Redlight Cameras And State Criminality (1 Viewer)

[Monk-Eye]

"Redlight Cameras And State Criminality"

Historical safety concerns at an intersection should be the only justifyable reason for a redlight camera.

Alternative measures could be taken such as extending the yellow, increasing the red to green wait time, or raising intersection awareness.

The purpose of the state is to serve the people and ensure their safety.

Redlight cameras is all about the state serving itself.

No doubt the state will shave seconds off of the orange light to optimize revenue.

Ensuring institutional integrity and huge administrative overhead through negligence and strawman authority, guess where sodomites love to stick their gavel.

Where are the civil liberty representatives arguing these points?

 

[SFLRN]

"Redlight Cameras And State Criminality"

Historical safety concerns at an intersection should be the only justifyable reason for a redlight camera.

Alternative measures could be taken such as extending the yellow, increasing the red to green wait time, or raising intersection awareness.

The purpose of the state is to serve the people and ensure their safety.

Redlight cameras is all about the state serving itself.

No doubt the state will shave seconds off of the orange light to optimize revenue.

Ensuring institutional integrity and huge administrative overhead through negligence and strawman authority, guess where sodomites love to stick their gavel.

Where are the civil liberty representatives arguing these points?

lol in court working on all the other violations of civil liberties in today's big government.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Lawless Authority

"Lawless Authority"

lol in court working on all the other violations of civil liberties in today's big government.

I agree, the six foot no touch limit in strip clubs has got to go.

There is intention of placing a redlight camera at an intersection here in town.
The wife (very conservative) was driving through that intersection when the light turned to orange and the option to stop or go began. There was not really an option to stop for caution of hard braking. I watched the light in the side view and it turned red as we were barely past it. The light is improperly calculated. As I said, it is a money scheme and there is no justification for the imposition.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Lawless Authority

"Lawless Authority"

I agree, the six foot no touch limit in strip clubs has got to go.

There is intention of placing a redlight camera at an intersection here in town.
The wife (very conservative) was driving through that intersection when the light turned to orange and the option to stop or go began. There was not really an option to stop for caution of hard braking. I watched the light in the side view and it turned red as we were barely past it. The light is improperly calculated. As I said, it is a money scheme and there is no justification for the imposition.

Then vote out those who imposed it. That simple.

Unless you can show me somewhere in the Constitution where you have a fundamental right to drive through an intersection without fear of a ticket, that's your only recourse.

When people begin to characterize every single law they don't like as a "civil liberties violation," it makes light of the serious violations of our civil liberties that happen everyday.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Legal Ignorance

"Legal Ignorance"

Then vote out those who imposed it. That simple.

Unless you can show me somewhere in the Constitution where you have a fundamental right to drive through an intersection without fear of a ticket, that's your only recourse.

When people begin to characterize every single law they don't like as a "civil liberties violation," it makes light of the serious violations of our civil liberties that happen everyday.

Debate, more often than not, implies ignoring valid opposing issues for the purpose of establishing ones own agenda.

You seem to prefer to subjugate everyone as defenseless lawbreakers and seem like the type to shave the time off the light to bolster the coffers and increase accident rates to validate it.

Again, what is the purpose of a red light camera?

One would presume to establish RLCs as a safety precaution where there is a notoriety for accidents.

If there are no record of accidents is one to place an RLC at the intersection, shave off time to bolster the penalty tax, but minimize accidents?

Is one to presume that an scientific range of intersection control light standards exist and that it accounts for all situations to make the intersection safe?

Can one presume that the accidents occur because of local or DoT negligence and disregard?

Had relevant measures been taken the accidents could be remedied without the need for a contrived penalty tax.

How is one expected to argue the validity of a light before a jury?

One is presumed guilty simply because there is a light, nevermind its validity.

No, there are too many such as yourself, principalities in municipalities creating entrapments with the illegitimate purpose of funding the legal profession and supporting a baseless institution of conditioned intimidation.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Legal Ignorance

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think you know what you're talking about.

"Legal Ignorance"

Titling your posts is actually a nice schtick. I kind of like it.

Debate, more often than not, implies ignoring valid opposing issues for the purpose of establishing ones own agenda.

......

You seem to prefer to subjugate everyone as defenseless lawbreakers and seem like the type to shave the time off the light to bolster the coffers and increase accident rates to validate it.

What gives you that impression?

