Author Topic: Red Light Camera -- good idea? (Read 877 times)

Eagler · « **Reply #30 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:11:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
It's all about the revenue

more power to them

rather a speeder pay for road improvements than everyone who pays taxes

funkedup · « **Reply #31 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:14:48 PM »

Basically a road usage tax.

Nifty · « **Reply #32 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:24:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Basically a road usage tax.

only if you run a red light.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #33 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:26:10 PM »

Call it a "Sin Tax"

capt. apathy · « **Reply #34 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:34:50 PM »

what if you call it a mistake. in oregon disobeying a trafic device can be almost $300 in fines. if the damn light malfunctiuons you are screwed. and thats just the begining of your troubles. because now your insurance rates go up for the next 3 years.

Eagler · « **Reply #35 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:38:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
. if the damn light malfunctiuons you are screwed. and thats just the begining of your troubles.

ya, that happens daily ..............

excuses, excuses ...

funkedup · « **Reply #36 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:42:10 PM »

They put in lights a lot where they aren't needed, where a stop sign would have sufficied. They make you wait when there is no traffic for a mile. Then when you get tired of waiting and cross the intersection, they take your picture and charge you. It's a usage tax, just like the speed laws. If you want to use the roads in an efficient manner, you have to pay extra.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:50:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I didn't mention California, someone else prolly did...

Your use of the term "California stops" was what confused me. What is that exactly?

Quote

A cop at an intersection, OTOH, would deter most people doing that, so arguing the cameras as a deterrant is like someone getting food poisoning... that won't deter them from eating.
-SW

A cop at a light will stop people from running that ONE light. The possibility that a driver could be caught running ANY light by a camera will deter most from running any light. I would rather have a camera (and the postal service) writing traffic tickets and the cop out working his/her cruiser district. There are more important things than writing traffic tickets (although we all know that cars kill more people than anything else).

These are 10 years old, but interesting anyway.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~tco/html/red_light_camera.htm

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #38 on:** October 28, 2002, 01:58:09 PM »

California stops are basically rolling stops... used mostly at stop signs as opposed to stop lights... but I've seen people do it at stop lights too... pull up to it very slowly.. enter the intersection ~5MPH... and keep rolling through. Pass 1/3 of the way through and gun it.

It's dangerous to do, I don't do it... I've seen plenty of people do it tho.

A cop at a light will stop people from running that ONE light. The possibility that a driver could be caught running ANY light by a camera will deter most from running any light. I would rather have a camera (and the postal service) writing traffic tickets and the cop out working his/her cruiser district. There are more important things than writing traffic tickets (although we all know that cars kill more people than anything else).

Yes, but most cameras are placed only at troublesome intersections in the DC metro area... so this means that people now look for the cameras sitting on the signal light post or at any nearby posts near the intersection. They are very easy to see and not hidden at all. I look for 'em all the time... most places these cameras are setup at also have the aforementioned (by someone) signs indicating there's a traffic camera ahead.

Still see people blow right throug those lights. Their loss, I don't care...

I'm just saying, these cameras are no more effective at deterring someone from running a light or blowing a stop sign than the *new* camping cop cars located along roads here in the DC metro area that nail people for speeding by using the same technology (camera mounted on grill) stops people from speeding.
-SW

Chairboy · « **Reply #39 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:16:16 PM »

A "Rolling Stop"? I call oxymoron.

If you don't stop, it's not a stop. Calling it a rolling stop doesn't mean it's related to any real stop, just like calling a whale shark a whale shark doesn't mean it's related to whales.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #40 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:19:00 PM »

Yeah well a cat burlgar doesn't burgle cats... so...
-SW

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #41 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:23:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I'm just saying, these cameras are no more effective at deterring someone from running a light or blowing a stop sign than the *new* camping cop cars.......

http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/traffic/speedresults_text.shtm

If by "no more effective" you mean 70% deterrence, I would be happy to agree with you.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #42 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:26:28 PM »

The percentage of aggressive speeders on DC roads and highways has declined by more than 70 percent since the program began.

And how do you think they measured this? By monitoring the amount of tickets that came into their electronic center where they compile all of the tickets and sent them out?

Then yeah I guess 70% of people were deterred... or perhaps only 70% of the traffic that goes through those select intersections and roads.

Which would still only result in less than 30% of the roads here in DC.
-SW

Gunthr · « **Reply #43 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:29:04 PM »

I would think that the computer stats would speak for themselves, ie: the relationships between citations issued and accident rates.

In most places, when numbers of citations written goes up, accidents will go down.

Conversely, if the number of citations written goes down, numbers of accidents will go up.

Its proven, at least in the geographical area that I'm familure with.

The question is whether cameras and mailed citations would have the same effect.

SOB · « **Reply #44 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:29:24 PM »

Yeah, and that's why it's a violation, Chairboy. As for the red light cams, I don't have a solid opinion on them. At first thought I was against them, but when I lived and worked in Beaverton OR, running red lights seemed to be just a part of everyday driving for quite a few people. Once they installed the cameras at a few select locations, I went from seeing 4-5 daily (on average) to hardly seeing any...even at intersections without them.

They are quite easy to see too...big square boxes mounted on the horizontal poles with a plexiglass front.

SOB