Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway
“The role of enforcement is not to generate revenue for a city,” he said.

Bull. Most of the cities installing these devices gave a lot of lip service to increasing safety, but what really sold them was the representations by the vendor of increased revenue. Some vendors even convince the municipality to decrease the yellow-light duration as a way of further augmenting revenue.

And I wonder if any studies have examined the effect of these devices on rear-ender accidents caused as panicked drivers slam on their brakes instead of safely proceeding through the intersection?

8 posted on 07/24/2011 12:17:18 AM PDT by Spartan79 (I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Spartan79

There are many; the supermajority show that the cameras do increase the number of rear-end accidents at intersection.

Other studies show that if the concern is T-bone accidents at intersections, *lengthening* the yellow light at an intersection actually reduces accidents an average of about the same amount as the best case presented for the cameras. Cost to city: $0.

These cameras are ALL about revenue.


11 posted on 07/24/2011 12:34:35 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson