't the same hold true for the registered owner? An example where the registered owner should not be charged is a case where a minor "borrows" his parent's car for an evening joyride. In this case and perhaps in your hypothetical example, I'd nudge the categorization to negligent. As far as criminality, doesn't one have to have some aspect of criminal intent to nudge it into the other direction?

Besides, my understanding is that many states treat these violations similar to parking tickets so it's a type of infraction. In some sense, one could call these tickets: taxation by citation.

+1...

"The "accessory before the fact" "accessory" and "accessory after the fact" laws apply, do they not?"

The thread was getting a little long here so I'm just quoting your last statement jgermann.

First, as I understand it, accessory before or after the fact doesn't apply. You can't be an accessory if you are unaware of and have no contributing part in the crime. Let's say that I lent you my car, you got drunk and were stopped for DUI. The officer lets you go and then issues me a ticket for DUI because I owned the car. It doesn't make sense but that is exactly what a traffic camera does.

This is my last on this thread. I'm getting the impression that a lot of you just want to argue and I don't. I've stated my opinion, if you disagree then stop downloading the traffic camera files. hehe

Also, very sorry about your friends fatal accident.

The camera's, however, do not play an active role in metering traffic - they only take photos of it after the fact. So, while the "stated purpose" of the camera's are to modify human behavior - and there-by increase safety; relying on the modification of human behavior to achieve ANY stated goal is a indirect and inefficient path to that goal.

Humans are complex and generally not well understood creatures. Acheiving a goal by modifying their behavior is usualy frought with unseen and unintended consiquences. Many independent studies have shown an increase in accidents at photo enforced intersections.

The most direct path to safely decreasing the T-bone type of accidents that took your friend's life is to directly increase the time the traffic light remains yellow in its cycle.

However, taking this "direct path" to decreasing accidents is NOT in the economic interest of the red-light camera operators. Increasing the yellow light length actually decreases their revenue. And I am sure these operators will fight ANY attempt to lengthen the yellow phase at intersections where their cameras are located.

"A small change in signal timing can have a great effect on the number of tickets issued. About four out of every five red light camera citations are issued before even a second has elapsed after the light changed to red, according to a report by the California State Auditor. This suggests that most citations are issued to those surprised by a quick-changing signal light.

Confidential documents obtained in a 2001 court trial proved that the city of San Diego, California and its red light camera vendor, now ACS, only installed red light cameras at intersections with high volumes and Amber (yellow) phase less than 4 seconds."

Source: Investigation: Red Light Camera Red Alert (KDFW-TV (TX), 11/13/2007)

So, based on ACS's OWN ACTIONS (above),it seems obvious to me, that increasing the yellow phase to 4-seconds or more reduces red-light violations to the thresh-hold that is no-longer profitable for ACS to operate cameras at those intersections, (at least that seems to be the case in the city of San Diego.)

Lengthening the yellow phase is more DIRECT way to impact safety than modification of human beings' behavior through the instalation of cameras.

What your local state and city councel should do is demand that the red-light companies (as a condition of the contract) turn-over their traffic reasearch data. Then, any intersections that currently has a camera - and any intersection that the company has targeted as a potential camera location - be modified with a LONGER 4 to 5 second yellow light phase.

After that is complete, let the profitability chips fall where they may...

My guess is...safety will be dramatically increased and it will no longer be profitable for the red-light camera vendors to stay in business in those communities.

For the first time you might see red-light camera operators, themselves, refusing to re-new contracts with local governments because it is no longer profitable to do business in those communities that take a more direct path to safety.

HawaiianFlyer, please give us a report of the "yellow" timing on severl of the traffic lights in your area. I am of the impression that the traffic lights in my area are all set at 3 seconds OR LESS, so I am surprised at the statements that California has 4 second yellows - unless they are on highways where the speed is 59 or above. At 40MPH, a car will travel 58.7 feet. A 3 second interval will let a car travel over 176 feet. With an average car length of 16 feet, that is 11 car lengths. I will be interested in your statistics.

People being such adaptable creatures, those people who are inclined to run red lights will quickly learn the timing, whatever it is. They will push the limits because "I needed to get somewhere" or "I was late" or whatever.

Now, I will not, and can not, claim that jurisdictions change their yellow light timings to "catch" more people - many people report - correctly on not - that such is the case. However, the issue of the length of a yellow light raises an interesting question. I wonder what yellow light timing those persons opposed to cameras would agree was appropriate.

