Ok, a city near me has just posted traffic cameras to catch people running redlights and speeding through intersections. What are people's thoughts on these? I know that if you just obey the laws you won't have any trouble, but I want honest opinions on these cameras. I, for one, hate the idea, it's a little bit too "big brother" for me. I have no problem paying for the crimes I may commit, but I do believe that a cop should have to see me, catch me, pull me over and write me a ticket for it. As far as speed goes, we saw what happened in Montana, when they had no speed limit, they had their lowest fatality rate EVER, and it doubled as soon as they posted speed limits again. They didn't repeal them, which shows that the limits are NOT there for safety (statistically safer without them, numbers don't lie), but there to make money for the place off of speeding tickets. Ideas on either one of these, especially the cameras, would be greatly appreciated.

 

Our city doesn't have them, but if we did I probably wouldn't try to make as many yellows as I do.

 

....

 

I know my brakes would wear out a lot faster if they put up cameras at the stoplights here.

 

i think they are a great idea. if they make people slow down and actually STOP and red lights its great. plus if they can prevent accidents and potentially save lives its a good thing too!

 

They are a money maker, nothing else. And obeying the law doesnt always mean you wont get a ticket. Some areas have actually shortened the length of yellows to catch more people. People have gotten tickets for doing perfectly legal things, a right turn on a red, or completing a left turn on a yellow or red. Safety? BS

 

I agree with you 100%, I hate all security cameras!

When I pee on the sidewalk, catch me fair and square!
I hate getting these pictures in mail.

 

In NC they are not allowed anymore. The NC constitution says all traffic ticket $$ MUST go to education. So no profit no cameras. Also if you did get one while they were up all you had to do was not respond and it was forgotten. All they could do was issue a letter saying you were on camera running light or speeding. It was a mess here but all gone now!

 

I hope no one believed that crap.

They just funnel all the camera money into schooling sure, but then they take the money they would have spent on schooling from the regular budget and send it elsewhere. They just hide the profit.

The states do it for money not safety.

Rear end accidents go up. The yellow light times are reduced to below safe levels. If you contest them the cost goes through the roof. They are about revenue and control not about safety.

 

Same thing in Ohio---Cleveland said, "It is all about safety." No, it is all about the benjamins. Cleveland is revenue hungry, and they do not even run the cameras---a company gets a split (20%, I believe) to run the cameras. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled, however, that they are unconstitutional. Cleveland naturally is fighting it. The city may actually have to put a cop at the site and run the camera...

The only good thing (if you call it that) is that if you getnailedby a camera, you pay the fine but, since no policeoffcieris present,nopoints go to your license.

Tim C.

 

You should see what happens when road conditions are total ****, people slam on the breaks at the first sign of a yellow to try and avoid a ticket and they lose control and end up causing collisions.

 

When I lived in Calgary one of the guys at work got one at night on his way home. It was late at night and he was sitting in a left turn lane waiting for the light to turn green. He said it was taking too long and since it was an industrial area, late at night, no traffic at all, he turned on red. Couldn't belive it caught him when he saw the flash so looped around in a parking lot and did it again. Idiot got two tickets in less than two minutes.
He beat them in court though.

Personally, I have nothing against them. If the Calgary Police findings can be believed they have reduced collisions where they are significantly. I have never seen any findings from anywhere that say they increase rear end collisions.

 

Traffic cameras are a major revenue maker for the city. Shoot, traffic fines are one of the biggest industries in my city. The city makes millions. If traffic fines were reduced 50%, the city would be in a bad financial situation.

I zoned out and got caught by a red light camera. The bill came in the mail - Almost $400! (I'm sure it is higher in CA than other places) Came with my pic from about 4 angles. Hard to fight.

I went down to have my court appearence in hopes of a fine reduction as I have a good driving record. Got there early. Hundreds of people in line at the courthouse, taking a day off work. Many were there due to red light violations.

Some had run a red light and got caught by a cop. In those cases, the judge reduced the fine to anywhere from $25 to $100 (mostly near $100). For those caught by camera, the statute prevented the judge from lowring the fine below $225. Basically, the camera company gets $100+ each time those bad boys go off. They are essentially the city's partner in a new revenue stream. I had to pay the city $225 + mandatory traffic school (another $75).

 

Try having them when your roads are covered in ice and packed snow for 4 months a year. They cause so many accidents at the intersections if ****in scary.

And those stats as far as collisions are not entirely accurate, they only use the stats of collisions from running reds.

 

I hope I misunderstand what you wrote. What I wrote is EXACTLY what happened here. Dont believe it...be a fool...
If I misunderstood you, well, I havent a clue what you are saying