HEMI-ITIS
STREETER on LI
- Local time
- 11:42 AM
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 12,929
- Reaction score
- 17,749
- Location
- Long Island,New York
I just paid $80 for the second time this year:angryfire:
We Finally Got Our Red Light Cameras!
- Thread starter Bruzilla
- Start date
Bummer Hemi-itis . . .
J5 GTX
Well-Known Member
A small city near me decided to install red light cameras. I wish I could post the newspaper clippings. There was big talk from the mayor about safety. These cameras are for safety reasons. Blah, blah.
Recently, after a few years in use, they removed the cameras. Why? Seems there is this law that says 50% (I might be wrong on the exact %, but it's high) of certain fines go to the schools. The folks actually running the cameras get a certain amount plus overhead to administer the tickets so... and I quote the mayor, "the town gets nothing". Out go the cameras. So much for safety. It's all about revenue.
- Local time
- 10:42 AM
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2009
- Messages
- 33,998
- Reaction score
- 41,672
- Location
- Pasadena, Texas
Hell yeah it's all about revenue!! Since when have you ever seen any gooberment do something that actually helps the public? Seat belts? Not wearing one generates revenue. Air bags? Anyone ever look up how many people are injured because of them? There have even been deaths! Are they worth that risk? I don't think so....and do you know what the profit margin is on them? It's pretty big!
YY1
Well-Known Member
Our local municipalities have recently been trying to spin the press about how much money they're LOSING to operate the cameras.
This is after months and months of how many hundreds of millions in REVENUE they were bringing in and how it was vital to help with operating costs during the recession.
Nice try.
This is after months and months of how many hundreds of millions in REVENUE they were bringing in and how it was vital to help with operating costs during the recession.
Nice try.
Bruzilla
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 10:42 AM
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 7,644
- Reaction score
- 7,816
- Location
- Orange Park, FL
I love hearing all the ranting from the camera haters, especially comments about lack of revenue. 
First they whine and cry about how these cameras are all about generating revenue and having nothing to do with safety, then when the cameras don't generate lots of revenue, they need to be torn down. lol I've been hearing this voiced a lot up here in Jacksonville, and the lack of consistency just cracks me up. The other inane argument is that these are supposed to be about safety, but they're going to cause all these accidents because people are going to be hitting the brakes and stopping at the last second, then when the accidents don't happen, and the intersections are safer, these same folks start whining about how the cameras are a waste because there's no accidents. These folks just bust me up.
I live off a very well-traveled road. One end has cameras, the other doesn't. When I go through the intersection with the cameras, when my light turns green, there's no one in the intersection. When I go through the intersection without cameras, I'm always waiting for two or three cars that ran the red to clear the intersection before I can pull out, which just flat pisses me off given the short cycle time for eastbound travel at that light. Westbound traffic gets a full 30 seconds of green time, while Eastbound gets ten, and they still feel the need to run that red. So I know 100% for a fact that red light cameras do change driver habits. I also know 100% for a fact that they don't cause accidents as we haven't seen a single collision at the camera intersection since the cameras were installed.
As for folks getting tickets for being over the white line, I have twice rolled my car over the white line at night when I'm the only one in the intersection, and both times I tripped the cameras. This was months ago, and I've never gotten a ticket, so I'm rather doubtful of claims that being stopped over the line results in a ticket. If it's obvious you are stopped, the screeners can see that.
First they whine and cry about how these cameras are all about generating revenue and having nothing to do with safety, then when the cameras don't generate lots of revenue, they need to be torn down. lol I've been hearing this voiced a lot up here in Jacksonville, and the lack of consistency just cracks me up. The other inane argument is that these are supposed to be about safety, but they're going to cause all these accidents because people are going to be hitting the brakes and stopping at the last second, then when the accidents don't happen, and the intersections are safer, these same folks start whining about how the cameras are a waste because there's no accidents. These folks just bust me up. I live off a very well-traveled road. One end has cameras, the other doesn't. When I go through the intersection with the cameras, when my light turns green, there's no one in the intersection. When I go through the intersection without cameras, I'm always waiting for two or three cars that ran the red to clear the intersection before I can pull out, which just flat pisses me off given the short cycle time for eastbound travel at that light. Westbound traffic gets a full 30 seconds of green time, while Eastbound gets ten, and they still feel the need to run that red. So I know 100% for a fact that red light cameras do change driver habits. I also know 100% for a fact that they don't cause accidents as we haven't seen a single collision at the camera intersection since the cameras were installed.