Again, what is the purpose of a red light camera?

Ask those who voted to install them.

One would presume to establish RLCs as a safety precaution where there is a notoriety for accidents.

That's your presumption. One could also presume that they were placed there in order to prevent people from running the red lights so as to prevent a future accident.

If there are no record of accidents is one to place an RLC at the intersection, shave off time to bolster the penalty tax, but minimize accidents?

If they want to.

Is one to presume that an scientific range of intersection control light standards exist and that it accounts for all situations to make the intersection safe?

What does this matter? Furthermore, what are you talking about?

Can one presume that the accidents occur because of local or DoT negligence and disregard?

What leads you to that?

Had relevant measures been taken the accidents could be remedied without the need for a contrived penalty tax.

That's up to the legislators.

How is one expected to argue the validity of a light before a jury?

...not sure what you're talking about here. You would argue a case the same as you argue any.

One is presumed guilty simply because there is a light, nevermind its validity.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

No, there are too many such as yourself, principalities in municipalities creating entrapments with the illegitimate purpose of funding the legal profession and supporting a baseless institution of conditioned intimidation.

Read above.


I'm going to summarize this quick for you, and you'll either come back at me with a good rebuttal that will mean this is a worthwhile conversation, or you'll respond with a quasi-sensical post that highlights a complete ignorance of how the legal system works, thus making any response on my part worthless.

Here's the deal: If a municipality wants to install a red-light camera, they can vote to do so. There are a multitude of possible reasons for this (preventing accidents, slowing traffic, encouraging people to obey the law, or simply punishing law breakers.) By virtue of there being even one valid reason for passing this law, no court on earth would ever overturn the decision of a municipality to install these cameras, because it falls under the police power of the state. If the courts won't remove them, then the only way to do so is to convince the municipality that they're a bad idea and get them to remove them.

If you want this thread to be a discussion of the merits/flaws of the Red Light Cameras, that's great. We can talk about that for a while and see how it goes. But if you're going to make the fantastical claim that they somehow impinge on your rights or are illegal, then there's no point to this discussion.

 

[Voidwar]

Re: Legal Ignorance

If the courts won't remove them, then the only way to do so is to convince the municipality that they're a bad idea and get them to remove them.

Oh, I reckon a deer rifle will do it.

If you want this thread to be a discussion of the merits/flaws of the Red Light Cameras, that's great. We can talk about that for a while and see how it goes. But if you're going to make the fantastical claim that they somehow impinge on your rights or are illegal, then there's no point to this discussion.

There is of course, the fact that the person ticketted may not be the person driving, and this is further compounded by the sixth amendment right to face your accusers. Who is the accuser ? Who proves who was driving ? The camera installer ?

I do not think Traffic Light Cameras are flagrantly illegal, but I am still squarely against them.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Codes Of Provocation

"Codes Of Provocation"

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think you know what you're talking about. But if you're going to make the fantastical claim that they somehow impinge on your rights or are illegal, then there's no point to this discussion.
Titling your posts is actually a nice schtick. I kind of like it.

This is an ethical argument about the extent of infringement on life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. THANKS

You seem to prefer to subjugate everyone as defenseless lawbreakers and seem like the type to shave the time off the light to bolster the coffers and increase accident rates to validate it.

What gives you that impression?

It must be the authoritative smuggness and my recollections of it. :2razz:

Is one to presume that a scientific range of intersection control light standards exist and that it accounts for all situations to make the intersection safe? Can one presume that the accidents occur because of local or DoT negligence and disregard?

If they want to.What does this matter? Furthermore, what are you talking about?

My presumption is that part of the DoT purpose is to ensure a safe roadway which entails all aspects worth considering. This may include preparatory information such as overall visibility, orange light duration, and wait time between red to green shift.

If accidents are occurring, then ignoring these elements is local and DoT negligence. Civil suits are more likely between insurance companies and private persons rather than directed at the state controls. The state seems content to put up cameras to record the situation however, to what extent are they ignoring the principle causes?

I'm going to summarize this quick for you, and you'll either come back at me with a good rebuttal that will mean this is a worthwhile conversation, or you'll respond with a quasi-sensical post that highlights a complete ignorance of how the legal system works, thus making any response on my part worthless. Here's the deal: If a municipality wants to install a red-light camera, they can vote to do so.

