PDA

View Full Version : Red Light camera's



theonedru
10-31-2011, 05:54 PM
I find that the majority of those who are opposed to them are the ones who fear them due to the fact they they would be the ones getting the tickets for their poor/illegal driving habits. If you are a moral and just driver you would have no opposition as you would have nothing to fear from them and communities could profit from the fines.

sanfran22
10-31-2011, 06:46 PM
They are mostly in the poor neighborhoods from what I've seen. They're a little to big brother for me. What's next?

INTIMADATOR2007
10-31-2011, 08:07 PM
Since I do not run red lights they don't bother me . However with it being another sneaky way of the government getting in our pockets is what bothers me . There are several at traffic lights around me and at night it looks like a firework show at those red lights..lol mostly at the no turn on red light , that gets em' every time ..lol.. And most of the cameras at an intersection can zoom right in your lap dam near it .

theonedru
10-31-2011, 08:12 PM
It actually amazes me at how many driver do not know simple rules of driving, or think the rules don't apply to them. Me and the wife we at a stop with a no turn on red light and the loser behind me kept honking his horn expecting me to break the law to convenience him.

bud7562
10-31-2011, 09:46 PM
It actually amazes me at how many driver do not know simple rules of driving, or think the rules don't apply to them. Me and the wife we at a stop with a no turn on red light and the loser behind me kept honking his horn expecting me to break the law to convenience him. i agree with you all the goverment want is more money for there selfs. they do nothing for the towns, were is all the money going too???????

jaybird_1981
11-01-2011, 08:45 AM
My problem with red light cameras are the increase in accidents that happen when they are installed.

theonedru
11-01-2011, 02:28 PM
My problem with red light cameras are the increase in accidents that happen when they are installed.

Because of peoples ignorance not because of the actual lights themselves. If people drove properly and within the law the accidents would not happen

Star_Cards
11-01-2011, 02:51 PM
i agree with you all the goverment want is more money for there selfs. they do nothing for the towns, were is all the money going too???????

while there are a lot of wasted tax dollars and I'm not sire them taking more, to say that "they do nothing for the towns" is a bit misinformed. There are a lot of everyday things that people use that tax money does provide. As for the specific traffic light cameras, I'd assume they go towards police expenses when I assume most of the traffic fines to towards.

I can see where these cameras can be a benefit and a cost savings. 1. the lights will generate more fines to fund police. 2. the will help promote proper and safe driving because some people need to be fined to change their driving habits. It's probably a very small amount of red light runners who get ticketed. 3. make high traffic areas safer because people will know cameras are there and will obey the law more when they know they could be fined.

While I would be very bummed if I got nabbed by a traffic camera it would be no one's fault but my own. As long as they are just capturing traffic offenders I really don;t see an problem with them.

andrewhoya
11-01-2011, 05:15 PM
while there are a lot of wasted tax dollars and I'm not sire them taking more, to say that "they do nothing for the towns" is a bit misinformed. There are a lot of everyday things that people use that tax money does provide. As for the specific traffic light cameras, I'd assume they go towards police expenses when I assume most of the traffic fines to towards.

I can see where these cameras can be a benefit and a cost savings. 1. the lights will generate more fines to fund police. 2. the will help promote proper and safe driving because some people need to be fined to change their driving habits. It's probably a very small amount of red light runners who get ticketed. 3. make high traffic areas safer because people will know cameras are there and will obey the law more when they know they could be fined.

While I would be very bummed if I got nabbed by a traffic camera it would be no one's fault but my own. As long as they are just capturing traffic offenders I really don;t see an problem with them.

Actually, I think the fines go to the electric bill to keep them running.

spuds1961
11-01-2011, 06:11 PM
The only problem I have with the Cameras is the fact that I drive an ambulance for a living,and do you know how many tickets were sent to our station while rolling thru the red lights with due precaution,hundreds in a month.I also find that alot of people that are running these lights that have the cameras are also intoxicated drivers,in their minds so what they got a ticket in the mail for however much the fine in your state is,at least they didn't get pulled over by a policeman and spend the night in jail and pay a heckuva lot more in court costs.

jaybird_1981
11-01-2011, 08:50 PM
Because of peoples ignorance not because of the actual lights themselves. If people drove properly and within the law the accidents would not happen

It doesn't really matter if I got rear ended because the person behind me was trying to beat the yellow light.

The cameras have nothing to do with public safety they are a money grab for the city and state government period.

spuds1961
11-01-2011, 08:53 PM
It doesn't really matter if I got rear ended because the person behind me was trying to beat the yellow light.

The cameras have nothing to do with public safety they are a money grab for the city and state government period.

Well put,I agree wholeheartedly.

theonedru
11-01-2011, 09:31 PM
It doesn't really matter if I got rear ended because the person behind me was trying to beat the yellow light.

