Posted on 12/10/2004 6:37:24 AM PST by Redbob
As if they were about ANYthing other than raising revenue. Once Denton discovers revenues falling, they'll take two steps: First, they'll reduce the length of time a light is yellow to almost nonexistance; Then they'll remove the signs indicating which intersections have the cameras.
Note in this article that:
"More research on locations will be done before installing cameras, Fletcher said."
And the "research" isn't even going to consider which intersections, if any, actually have problems with accidents caused by red-light runners.
I don't never run red lights, but I think I'm going to get one of those light-diffusing license plate covers...
Can we sue the City of Denton when people start slamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow in an attempt to avoid the camera fine? The City of San Diego provded that these things are just another greedy government tool and not for traffic enforcement.
I suspect a lot of people despise those f*#@ing selfish b*st*rd red-light runners, and think it's high time something was done to kick them in their arses (and wallets). If it also just happens to generate revenue for traffic enforcement, so be it.
Last I heard on this issue, Lockheed Martin manufactures these cameras. They install them, maintain them, and they get a peice of the action for their efforts. That's right they get a percentage of all the fines generated. They have already been caught, in at least one instance, lowering the yellow light time as a way to increase their take. They would have gotten away with it, but an engineer got ticked and he challenged them and won. I wonder who monitors these revenue generators for accuracy at all the other locations???
If you want to find where such cameras are in your community, or just report them so others will be forewarned, go to
http://www.photozones.homestead.com/
What, for the cost of excessive brake wear?
The City of San Diego provded that these things are just another greedy government tool
If it turns out that the city shortened the length of the yellow light, that would be the case. Indeed, there have been studies that show when the city lengthens the duration of the yellow lights, red-light violations go down. However, once the driving public gets used to the longer yellow, the red-light violations go back up.
Bottom line: a certain group of people will run red lights as long as they think they can get away with it. If the city is using the cameras as a tool to generate revenue -- e.g. shorter yellow lights -- city officials must be exposed.
Yeah, well if you actually read the article, you'll see that here in Denton, as in most other places, this is not about "stopping those ferdammt red-light runners" at all:
It's all about, and only about, generating revenue to support a profligate, irresponsible city government.
Time and time again, where these cameras are installed, the number of light runners drops so sharply that the cameras no longer produce the amount of revenue guaranteed to the private camera operating company.
What happens then?
Take a guess.
That's right: the next step is to sharply shorten the amount of time the yellow light is on, to increase the revenues.
So tell me again: What does this have to do with highway safety?
Why don't we install "photo enforced" pork spending cameras in legislatures around the country? The moment a politician proposes useless wasteful spending or attempts to sneak it into budgets, the camera snaps a picture and sends them a bill.
Think of the improvement in citizen marksmanship though, now that the city is kind enough to provide all these free targets.
And Australian study found that that is exactly what happens, and the number of rear-end collisions increases accordingly.
http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/australia.html
Surprise, surprise!
Reckon I'll need a silencer for my sligshot?
Heeheehee...
Well, I read through it a second time, and the only fact in the story that I could find which could remotely support your claim is that a lot of the heavy traffic is on state roads and the cameras cannot be installed on them.
That's right: the next step is to sharply shorten the amount of time the yellow light is on, to increase the revenues.
If you'll actually read my response (again?), you'll note that I addressed that potential problem. Get your stopwatch out. Time the yellows now. Time them again after the cameras are installed. Time them again a year later. Time them until you get what you're looking for. It's not rocket science and it doesn't take a lot of effort. If your city officials are so stupid as to shorten the yellows, nail 'em. Then, look at the bright side: maybe you and your fellow citizens will vote them out of office.
By Jove!
Now THERE's an idea!
Problem is, we'd need our Congresscritters to approve it, and the likelihood of that is...
This crap (raising taxes under the pretext of law enforcement) is giving respectable middle-class folks a contempt for cops that rivals that of ghetto gang-bangers.
This bears repeating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.