As for folks getting tickets for being over the white line, I have twice rolled my car over the white line at night when I'm the only one in the intersection, and both times I tripped the cameras. This was months ago, and I've never gotten a ticket, so I'm rather doubtful of claims that being stopped over the line results in a ticket. If it's obvious you are stopped, the screeners can see that.
67Satty
Well-Known Member
The main issue with these things is that money generated by these abominations is being funneled both out of the state from which the offense ocurred (to Arizona where the U.S. arm of the red light camera company operates), but even worse, funneled out of our country - as the parent company for the red light cameras is located in Australia. I don't see how anyone can rationalize or justify this. It's one thing to enrich the community from which revenue was generated, quite another to enrich a corporation that's not even located in the U.S.
J5 GTX
Well-Known Member
I love hearing all the ranting from the camera haters, especially comments about lack of revenue.
Bruzilla, if this is in reference to my post, I did not say they needed to be torn down, the Mayor of the town said it.
lol I've been hearing this voiced a lot up here in Jacksonville, and the lack of consistency just cracks me up. The other inane argument is that these are supposed to be about safety, but they're going to cause all these accidents because people are going to be hitting the brakes and stopping at the last second, then when the accidents don't happen, and the intersections are safer, these same folks start whining about how the cameras are a waste because there's no accidents. These folks just bust me up.
A waste because of the lack of accidents?
You might need to explain that. I honestly don't understand what you mean.
(underline emphasis added by J5 GTX)
a.This is a convenience issue being able to enter the intersection unimpeded after the light turns green.
b.You will find that after awhile people resort back to their original risk behavior. It's called complacency.
c. If a fender bender accident happened at that intersection during the day while you are at work would you know about it?
Unless, it's a small town the news media will not even report it.
I personally have witnessed several automobile accidents at intersections (requiring an ambulance) and there never was a word about it in the news media.
d. There is no faultless technology. Yes, one can benefit from a certain technology but there are always drawbacks, side effects, or trade offs. The air bag is a classic example.
e. If because of these red light cameras you have to lock-up the brakes because someone panic stopped for a yellow light, have a fender bender, or get "zapped" by the camera; would you be so kind as to report it here on this forum? I think that we'll hear from you within about 2 years time.
Last edited:
Flys-Lo
Well-Known Member
The other inane argument is that these are supposed to be about safety, but they're going to cause all these accidents because people are going to be hitting the brakes and stopping at the last second, then when the accidents don't happen, and the intersections are safer, these same folks start whining about how the cameras are a waste because there's no accidents. These folks just bust me up.
Just yesterday I again gave numerous studies (post #100 if you want to scroll back) showing the exact opposite. I know that abstract studies differ from what you see through your windshield during your morning commute, but until I see some credible data showing that the camera's make the roads safer I will continue to be on the side of banning them and throwing the crooks out of town to keep our roads safe. It has been proven in every state that has studied the affects of these cameras that they DO increase accidents, they DO increase injuries, and they DO increase insurance rates, yours and mine.
Florida: Red Light Running Cameras - Crashes, Injuries and Insurance Rates Increase When They Are Used in Florida;
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/fl-orban.pdf
The saddest part of this whole thread are the people who actually think they are safer with the cameras installed when the facts overwhelmingly show the exact opposite. Red light cameras make these intersections dangerous and drive up insurance rates.
Post #100 provides plenty of proof.
Aesthetikz
Well-Known Member
Don't get too excited, Before you know it they will go crazy Like Lynnwood, WA.
Theres literaly cameras everywhere, And when you think they cant add anymore~They do... I get paranoid everytime I drive through large busy streets and intersections anymore at night, As camera flashes are going on all around.