There are no legal misperceptions here, pass a stupid ordinance, feed a lawyer.If local jurisdictions are consistent, evidentiary appeal does not exist for a class C misdemeanor; it is a procedural review at the appellate court. The local issue now is to balance revenue versus the expense of defending a legal challenge. Since it will be difficult for the judiciary to mandate administrative competence in local methods of intersection policy, the issue is decided and ultimately institutionalized without discovery.

...not sure what you're talking about here. You would argue a case the same as you argue any. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

In spite of the legal descriptions of the written law, one is delusioned to believe in a presumption of innocence. The prima facia, "beyond a reasonable doubt", has no substantive relevance to a simpleton juror ignorant of legal ethics (hearsay, sufficiency). The juror is dispositioned with agression for time inconvenience and monetary uncompensation. The jury acts under a pretense, that the accused must be guilty according to the arresting authority. To overcome the vicarious want of the jury to dominate and be vindicated of scrutiny for releasing the guilty, one must prove their innocence; for if one is not guilty of the crime at hand they are guilty of something. And, especially in Texas, it is better to convict the innocent than let the guilty go free.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Legal Ignorance

Oh, I reckon a deer rifle will do it.

So go ahead and fire a weapon into an intersection and destroy government property. Have fun in jail.

There is of course, the fact that the person ticketted may not be the person driving, and this is further compounded by the sixth amendment right to face your accusers. Who is the accuser ? Who proves who was driving ? The camera installer ?

Do you have any idea how these work? They send you a picture of your car running the red light. If its not your car, then you say that, and bingo, problem solved. If it's not the person driving, then it's either a person on the insurance or its not legal. In any of these cases, you can argue your case in court before a judge or jury. That simple.

I do not think Traffic Light Cameras are flagrantly illegal, but I am still squarely against them.

Fair enough.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Codes Of Provocation

"Codes Of Provocation"

Interesting choice.

This is an ethical argument about the extent of infringement on life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. THANKS

Where are your rights being infringed upon?

It must be the authoritative smuggness and my recollections of it. :2razz:

I can see how my disdain for jumbled arguments would lead you to the conclusion that I would desire more car accidents.

My presumption is that part of the DoT purpose is to ensure a safe roadway which entails all aspects worth considering. This may include preparatory information such as overall visibility, orange light duration, and wait time between red to green shift.

If accidents are occurring, then ignoring these elements is local and DoT negligence. Civil suits are more likely between insurance companies and private persons rather than directed at the state controls. The state seems content to put up cameras to record the situation however, to what extent are they ignoring the principle causes?

One problem: You've shown no evidence that any of this constitutes negligence or is illegal.

There are no legal misperceptions here, pass a stupid ordinance, feed a lawyer.

Then vote out the people who passed the stupid ordinance.

If local jurisdictions are consistent, evidentiary appeal does not exist for a class C misdemeanor; it is a procedural review at the appellate court. The local issue now is to balance revenue versus the expense of defending a legal challenge. Since it will be difficult for the judiciary to mandate administrative competence in local methods of intersection policy, the issue is decided and ultimately institutionalized without discovery.

Doesn't require discovery, a simple hearing provides all that is necessary. Ask Deegan, he recently got a mistaken ticket from one of these. They sent him a ticket and a picture of a car passing through the red light. Problem? One digit was off on the license plate in the picture. Do you think he paid it? Nope.

In spite of the legal descriptions of the written law, one is delusioned to believe in a presumption of innocence.

Bullshit. Anything to back that up other than your own platitude?

The prima facia, "beyond a reasonable doubt", has no substantive relevance to a simpleton juror ignorant of legal ethics (hearsay, sufficiency).

So you claim that the jury system is broken? Again, anything to back that up?

The juror is dispositioned with agression for time inconvenience and monetary uncompensation.

A juror does not get out of a trial earlier by voting guilty than he does by voting innocent, so that eliminates your claimed incentive right there.

The jury acts under a pretense, that the accused must be guilty according to the arresting authority.

Again, bullshit, evidence please.

To overcome the vicarious want of the jury to dominate and be vindicated of scrutiny for releasing the guilty, one must prove their innocence; for if one is not guilty of the crime at hand they are guilty of something.

Again, bullshit, evidence please.

And, especially in Texas, it is better to convict the innocent than let the guilty go free.

Again, bullshit, evidence please.