Thanks for your interest!

There are many, many intersections in California with 4 seconds or greater yellow-lights. Mira-Mesa and Scranton in San Deigo...Mission Bay and Grand Ave, also in San Diego...if I add others this will be a very long post.

Here are some of the links that have what you requested most have a link to thier source documents.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/13.asp
(This also has a link to a source document of Lockheed Martin's selection criteria of less than 4 seconds yellow phase. See the "VIEW DOCUMENT" link.)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport5.asp
(This link has a very useful chronology of changes to the Institute of Transport Engineers Handbook (ITE) from 1976 to present. These changes basically allowed yellow-lights to be shortened nationwide, and the the all-red intersection clearance time to be virtually eliminated. This gap created over the years was exploited by red-light camera vendors starting in 1996. So, yes, yellow lights are being shortened. But, ALL if them being shortened - so it's legal. And we all know if it's "legal" it has to be RIGHT, right?)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3055.asp
(This is a good link sighting Loma Linda, Ca. They lengthened the duration of the yellow phase and got a 92 percent drop in strait through red-light violations, and a 85 percent drop in left turn violations. This left only rolling-right violations for Redflex's income, and a very unhappy city counsel. Imagine...you get a 92 percent drop in red-light voilations and it makes Redflex and the city counsel un-happy.)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp
(This is a link to a Texas Transport Inst. study that found ..."the vast majority of red light camera tickets are issued within the first second a light is red -- in fact, the average ticket is issued when the light has been red for half a second or less. Yet right-angle crashes, which account for the majority of fatal red-light related collisions... with the excetion of one, all of the right-angle crashes occurred after 5 seconds or more of red. In other words, tickets are being issued primarily for split-second violations where {T-bone} collisions are not occurring".)

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2861.asp
(This article address your concern, "... those people who are inclined to run red lights will quickly learn the timing, whatever it is". Since Georgia lengenthed its yellow lights there was an inital 60 - 65% decreases in violations. Over the next year and 4-months, half the intersections studied cycled up slightly from that figure - half cycled down.)

----------

Wow! Your math is spot-on! And 176 feet sounds like a lot of distance. But a safe stopping distance includes: reaction time + decision time + stopping time. If it takes a person 1.25 to 1.5 seconds to: recognise the light, make a decision and begin reacting; with a 3 second yellow-light you're left with about 90 feet (about 5.5 car lengths) in which to stop an automobile after you recognize the light and make a decision. From 40MPH - 90 feet is getting near maximum braking. And that's if everything works right!

If you put that mathmatical rigor to task on the camera vendor's balance sheets it should be clear their goal is to increase, not decrease, the number of violations.

Re reaction time, the 1994 edition of AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" (pp. 118-119) suggests that "For approximately 90 percent of the drivers in the first study mentioned, a reaction time of 2.5 s was found to be adequate."

My mental counting on yellow lights (one thousand one one thousand two one thousand three) proved to be a bit fast. I got a stopwatch and tested several yellow lights on my way home from church today. The timing is more like three and one half seconds on the lights I was saying were three seconds or less.

I plan to go to the various red light cameras around here and see what their timing is. May take a day or two but will report.

At 3 1/2 seconds the distance a car travels at 40 MPH will be 205 feet.

No need to apologise to me...

You can submit your timing results to this website:

http://www.shortyellowlights.com/

Thanks for that link. While this website of the "National Motorist Association" is generally against red-light camera, the fact that are trying to approach the timing of yellow lights in a statistical fashion makes them better than most such sites. They state one of their gaols as being "... to properly time the lights in all 370+ cities with red-light cameras and by doing so eliminate this scourge in all fifty states." Their argument seems to be that, with proper timing, cities would not make money and would eliminate the cameras. Of course, those cities that showed an improvement in safety might very well keep the cameras.

I have timed several of the cameras here in my city and have an interesting observation to make. For those intersections with the cameras on only one street, the yellow light timing of the camera street were always higher than the non camera street. I will have to go back and get the speed limits of all streets to see how close my city comes to the recommendations of "shortyellowlights.com". Not totally sure of the speed limit, but they seem to be in line with recommendations.

Scary stuff....

