For those of you now affected by the so-called red light cameras in your area, here's something of interest--maybe a precedent:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1834.asp

 

We had one in my town-kind of a trial run. The company that manages the program charged so much that the city was losing money on the tickets so they pulled it down.

 

I should add that I'm not suggesting that we run red lights, but in many areas this has been expanded to right-turn-on-red situations, which are a real PITA, IMO.

 

I don't know.. this might turn the companies that manufacture this equipment to a different business model but in theory this should still allow the use of such technology.

Red light running is rampant these days and I don't think anyone could contest that. How many close calls have you had in the past 6 months. I can think of three off the top of my head (major metro area).

I disagree with the for profit model, but I do think there is some need for this technology to be implemented in targeted areas that have a higher than average accident rate.

After all, if you're not breaking the law, do you really have anything to worry about? (Given that removing the for profit model reduces the incentive to bait)

 

Rest assured, the red light cameras are alive and well in San Diego county. Frankly, they don't bother me at all. I don't run red lights.

 

Around here, we see less and less red-light camera but more and more speeding camera.

 

I would love for our City to install these camera's at ALL lights.. I am sick and tired of "red means two more cars" I have been a FF for right at 35 years... I see this all the time... I live next to Modesto, CA - they have about 6 lights with Camera's When I am at those lights - you would be surprised how 'polite' the drivers are - Weather you are at the light or turning 'after' stopping - If you Stop - no problem - if you push it - pay the fine... If I get caught - thats My fault... The Cities do not need to loose money - this is more than one camera sys out there I am sure...

 

The only complaint that I have with red light cameras around here is that they set off the laser warning on my radar detector, with a signal as long as the light is red.

 

I never make it down the red light districts. They have cameras now? WOW! I guess that is one way to clean up those areas. If you knew you were going to be photographied, would you go there?

 

From the article. I don't think a loss of $30 for every $50 is 90%. That is more like 60%. Kind of makes you wonder where the other 30%(out of the 90%) is going. If that is the court costs, the city is still getting 40% of the revenue from the camera fines. All the cities have to do is increase the fines and/or court costs and they can make up a lot of what is lost.

 

Did you learn math theory from Abbott and Costello?

 

More Martin and Lewis if ya ask me.

 

Who are they?

 

$30 out of $50=$60 out of $100 which is not 90% but 60%. There is a missing 30% there plus the 10% the city (or whoever) was getting anyway.

 

We've got them here, had them for years. And they're not going anywhere.

Our locations are clearly marked before the intersection, but you never know if one of the is actually inside the box (they are on a rotating basis).

And I don't run red lights either.

 

Uggg. They are saying it costs them $80 to to issue/process/enforce a $50 ticket. Thus, they lose $30.

 

I guarantee you that the U.S. is not moving away from exerting more and more control over its citizenry, so plan on seeing even more red light cameras and/or other revenue generating technology.

 

Makes "cents" to me considering our government spends 1.3 cents to produce a single penny.

 

I see what your saying. Just woke up and wasn't thinking it all the way through.

Of course, the city just raises the court cost $30 and problem is still fixed.

 

Have you ever seen a city counsel in action? The way the bill would be written, they would then lose $50 per.

 

I've seen plenty in action. I used to work for a city. The ones around me would jump on the additional $30 and break even-THEN come up with something else that causes them to lose money.

 

Again, I want to reiterate--I AM NOT SUGGESTING RUNNING A RED LIGHT! I don't--ever--and I worry about those who do. I AM against the cameras on right-turn-on-red, because it is so common for people to roll, albeit slowly, as they look at traffic and plan their turn. I know of one case in the Dallas area where the frame by frame examination of the film couldn't even identify an infraction, although the camera "picked it up." Fortunately in this case it was thrown out.

It is the for-profit aspect of these cameras that bothers me, plus the new addition of the right turn enforcement that I object to.

 

Not to mention that traffic-camera companies often stipulate in their contract with cities that cities are NOT to adjust the yellow-light timing or any other measure to help reduce the chance of red-light running.

 

Yep... The SIMPLE solution for those cities truly interested in reducing accidents at intersections due to red light running is to simply extend the length of the yellows by another second or two. They could also delay the activation of the green for cross traffic by another second or two as well. But, of course, this would not generate any revenue...

 

This is the same as setting your watch ahead 10 min so you won't be late.... Ya, it may work for awhile but soon the trick no longer works because everyone figures it out... We have all way red for 1 sec.... still they run it,,, most don't speak english or have lic or reg.... woops,,, wrong topic...

I still feel even if the light was red for 2/3 sec - people who don't give a **** will still just go right through... Been to many MVA's where the people say "I thought I could make it"