Basically you've managed to rant about the municipalities guilt without showing evidence, declare the statute stupid without providing evidence, claim that the statute violated your rights without providing evidence, and claim that the jury system is broken without providing evidence.

(Not to mention the fact that 99% of red light cases are decided by a judge, not a jury.)

 

[Monk-Eye]

Jurisprudence - Legal Positivism

"Jurisprudence - Legal Positivism"

One problem: You've shown no evidence that any of this constitutes negligence or is illegal.

That is my point.
It is not possible to prove negligence without studies for credible alternatives.
Which institution would be responsible for remanding the studies for credible alternatives?
My supposition is that inquiries into credible alternatives are the purposeful disinterest of the state institutions that corroborate to enforce the traffic code.
Legality could only be valid under the condition of negligence.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Jurisprudence - Legal Positivism

"Jurisprudence - Legal Positivism"

That is my point.
It is not possible to prove negligence without studies for credible alternatives.
Which institution would be responsible for remanding the studies for credible alternatives?
My supposition is that inquiries into credible alternatives are the purposeful disinterest of the state institutions that corroborate to enforce the traffic code.
Legality could only be valid under the condition of negligence.

So......what? You're not actually arguing a point here.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Ineptitude And Repugnance

"Ineptitude And Repugnance"

So......what? You're not actually arguing a point here.

No. It would have been more correct to state that it was part of my point.

It is the responsibility of the accuser to establish guilt.
With ethics argued, evidence is required, research is not a weakness.

At the site RED LIGHT CAMERAS www.highwayrobbery.net the following reference to statistical reports is reviewed - Electronic National Dialogue on Transportation Operations Archive -- Read-Only -- Re: Yellow Increased - Red Light Running Way Down.

"Olson and Rothery reported in 1972 that their research showed that drivers were "virtually" certain to stop if their required deceleration rate was less than 8 feet per second squared and virtually certain to continue if the deceleration rate required was in excess of 12 feet per second squared" [Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985]

"The average implied deceleration rate of the group with the highest crash rate was slightly over 13 feet per second squared, and the deceleration rate for the group with the lowest crash rate was 8.5 feet per second squared" ["Effect of Clearance Interval Timing on Traffic Flow and Crashes at Signalized Intersections", Zador/Stein/Shapiro/Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1985]

MONK-EYE WROTE: AT THIS POINT, A GOOD ATTORNEY WOULD FIND OUT WHAT THE RATE IS, AND IF THE TIMING IS OVER EFFICIENT, SUE THE STATE FOR NEGLIGENCE.

How does one distinguish between people entering on red intentionally versus those portrayed as such by premature red onset for the prevailing conditions? Start with an intersection with an unacceptable entry on red problem and apply the measure of effectiveness test for yellow by incrementally increasing the yellow and counting the results. First count existing entries on red with the existing yellow setting that may be causing the problem for some fixed number of cycles during a time of day when volume/speed conditions produce the greatest numbers (baseline). Increment the yellow up 0.50 seconds and count the same way the next day, assuming volume/speed conditions are the same. Increment the yellow again 0.50 seconds and count again on the third day. Repeat as necessary until entries on red approach zero. Usually no more than 3 or 4 increments are needed, sometimes less, to isolate optimal yellow. You may have to count over multiple days for lengthened yellows because absolute numbers of entries will drop way down. In other words, a greater sampling size is needed to count just a single entry on red event, as they become increasingly rare (fewer and farther between) with each increment.

MONK-EYE WROTE: WITHOUT THESE CALIBRATIONS THE STATE IS MISREPRESENTING THE FACTUAL NECESSITY OF THE REDLIGHT CAMERAS AND ACTING AS CRIMINAL SCHYSTERS TO DUPE INNOCENTS UNDER NATURAL LAW.

TO WIT, THE CAMERAS ARE LIKELY UNNECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Ineptitude And Repugnance

"Ineptitude And Repugnance"

OooooOOOOoooo

No. It would have been more correct to state that it was part of my point.

It is the responsibility of the accuser to establish guilt.

Thus the cameras.

With ethics argued, evidence is required, research is not a weakness.

Makes no sense.

At the site RED LIGHT CAMERAS www.highwayrobbery.net the following reference to statistical reports is reviewed - Electronic National Dialogue on Transportation Operations Archive -- Read-Only -- Re: Yellow Increased - Red Light Running Way Down.