The cameras have nothing to do with public safety they are a money grab for the city and state government period.

Can you prove that as fact or it is relished to being just a personal opinion.

bud7562
11-01-2011, 09:37 PM
The only problem I have with the Cameras is the fact that I drive an ambulance for a living,and do you know how many tickets were sent to our station while rolling thru the red lights with due precaution,hundreds in a month.I also find that alot of people that are running these lights that have the cameras are also intoxicated drivers,in their minds so what they got a ticket in the mail for however much the fine in your state is,at least they didn't get pulled over by a policeman and spend the night in jail and pay a heckuva lot more in court costs. the cops do not have nothing better to do, than giving tickets to divers who driv ambulance then pull over people who been intoxicated. that dont care about people like that?????

theonedru
11-01-2011, 09:38 PM
the cops do not have nothing better to do, than giving tickets to divers who driv ambulance then pull over people who been intoxicated. that dont care about people like that?????

Now that's just being silly

spuds1961
11-01-2011, 09:42 PM
the cops do not have nothing better to do, than giving tickets to divers who driv ambulance then pull over people who been intoxicated. that dont care about people like that?????

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying,there are no cops involved,the cameras take pictures of the ambulance and then we get mailed over 100 tickets a month that will never have to be paid.What I'm saying is if the light was properly patrolled by a police car and they pulled over the offending driver they would find that a good percentage were drunk.Adding this as I didn't mention it in my original post,after 3 months the light with the camera closest to our station was removed,I'm thinking the reason was because of the ambulances being ticketed but I have no proof of that.

jaybird_1981
11-01-2011, 10:05 PM
Can you prove that as fact or it is relished to being just a personal opinion.


You mean like the state admitting this is just another way to get money? Yeah that is likely to happen.

It doesn't take much to realize why the right light cameras exist.

And by the way I have never had a ticket nor been in an accident so your claim that people who oppose them are not "moral" drivers (whatever that means) is way off base.

I oppose them because they increase the amount of accidents at the intersections they are installed and that it is done simply for money.

TheTGB
11-01-2011, 10:13 PM
They are mostly in the poor neighborhoods from what I've seen.

Do you only drive through poor neighborhoods? We have them in mostly affluent neighborhoods here in Oregon.

TheTGB
11-01-2011, 10:17 PM
I oppose them because they increase the amount of accidents at the intersections they are installed and that it is done simply for money.

You know they are all rear-end accidents pretty much, right? That means the person behind them was an idiot and driving too close to them without leaving enough room for stopping distance + reaction time. There is a reason when you read the driver's manual when you're 16 it says to leave enough room.

jaybird_1981
11-01-2011, 11:36 PM
You know they are all rear-end accidents pretty much, right? That means the person behind them was an idiot and driving too close to them without leaving enough room for stopping distance + reaction time. There is a reason when you read the driver's manual when you're 16 it says to leave enough room.

Yes and I don't care if I am the one getting rear ended when they are just there to give the city more money that they will just wastefully throw away anyways.

The reason they are installed is supposed to be for "public safety" my argument is this is a total lie. If they would just admit this is another form of tax I wouldn't disagree with them as vehemently. I know my local city has them and they count on that money every year it is already predetermined practically in the budget.

There have also been numerous occurances of cities tampering with the yellow light intervals when the cameras were installed in order to ticket more drivers.

Here are a couple videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZINQC_yMnQ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PCZSllTL1A&feature=related

Star_Cards
11-02-2011, 09:33 AM
Actually, I think the fines go to the electric bill to keep them running.

whats the going rate for a fine of running a red light? I'd guess it's in the $100+. Does it really cost that much electricity to run one of these? Seems like it would be something, even with the actual cost of the device, that would pay for itself pretty quickly.

Star_Cards
11-02-2011, 09:37 AM
It doesn't really matter if I got rear ended because the person behind me was trying to beat the yellow light.

The cameras have nothing to do with public safety they are a money grab for the city and state government period.

while it may be a money grab, would you rather have a camera do the job or them have officers sit at these lights and pull people over? for me it seems like one way or another they want to get the increased fines. Cameras are probably the most efficient way. Running a read light is illegal. The fact that a camera catches you or an actual officer catches you shouldn't really matter. Now if they were creating new traffic violations then I can see a problem, but if it's already a finable offense it shouldn't really matter who catches you.

Star_Cards
11-02-2011, 09:42 AM
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying,there are no cops involved,the cameras take pictures of the ambulance and then we get mailed over 100 tickets a month that will never have to be paid.What I'm saying is if the light was properly patrolled by a police car and they pulled over the offending driver they would find that a good percentage were drunk.Adding this as I didn't mention it in my original post,after 3 months the light with the camera closest to our station was removed,I'm thinking the reason was because of the ambulances being ticketed but I have no proof of that.