Big Brother keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Well...that's part of the point isn't it? (...And the title of this thread "Government, Industry Join Forces to Entrap and Endanger Motorist")

Yellow light timing "recommendations" from "the government" have been steadily reduced since 1985, and red-light camera enforcement has been used as a deterent to mitigate these reductions. Government lowered the safety standards - and "private industry" was suppose to fill in the gap with enforcement.

Problem is "private industry" has that persnickity goal of maintaining or increasing its revenue. The red-lght camera vendors need for revenue is a DIRECT conflict of interest to reducing violations through better engineering and intersetion design enhancements.

After all, if you are a red-light camera vendor and the vast majority of red light camera tickets (your income) are issued within the first second a light is red - Are you going to willingly go along with design enchancements to your intersections that add a second back to the yellow light timing and REDUCE your income? Or are you going to fight and lobby for the bare minimum yellow light timing? Will you lobby to further reduce what that minimum is? You sure have an incentive to...and the red-light vendors have.

The two goals (private revenue and reduction of violations)are divergent...That is fundamental, and there is no way around that.

Volume of voilations should be a LEADING INDICATOR that there is a design problem at any particular intersection. Instead "government and industry" have teamed-up to prevert that idea. Now, an increase in violations gets a hardy pat on the back and a "Keep-up the good work".

It really is sick that an industry, like the red-light camera vendors, can hold press conferences full of gory pictures, video and the relatives of those killed by red-light runners - BUT AT THE SAME TIME ENJOY THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF REDUCED YELLOW LIGHT TIMING RECOMMENDATIONS AND STANDARDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY!

HawaiianFlyer, my comment about the yellow light timing in my city being in line with the "recommendations" was referencing the website that that you provided a link for. My reading of this site was that they were generally opposed to red-light camera and were trying to work toward less tickets and therefore less revenue. They are certainly not "the goverment" as you seem to have interpreted.

So, when I said that my city's timings were in line with the recommendations of a site opposed to camera, I was trying to make the point that my city might be more interested in safety than revenue. I spoke to a police officer today who said that there have been no fatalities at redlight intersections since cameras were installed. I have not been able to verify this, but my understanding is that the cameras were installed at places where safety was the issue.

That said, I am wondering how you feel about red-light cameras that may (and, I have not checked all of them) follow the recommendations of "shortyellowlights.com" and seem to have reduced fatalities. If you lived here, would you be in favor or opposed to them?

Wow! You did that census of your town's intersections quite quickly.

If you used the "quick chart" on the webpage I refered you to, those were yellow-light timing figures from 1976. So, if your city's yellow light timing really is in-line with that table then GREAT for your town! You guys (for what ever reason) have not been racheted down since 1985...yet.

(BTW..There is actually a mathmatical formula for the yellow phase. The 1976 chart is a very rough aproximation.)

How would I feel about red-light cameras that may follow the recommendations of "shortyellowlights.com" and seem to have reduced fatalities?

I am assuming this is a hypothetical question.... Without any other information - I would attribute the reduced fatalities to re-lengethening the yellow light and other engineering improvements.

I think it's great your city is more interested in safety than revenue. But, honestly, what city manager wouldn't say that? So, the point is ubiquitous to the point of uselessness.

No. The real meat and potatoes of "safety" (I define safety as - a reduction in fatalities, accidents and also violations) is proper design of functioning systems, without fundamental flaws...

So, I will restate my last -

The two goals of red-light camera vendors(generation of private revenue and an overall reduction of violations)are divergent...That is fundamental, and there is no way around that.

Nicely stated. The trust and support that I had once had since vanished once the motive of making money was the reason for what they're doing. Please don't call me and ask for donations. I've already given them with my last ticket.

HawaiianFlyer, I think that almost everyone would agree with that, whether or not they support or oppose red-lignt cameras. However, whether or not the vendors have goals that are divergent with the goals of some jurisdiction is not a reason to "throw the baby out with the bath water", so to speak.

The title was "Government, industry join forces to entrap and endanger motorists". I thought that blanket statement might need to be investigated because it seemed very one sided. Based on what I have read, one could conclude that it has happened (and will likely continue to happen given the poor economy). What citizens need to do is demand that the safety issue be given priority and transparency. Making your voice heard at city commission meetings is a good start.