"Olson and Rothery reported in 1972 that their research showed that drivers were "virtually" certain to stop if their required deceleration rate was less than 8 feet per second squared and virtually certain to continue if the deceleration rate required was in excess of 12 feet per second squared" [Determining Vehicle Change Intervals - A Proposed Recommended Practice", ITE, 1985]

"The average implied deceleration rate of the group with the highest crash rate was slightly over 13 feet per second squared, and the deceleration rate for the group with the lowest crash rate was 8.5 feet per second squared" ["Effect of Clearance Interval Timing on Traffic Flow and Crashes at Signalized Intersections", Zador/Stein/Shapiro/Tarnoff, ITE Journal, November 1985]

That's all fantastic and lovely, but has no bearing on anything at all.

MONK-EYE WROTE: AT THIS POINT, A GOOD ATTORNEY WOULD FIND OUT WHAT THE RATE IS, AND IF THE TIMING IS OVER EFFICIENT, SUE THE STATE FOR NEGLIGENCE.

Actually, no attorney with any idea of how the law functioned would touch that case with a 20 foot pole.

How does one distinguish between people entering on red intentionally versus those portrayed as such by premature red onset for the prevailing conditions? Start with an intersection with an unacceptable entry on red problem and apply the measure of effectiveness test for yellow by incrementally increasing the yellow and counting the results. First count existing entries on red with the existing yellow setting that may be causing the problem for some fixed number of cycles during a time of day when volume/speed conditions produce the greatest numbers (baseline). Increment the yellow up 0.50 seconds and count the same way the next day, assuming volume/speed conditions are the same. Increment the yellow again 0.50 seconds and count again on the third day. Repeat as necessary until entries on red approach zero. Usually no more than 3 or 4 increments are needed, sometimes less, to isolate optimal yellow. You may have to count over multiple days for lengthened yellows because absolute numbers of entries will drop way down. In other words, a greater sampling size is needed to count just a single entry on red event, as they become increasingly rare (fewer and farther between) with each increment.

It's not the duty of the municipality to research the reasons for things. Their only job is to enforce the law.

MONK-EYE WROTE: WITHOUT THESE CALIBRATIONS THE STATE IS MISREPRESENTING THE FACTUAL NECESSITY OF THE REDLIGHT CAMERAS AND ACTING AS CRIMINAL SCHYSTERS TO DUPE INNOCENTS UNDER NATURAL LAW.

Er, no. Not at all.

TO WIT, THE CAMERAS ARE LIKELY UNNECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Then vote out the people who placed them.

Listen, this has been fun, but its no longer productive.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Shysters In Suit

"Shysters In Suit"

OooooOOOOoooo
Thus the cameras. Makes no sense. That's all fantastic and lovely, but has no bearing on anything at all. Actually, no attorney with any idea of how the law functioned would touch that case with a 20 foot pole. It's not the duty of the municipality to research the reasons for things. Their only job is to enforce the law. Er, no. Not at all. Then vote out the people who placed them. Listen, this has been fun, but its no longer productive.

Your demonstrated lack of intuition and general matter of fact pointless stupified demeanor is astounding for someone with five thousand posts.

The term natural law theory was used in the context of philosphy of law, which asserts that there are laws that are immanent in nature, to which enacted laws should correspond as closely as possible. This view is frequently summarized by the maxim: an unjust law is not a true law, in which 'unjust' is defined as contrary to natural law.

You mustered a defunct response, too lame for reiteration (but you managed), that compliance with statistical field studies to ensure fair treatment of citizens in accordance with natural law is not the libertarian obligation of the state nor should it be defensible by any lawyer with a 20 foot pole. Vote the council out of office. Wow - a genius unproductive, an obtrusive egocentric, a senseless vitriolic - unrequired, disinvited.

I also used the term legal positivism which asserts that laws are rules made by human beings; and there is no inherent or necessary connection between law and ethics, hence morality.

In the context of RLCs, your assertion, that people are inherently responsible for compliance with the state version of law irrespective of field studies and in opposition to natural law, is somehow ethical is, and I am going to say it, felonious, and an example of legal positivism.

If RLCs are installed with the stipulation that the state comply with standards established through field study and not with the purpose of unnatural law enforcement contrived in revenue gathering and necessitated by documented safety, then there is no objection here beyond the ethical turpitude of necessity for presumptive guilt.