I don;t know about your statistics on the number of red light runners being drunk, but I would bet that the majority of red light runners are perfectly sober. Sure there are red light runners, but most of the ones I have witnessed do not look intoxicated. I have no proof of that, but by going off the assumption that the vast majority of drivers are in fact sober would cause me to think most of the red light runners are not in fact drunk.

maybe the camera was just moved to another intersection. once people know that a camera is there they will start to change their habits. In my town they have these signs warning of fines for rolling a stop sign. they aren't on every sign, but they rotate them around at different places every few weeks. It gets the word out all across town but they don't have to buy signs for every single stop sign in the town.

andrewhoya
11-02-2011, 04:28 PM
whats the going rate for a fine of running a red light? I'd guess it's in the $100+. Does it really cost that much electricity to run one of these? Seems like it would be something, even with the actual cost of the device, that would pay for itself pretty quickly.

Not only the electric bill.

installation fees
Ink and paper to print the tickets on
etc

marekschwarz33
11-02-2011, 04:37 PM
I consider myself a responsible driver (0 tickets 0 accidents *knock on wood*) and I do not support red light cameras. So I disagree with the logic in the original post that opponents of cameras are the ones running red lights. I doubt they do very much to actually prevent accidents. If I have intentions of running a light, a stupid camera is not going to stop me. People travel over the speed limit every day. Why is that any different than running a red light? Should we install radars on the highways to give tickets to speeders?

http://blog.motorists.org/10-reasons-to-oppose-red-light-cameras/

spuds1961
11-02-2011, 06:28 PM
I don;t know about your statistics on the number of red light runners being drunk, but I would bet that the majority of red light runners are perfectly sober. Sure there are red light runners, but most of the ones I have witnessed do not look intoxicated. I have no proof of that, but by going off the assumption that the vast majority of drivers are in fact sober would cause me to think most of the red light runners are not in fact drunk.

maybe the camera was just moved to another intersection. once people know that a camera is there they will start to change their habits. In my town they have these signs warning of fines for rolling a stop sign. they aren't on every sign, but they rotate them around at different places every few weeks. It gets the word out all across town but they don't have to buy signs for every single stop sign in the town.

Yea I don't have any numerical statistics to back up what I said,but working for an ambulance alot of the acidents that I go on involving intersections and red lights at least one of the cars involved had a drunk driver.I think they have done away with the cameras where I live due to citizen outcry.

theonedru
11-02-2011, 07:06 PM
Yea I don't have any numerical statistics to back up what I said,but working for an ambulance alot of the acidents that I go on involving intersections and red lights at least one of the cars involved had a drunk driver.I think they have done away with the cameras where I live due to citizen outcry.

.I think they have done away with the cameras where I live due to citizen outcry.

And why were outraged, prob due to the fines they were getting while breaking the law. There is no reasonable arguments to be against these.

spuds1961
11-02-2011, 07:16 PM
.I think they have done away with the cameras where I live due to citizen outcry.

And why were outraged, prob due to the fines they were getting while breaking the law. There is no reasonable arguments to be against these.

I don't have a problem with them,I was just stating that an actual police could solve an even bigger problem from happening.I was just also stating that for emergency vehicles it will take the picture and a ticket will get issued,now that's alot of wasted time and money right there.You seem angry today,cheer up.

theonedru
11-02-2011, 07:38 PM
I don't have a problem with them,I was just stating that an actual police could solve an even bigger problem from happening.I was just also stating that for emergency vehicles it will take the picture and a ticket will get issued,now that's alot of wasted time and money right there.You seem angry today,cheer up.

wasn't directed towards you just the idiots that fear these things. I didn't make it out of the office in time and got suckered into a meeting if I had some warning I could have evaded it....

spuds1961
11-02-2011, 07:52 PM
wasn't directed towards you just the idiots that fear these things. I didn't make it out of the office in time and got suckered into a meeting if I had some warning I could have evaded it....

That stinks I hate meetings,I was forced to leave work today because I was on a painkiller for having a tooth pulled,I was just working at the station today and wasn't driving but for some reason they wouldn't let me work,oh well I have plenty of sick time so it wasn't a bad thing.

jaybird_1981
11-02-2011, 10:02 PM
.I think they have done away with the cameras where I live due to citizen outcry.

And why were outraged, prob due to the fines they were getting while breaking the law. There is no reasonable arguments to be against these.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments that have been made, you just don't agree. Try to separate the two.

theonedru
11-02-2011, 10:58 PM
There are plenty of reasonable arguments that have been made, you just don't agree. Try to separate the two.

Give me a logical argument against them then that cannot be refuted. Most people argue silly things that are more personal opinions, I want to see hard facts.

jaybird_1981
11-02-2011, 11:01 PM
Give me a logical argument against them then that cannot be refuted. Most people argue silly things that are more personal opinions, I want to see hard facts.