To give full disclosure, I have spoken to police officers who think that the city's mobile speed camera vans are a "money grab". I have not been able to find out anything to draw a conclusion one way or the other. I guess I would categorgize them as "speed traps" which have been with us since almost the dawn of the mass produced automobile. I must also say that our neighborhood has often asked for "speed traps" at the exit from our neighborhood onto a perpendicular main road that has a blind spot (from our perspective) that lets cars traveling over the speed limit almost crash into us before we can completely pull out and get up to speed. I have many times been very close to being rear-ended by someone on a cell phone driving like a "bat out of ...".

If your asking me to what "good" uses red-light cameras should be applied -

I don't have an answer for that....I can't think of an occasion one would ever want to relentlessly enforce bad engineering.

Your use of "good" and "bad" is subjective in that IF it meets YOUR criteria it is good. Otherwise it is bad.

Umm.. sorry, but Duh. Isn't that the basis for opposing thoughts/opinions??

Possibly not, but imo it's a valid 'red flag' & reason to pick up the bath tub and hold it close to the window while you examine it very closely to see if it's been irreparably possessed and no longer the baby you thought it was. (Even if it doesn't spit green stuff at YOUR face)

The OP article makes two points but now speed cameras are in the mix?

Only the first two paragraphs out of six make a blanket statement about 'ticket cameras' .. the majority are talking about red light cameras. While some might still feel that speed cameras are part of the author's 'Unholy alliance' viewpoint, they otherwise weren't mentioned.

But since you brought them up you raised two points that are relevant to the article though.
(1) Your local police also see the two unrelated goals of speed cam use in your area so it could (probable imo) be that they use the red light cams that way as well.
(2) You suggest demanding that safety be a priority with your local governing body regarding the cameras after giving an example of how that approach appears to have failed to produce a solution to your intersection safety problem. Did the red light camera at your intersection work after signage, speed limit reduction, and use of a well timed & sequenced red light alone failed? If so then maybe you actually DO have a responsive local government that was acting in your behalf for everyone's safety. In that case a camera probably should be considered as a last resort if it's operation is closely monitored by your community. Maybe you have an agnostic alliance in your area.

JD4x4,

I think you were asking me about an example I gave. If not, please disregard.

The personal example I gave of asking for police car "speed traps" near my neighborhood did not involve a red light. There is a interection of the logical exit from our subdivision (25 MPH) and a road coming from a very large shopping mall (35 MPH) where the road from the mall has very little sight distance due to shurbery and a curve on a downslope. My guess is that many cars coming from the mall are over 45 miles per hour. We ask for "speed traps" to slow them down.

My Websters Dictionary defines "good" as:

Possessing desirable qualities; adapted to answer the end designed; serviceable; useful; not lacking or deficient; not blemished or impeached.

I belive I used the word properly, and I answered the implied question. I can give you no red-light camera enforcement applications: possessing desireable qualities, that is not lacking or deficient, or is not blemished or impeached, etc..

There is a growing mountain of empirical evidence in general support of that observation.

You seem to be saying that the majority of emperical evidence is in support of camera opponents. I do not think that to be the case with studies that have been conducted by universities and departments of transportations. Most of the studies that I have read in their entirety say that red-light cameras reduce overall accidents and fatalities.

Most people seem to believe (indeed want to believe) the selective quoting from these studies. The prime example on this very site is selective quoting from a study that "rear-end accidents increased". That study did indeed say that, but went on to say that t-bone crashes were reduced and the overall impact of crashes (both rear-end and t-bone) was reduced.

I am told that my city has had no fatalities at intersections since cameras were installed - with the decision as to where to install cameras being intersections that were considered dangerous. I call that GOOD.

Yes, that was the example.
I'm curious if you know how many fatalities there have been at that intersection.

And.....
You wonder why folks got a kick out of blowing up speed cams in the UK??

Just sayin.....

Hey JD4x4!!
I dig your avatar!!
Cats RULE!!

It is very difficult to stop in time when yellow are set so short. You have to be ready to put on your brakes within one second of yellow. I wish there were a congressional investigation of this with the same uncovering of documents that is happening with Toyota. I'm sure there are lots of smoking guns about setting yellow lights shorter to increase revenue. This is not a traffic camera issue but a short yellow issue. These "public servants" are on the take to support their lavish pensions, health plans and life-time security jobs.

Follow the link……

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=019_1232690422

Then you make the call, Money or Safety.

Red Light – Stop
Green Light – Go
Yellow Light – Enter the intersection with caution, not speed up to beat the red light.
joemac