Biometric (retinal scan, fingerprint, etc.) facial recognition systems have been purchased by states for these camera systems.
Speeding cameras are next on the agenda.
Wiretaps without a warrant no longer sounds like an inconsistency.
If one is innocent what is there to worry about?

 

[Voidwar]

Re: Legal Ignorance

So go ahead and fire a weapon into an intersection and destroy government property. Have fun in jail.

Have fun finding me, I was a mile away when it happened.

I know enough about ballistics to render the weapon useless as evidence, and I am a Chemist and a Geneticist, so I bet I do just fine on covering my tracks from your CSI team. So Solly, you not SupaCop.

Do you have any idea how these work? They send you a picture of your car running the red light. If its not your car, then you say that, and bingo, problem solved. If it's not the person driving, then it's either a person on the insurance or its not legal. In any of these cases, you can argue your case in court before a judge or jury. That simple.

You apparently need to brush up on this law.
It is legal to loan your car to a friend.
Your insurance policy covers this also.

The way the tickets work, is they are sent to whomever plated the vehicle, and this person is not allowed to say someone else was driving. These tickets are written so that the person who plated the car has to pay, regardless of excuse.

 

[Willow]

It is legal to loan your car to a friend.
Your insurance policy covers this also.

Even if you loan your car out, it's still your responsibility to make sure the person you loaned it to is a safe and effective driver. If you loan it to say someone who has several speeding tickets your insurance company is most likely not going to help you when they crash your car speeding. And you can be liable for damages caused by them.
If a municipality is having trouble with people going though red lights, what would be more cost effective having a camera and a sign telling people not to break the law or having an already overworked law force spare officers to sit by the red lights all day? I don't know about your municipality and your taxes but mine can't spare the officer and I don't want to pay anymore taxes. What do you want them to do?

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Legal Ignorance

Have fun finding me, I was a mile away when it happened.

I know enough about ballistics to render the weapon useless as evidence, and I am a Chemist and a Geneticist, so I bet I do just fine on covering my tracks from your CSI team. So Solly, you not SupaCop.

:roll: Wow, another guy on the internet who fancies himself a stealth rambo and talks about all the crazy things he'll do and get away with. Never heard anything like that before.

You apparently need to brush up on this law.
It is legal to loan your car to a friend.
Your insurance policy covers this also.

The way the tickets work, is they are sent to whomever plated the vehicle, and this person is not allowed to say someone else was driving. These tickets are written so that the person who plated the car has to pay, regardless of excuse.

So why is it different with Red Light Cameras? That's how it works.

 

[Patrickt]

When you start a sentence beginning with "no doubt" in your original post and then call your opponents "sodomites" you can scarcely try to claim the high ground by saying it's a discussion of ethics.

Perhaps you would shave seconds off the amber light for the money but I doubt your city will.

Assume for a moment you are responsible. You have an amber-light length that meets national standards, you've instituted a stale-red system where all for directions are red for a few seconds, and you're still having accidents, frequently with injuries, where cars are simply running the red light. Now, what would you do?

Also, for the record, you generally have the right to face your accusers in a criminal case. Running a red light is not a criminal case. If you choose, you can plead not guilty, however, and the city will explain to the court, again, how the camera system works and how the driver is identified.

 

[stevesy]

Assume for a moment you are responsible. You have an amber-light length that meets national standards, you've instituted a stale-red system where all for directions are red for a few seconds, and you're still having accidents, frequently with injuries, where cars are simply running the red light. Now, what would you do?

That assumes they actually put those things where there are an extraordinary amount of accidents. Truth is every story I've read on the things show they place them in high traffic areas with no concern for accident rates and then slowly over a period cut the amber light time down.

It's clearly a revenue generator and nothing more. If their intention was to cut down on red light accidents they would put them where there were the most accidents due to red light runners. That’s not going to happen because that’s not necessarily where they’ll make the money. For instance in low income areas cameras you won't find them because the people running the red lights have no money. They either put them downtown or in middle to upper class neighborhoods.

 

[Patrickt]

"Truth is every story I've read on the things show they place them in high traffic areas with no concern for accident rates and then slowly over a period cut the amber light time down."

And I've never read a single story that said either of those allegations.

 

[stevesy]

"Truth is every story I've read on the things show they place them in high traffic areas with no concern for accident rates and then slowly over a period cut the amber light time down."

And I've never read a single story that said either of those allegations.