Theres literaly cameras everywhere, And when you think they cant add anymore~They do... I get paranoid everytime I drive through large busy streets and intersections anymore at night, As camera flashes are going on all around.
99ss
Well-Known Member
LMAO!! I read the studies conducted. Asinine is all I can say about them. Blame a camera for your poor driving habits ?? Typical.
They had to stop quick to avoid a ticket. How about you friggin drive properly in the first place and stop trying to beat out a light or ride up some ones *** entering an intersection hoping to beat out the light. Leave earlier..
Simple as that. I see it all day long and yeah I wish I could nail them with a ticket. Don't like it? Get off my roads.
They had to stop quick to avoid a ticket. How about you friggin drive properly in the first place and stop trying to beat out a light or ride up some ones *** entering an intersection hoping to beat out the light. Leave earlier..
Simple as that. I see it all day long and yeah I wish I could nail them with a ticket. Don't like it? Get off my roads.
Flys-Lo
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree more. With cell phones and texting and inattentive drivers it's ruining our hobby (as precious cars get demolished) and worse, injuring and killing people. I've already given up my motorcycles because of it. My point, and most people who care to really look into it, is that these cameras make bad drivers even worse. Adding cameras at intersections is NOT the answer and is actually making it worse. As I and many others have said throughout this whole thread, a good start is to give jobs to actual humans and get police officers out on the roads in our cities and towns as well as better drivers education.
Throw out the Scameras!
Bruzilla
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 10:42 AM
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 7,644
- Reaction score
- 7,816
- Location
- Orange Park, FL
No problem.
In the run up to the installation of the cameras, the city government was saying the cameras were a safety necessity in order to reduce accidents at the intersection. The opponents to the cameras claimed there would be masses of rear-end collisions resulting from drivers supposedly slamming on their brakes at the last second. Now that the cameras have been in for quite a few months, there haven't been the rash of accidents the opponents claimed would happen, and now the opponents are the cameras should be taken down because there's no accidents at the intersections and therefore the cameras aren't needed. In short, they're trying to argue both sides of the situation.This is not a convenience issue. The laws in every state I've lived in is if any portion of a vehicle is within an intersection when the light turns red, they are in violation. When I was with a Sheriff's office in Maryland, we always had drivers whining about how the light was still yellow when they went under it, which was often the case, but it doesn't matter since the violation isn't if the light turns red after you lose sight of it. When the opposing light goes green, the intersection is supposed to be clear, and anyone still with a portion of their vehicle in the intersection is in violation.
As for complacency, that's an excellent point, and I was thinking about that just this morning. I was driving next to a woman in a minivan and a guy in an F-150. The camera light on Loring Avenue and US 17 went yellow, and all three of us started to stop, but some reason the woman in the minivan hit the gas and started into the intersection just as the light went red and I saw the strobes go off. I can't imagine why she would have done that aside from just not paying attention to what she was doing, but hopefully after she's written out her check she'll think twice before doing that again.
In this case, yes. I've been working to get one of the next sets of cameras put in at two intersections in Orange Park, and I've been reviewing crash data from the past five years to last month.
I sure will, but I doubt you'll be hearing much about these accidents. The main cause of rear-impact collisions at intersections is not "panic stops for yellow lights" but simple inattention by drivers, usually due to food, phones, or other internal distractions. Drivers get busy reaching for a drink, yelling at the kids, or looking at the phone when it rings, and don't notice traffic has stopped ahead of them.
- - - Updated - - -
I really don't have much interest in improving safety since there are about a thousand or so stupid things drivers can do while driving that will get them, or you, dead, so what actual good does reducing just one of those things drivers do? My support for these cameras is for two reasons. The first is, as I've mentioned previously, I don't like losing my green light time because some jagoff coming through the opposing light decides what they are doing is more important than what anyone else is doing, and then I'm stuck waiting through another light cycle because my green light time was taken up waiting for these jagoffs to clear the intersection.
