Posted on 07/22/2007 11:51:19 AM PDT by nvcdl
Found this video via the "Not Larry Saboto" blog.
Great hit piece againt Ms. Tom Davis - one of Virginia's most statist Republicans. She is a HCI supporting gungrabber and supporters all efforts to generate revenue off traffic violations - including sponsor of "SB829: Photo-monitoring systems; counties and cities may establish to enforce traffic light signals".
Aargh! The preview feature doesn’t review article titles - is there a way to edit this?
ALERT!!!!
And no, I'm not one of Tom Davis' favorites.
ALERT!!!!
And no, I'm not one of Tom Davis' favorites.
Shall we have an ALERT ~ ALERT~! for people who claim to be conservatives, yet support and applaud using the criminal justice system as a revenue raiser?
Better to raise revenues off the criminals than the honest people.
“Better to raise revenues off the criminals than the honest people.”
Better to not need the revenue in the first place, try cutting spending before alowing the State to becoming traffic gangsters.
False choice. The Red Light cameras (when correctly used) have been proven to decrease the overall number and severity of accidents. A bunch of people around here like to parse things like Clinton did. They point out one line from a study that says they slightly increase the number of rear end accidents. True, however, they totally ignore that in the same studies they say greatly DECREASE the number of T-bone accidents. T-bone accidents are on average much more severe and more costly than rear end accidents.
If Red Light cameras are no good, why not get rid of traffic signals altogether. After all, they infringe on a persons “right” to drive where they want, when they want.
For every study you find that shows a decrease in accidents, I can post one that shows either a non-change or increase. Red light cameras are a REVENUE raising ploy and they don’t have a damned thing to do with public safety.
It is all about money.
I have few qualms about govt security cameras in general if they are used to solve crimes - but the traffic cameras are about generating revenue. They tend to get placed at poorly designed interestions rather then places that have had accidents.
In DC they have one in the tunnel that routes 395N to New York Ave. - no intersections and no pedestrians - just open road - it is about making money.
You are selectively reading only what you want to hear (just like the moonbats do). Among ITE researchers, it has already been proven to cut the overall severity of accidents (in my job, I have read all of them — not just the ones that say what I want to believe). That is fundamentally no different from what traffic signals do now.
By the way, if you are bothered with “costs”, you should be reading what is planned 15 to 20 years down the road. It is called “congestion pricing”. Civil engineers have given up trying to build our way out of traffic congestion. Gas taxes (which substantially pay for new construction) have not kept up with costs for years and the infastructure is declining.
The solution is the force people off the road by making it too expensive for them to use it. It is already used in several places in Europe (and London). When Bloomberg tried it in NYC recently, it was slapped down (this time), but it will keep coming back until the politicians decide it is the right time.
That is the choice. Either build more (with more costs that you actually get something for — a street) or drive people off the road with congestion pricing (which you get nothing for). Which do you think is going to happen in the long run?
They are putting up traffic cameras to make money- not for safety.
The insurance companies and local governments sponsor studies to justify them as it suits their interests. Insurance companies like being able to raise rates on drivers who get tickets and local governments want the money.
You just want to run redlights, right?
I wouldn’t believe any insurance company or local government studies either — or some from the anti-red-light crowd. I am talking about the ITE studies. They have been in the forefront of what is now taken for granted in traffic safety since the 1930’s.
And, yea, the local governments make money off of it. That does NOT alter the truth. They do improve safety. The only way to enforce safety rules is to make it hurt (cost money) if you don’t obey them. That is no different from any other traffic rule. If the police never gave a ticket for running a red light (that they personally saw), people would ignore them and run lights more often. The red light camera just puts a lot cheaper alternative to a cop at a lot more intersections.
No - I don’t like having timing on lights manipluated to generate revenue ( as admitted by a senior employee of a contractor involved in the industry) nor do I like getting speeding tickets for going 10 mph over the speed limit in a empty tunnel 7am Saturday morning - absolutly safe conditions - no cop would have written such a ticket.
In end the money from this revenue is not going to build better roads - mostly it goes to fund more social programs - de-funding the govermment helps keep us free.
That's particularly in tunnels in DC!
I’d believe you if it weren’t so obvious that a lot of this is revenue raising pure and simple.
Not too far from where I live, the I-95 Interstate intersects 695, the Baltimore Beltway. They are in the process of putting in new lanes (at a cost of $700M) with tolls to “ease congestion.” I asked someone that works on highway engineering projects for the State about this and pointed out to him that toll lanes are not going to ease congestion, particularly when the other lanes remain in place and are free.
I asked him why all the effort for this? His reply was “revenue for the State.”
Check it out and tell me this is not being done to fleece the public: http://www.i-95expresstolllanes.com/
Yup, doesn't happen every day, but many Americans can tell you some of those Souvrn' speed traps were pretty much like that.
Collecting money for violating traffic laws, particularly speeding and running redlights, is quite progressive and humane compared to what could otherwise be done.
I’ve seen many, many roads that are speed limited 10-15 mph below where they should be.
This creates hazards b/c the natural flow of traffic is impeded and impatient people cause lots of near misses.
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.