Apparently you haven't tried to find articles.

A study of red-light cameras in Washington, D.C., by The Washington Post found that despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions. In fact, the number of accidents increased at the camera-equipped intersections.

Likewise, red-light cameras in Portland, Ore., produced a 140 percent increase in rear-end collisions at monitored intersections, and a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that although red-light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running traffic lights, they significantly increased accidents overall.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html

Skrum continued, "I find it very revealing that Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest manufacturers of red light cameras in the U.S., has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents, apparently to maintain the flow of ticket camera revenue. Lockheed Martin specifically prohibits cities, such as San Diego, California, from changing the timing of yellow lights in intersections that host their cameras, even though increasing the yellow light time has proven to dramatically decrease red light violations.

http://www.motorists.com/pressreleases/redlightrevenue.html

But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.
...
The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame. Traffic specialists say broadside collisions are especially dangerous because the sides are the most vulnerable areas of cars.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html



I challenge you to produce an article that shows it reduces accidents rather than increase them.

 

[shuamort]

We had 'em briefly in Minneapolis, here's the short history of what happened:


ACLU-MN CHALLENGES MINNEAPOLIS “PHOTO COP” ORDINANCE

ACLU-MN volunteer attorneys Howard Bass and Chad Fancher, today filed a motion in Hennepin County District Court seeking to have the Minneapolis Automated Traffic Enforcement Ordinance invalidated as a violation of Minnesota state law and the 5th and 14th Amendment right to Due Process. The motion was filed on behalf of an individual who received a citation because his vehicle was alleged to have violated the ordinance. “This ordinance presumes that the owner of a vehicle that is photographed is guilty and then puts the burden on the owner to prove that he or she was not the driver,” said ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. “It turns the notion of Due Process on its head."

'Photo Cop' Challenge Could Affect Citations

People accused of "photo cop" violations can wait to settle their citations until after a judge rules on a civil liberties challenge, officials said.

Minneapolis installed 16 cameras at intersections across the city last year. The cameras take pictures of cars that run red lights, and police send a $142 ticket to the owner of the car.

An American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota attorney is representing a vehicle owner who was ticketed but claims he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the violation.

Red Light For Minneapolis 'Photo Cops'

Police in Minneapolis shut down automated cameras on Tuesday that were used to ticket red light-running drivers after a judge struck down the ordinance that had authorized the program.

Under the "Stop on Red" program that was quickly dubbed Photo Cop, police ticketed the owner of the car, regardless of who was driving. That was a fatal defect, Hennepin County District Judge Mark Wernick ruled.

State law makes drivers responsible for red-light violations, and Minneapolis doesn't have the authority to pass an ordinance that holds car owners responsible, Wernick ruled. He threw out the ticket issued to a man who had challenged the ordinance

I challenge you to produce an article that shows it reduces accidents rather than increase them

Here ya go:

The cameras snapped pictures of vehicles that enter the intersection after the light turns red. Tickets were mailed to the registered owner. Crashes in the 12 monitored intersections dropped 16 percent after the cameras were installed, versus a 5 percent drop city-wide, said police Lt. Greg Reinhardt, who oversaw the program.

 

[shuamort]

Addendum: Please note that I'm not advocating for these "photo cops" at all.

 

[stevesy]

I challenge you to produce an article that shows it reduces accidents rather than increase them

Here ya go:

The cameras snapped pictures of vehicles that enter the intersection after the light turns red. Tickets were mailed to the registered owner. Crashes in the 12 monitored intersections dropped 16 percent after the cameras were installed, versus a 5 percent drop city-wide, said police Lt. Greg Reinhardt, who oversaw the program.

I suppose you did find one. I find it suspect in light of all the evidence in a dozen cities that show it increases accidents. Btw, that’s a single intersection isn’t it? What about all the rest? I’m sure the odds are a few will show a decrease in accidents but overall accidents increase.

Look around…..let’s take all data from all cities that we can find data on. Let’s see if the overall accident rate has increased or decreased. I think you’ll find it has increased by a large margin. People are just fooling themselves if the believe this isn’t about revenue. There's story after story showing they place these things in high volume areas regardless of the number of accidents. While we’re looking at the accident data let’s also take a look at the massive golden goose revenue increase.

Governments these days rarely if ever do things for the common good without consideration of votes or revenue increase. Generally the later is the deciding factor not the former.