The other reason, and one that's more relevant to this forum, is I've been involved with car clubs for 30 years now, and I've known a LOT of drivers who have lost their cars due to collisions. And the vast majority of these collisions have occurred at intersections and because someone either failed to yield the right of way or ran a red light. I've never known anyone to lose a collector car because they drove into the back of somebody else's car, and I do know a few who had rear damage from someone hitting them in the rear, but by way and by far, most of the damage is to the fenders, doors, and quarters from side impacts. Anything that anyone can do to reduce the number of people who for whatever reason feel they don't need to stop at an intersection works fine for me.
68 HEMI GTS
Well-Known Member
id like to hear the opinion of the gas station owner that is at the corner of the one down the road, people use his parking lot to cut the corner and avoid the camera. and there are still tons of accidents at that corner.
pabster
Well-Known Member
I'll throw it out there that another reason I don't like traffic cameras is that it paves the way for people becoming desensitized to seeing them, which in turn makes it easier for local, state and federal governments to put up more for the sake of "safety" or "security".
Not to hijack the thread, but how do the people that are pro traffic camera feel about surveillance cameras being put up for these reasons?
Every time I travel to the UK, I have an uneasy feeling over there since there's almost always a camera filming wherever you are. This country is moving that way, and it's pretty frightening if you ask me.
Not to hijack the thread, but how do the people that are pro traffic camera feel about surveillance cameras being put up for these reasons?
Every time I travel to the UK, I have an uneasy feeling over there since there's almost always a camera filming wherever you are. This country is moving that way, and it's pretty frightening if you ask me.
Flys-Lo
Well-Known Member
Judges are ruling the cameras illegal day after day.
http://www.ohio.com/news/rulings-against-cameras-mount-in-ohio-1.470392
http://www.ohio.com/news/rulings-against-cameras-mount-in-ohio-1.470392
mopar12372
Well-Known Member
plz guys listen to us californians if yOU want to be screwed follow what we do !!
YY1
Well-Known Member
Florida's second ranking republican backs legislation to ban red light cameras.
Hmmm...
http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2014/02/24/florida-legislature-considers-ending-red-light-cameras
In addition to ticketing those who run red lights, 57 percent of jurisdictions also cite drivers for turning right on red without coming to a complete stop, and 30 percent use red-light cameras to enforce turning right on red when “no turn on red” signs are posted. The money from the $158 fines per violation are split among the municipality where the infraction occurred, the state and two health-focused trust funds.
Total red-light camera revenue increased statewide from $37.6 million in 2010-11 to $118.9 million in 2012-13. Both Brandes and Artiles say they are convinced the cameras are not about improving safety but providing an additional revenue source for counties and cities.
Like other studies before it, OPPAGA concluded that “crashes resulting in fatalities decreased at red light camera intersections on state roads but rear-end and angle crashes increased.”
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/11/3928211/two-tallahassee-lawmakers-want.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...brakes-on-red-light-speeding-traffic-cameras/
Hmmm...
http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2014/02/24/florida-legislature-considers-ending-red-light-cameras
In addition to ticketing those who run red lights, 57 percent of jurisdictions also cite drivers for turning right on red without coming to a complete stop, and 30 percent use red-light cameras to enforce turning right on red when “no turn on red” signs are posted. The money from the $158 fines per violation are split among the municipality where the infraction occurred, the state and two health-focused trust funds.
Total red-light camera revenue increased statewide from $37.6 million in 2010-11 to $118.9 million in 2012-13. Both Brandes and Artiles say they are convinced the cameras are not about improving safety but providing an additional revenue source for counties and cities.
Like other studies before it, OPPAGA concluded that “crashes resulting in fatalities decreased at red light camera intersections on state roads but rear-end and angle crashes increased.”
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/11/3928211/two-tallahassee-lawmakers-want.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...brakes-on-red-light-speeding-traffic-cameras/
kevin403
Well-Known Member
These are fine and dandy most of the time. It's when your wife gets them in the mail and tries to put the blame on you. Guilty until you prove yourself innocent! What's worse is when you prove your innocence...
Now we just need a texting detection system.
Now we just need a texting detection system.
Similar threads