They cause more accidents and injuries then they prevent.

theonedru
11-02-2011, 11:11 PM
They cause more accidents and injuries then they prevent.

Because of peoples illegal driving habits not the fault of the cameras, if they drove legally the accidents would not happen .... Next

jaybird_1981
11-02-2011, 11:22 PM
Because of peoples illegal driving habits not the fault of the cameras, if they drove legally the accidents would not happen .... Next

The person who usually gets injured is probably the person slamming on his brakes to avoid rolling through the redlight so he is not the person breaking the law so it is perfectly valid argument.

theonedru
11-02-2011, 11:34 PM
The person who usually gets injured is probably the person slamming on his brakes to avoid rolling through the redlight so he is not the person breaking the law so it is perfectly valid argument.

Why does the person have to slam on their breaks to avoid rolling through the light?

If they were watching what they were doing they would not need to slam on any breaks as they would be prepared to come to a safe controlled stop. Once again drivers bad/illegal driving habits not anything to do with the camera being there ( the camera not being there doesn't make rolling through the red light legal so you can't use that argument)

Still nothing to sway the camera not being there, just reasons why some people that do drive should not.

jaybird_1981
11-03-2011, 12:25 AM
Why does the person have to slam on their breaks to avoid rolling through the light?

If they were watching what they were doing they would not need to slam on any breaks as they would be prepared to come to a safe controlled stop. Once again drivers bad/illegal driving habits not anything to do with the camera being there ( the camera not being there doesn't make rolling through the red light legal so you can't use that argument)

Still nothing to sway the camera not being there, just reasons why some people that do drive should not.

I pass 5 camera lights on my way to work and like I said I have never had a ticket or accident but one of the camera lights is on a road where the speed limit is 55 MPH. There are times when I am caught in between I either have to gas it to make it through or have to hit my breaks fairly quickly in order to stop in time and trust me I am paying careful attention.

andrewhoya
11-03-2011, 06:52 AM
Because of peoples illegal driving habits not the fault of the cameras, if they drove legally the accidents would not happen .... Next

A person in my neighborhood slowed quickly at a camera while it was icy outside, lost control, and his car went right into a tree. The camera was removed a week later.

bud7562
11-03-2011, 06:13 PM
A person in my neighborhood slowed quickly at a camera while it was icy outside, lost control, and his car went right into a tree. The camera was removed a week later. the guy was to fast for icy road he should be going slower. that was he's own problem?

andrewhoya
11-03-2011, 06:24 PM
the guy was to fast for icy road he should be going slower. that was he's own problem?

Crash report had him going 25

Star_Cards
11-04-2011, 09:22 AM
They cause more accidents and injuries then they prevent.

How exactly would a camera cause more accidents?

Bottom line, people don't like them because they don't want to get a fine for a traffic violation if they don't know they are there. They are much harder to see than a police car. Should police not be allowed to pull people over because they pose a threat to other drivers with sitting on the side of the road writing a ticket?

Star_Cards
11-04-2011, 09:24 AM
A person in my neighborhood slowed quickly at a camera while it was icy outside, lost control, and his car went right into a tree. The camera was removed a week later.

sounds like the person was driving too fast in icy conditions.

jaybird_1981
11-04-2011, 02:29 PM
How exactly would a camera cause more accidents?

Bottom line, people don't like them because they don't want to get a fine for a traffic violation if they don't know they are there. They are much harder to see than a police car. Should police not be allowed to pull people over because they pose a threat to other drivers with sitting on the side of the road writing a ticket?

Statistics prove that accidents increase when a stop light camera is installed.

And trust me these lights sneak up on no one everyone who lives in cities that have them know they are there.

Star_Cards
11-04-2011, 02:58 PM
so are they happening more because the people who know of the cameras are obeying the laws and people who do not are trying to run lights and such? I still see it as the people that are causing the accidents are still not paying attention to the cars in front in the case of people no longer running red lights and getting rear ended. When you are around lights you have to pay attention to the light but also have to pay attention to the cars still in front or you. Are there people that are slamming on their breaks or slowing down even when the light is still green in fear of getting a ticket? Do these cameras cause some people to be over cautious?

Maybe if accidents are up, like rear endings, are people getting hit from the side by cross traffic also up?

andrewhoya
11-04-2011, 04:19 PM
Crash report had him going 25


sounds like the person was driving too fast in icy conditions.

--

duwal
11-04-2011, 06:51 PM
Statistics prove that accidents increase when a stop light camera is installed.

And trust me these lights sneak up on no one everyone who lives in cities that have them know they are there.


but how do accidents increase?

gladdyontherise
11-04-2011, 07:32 PM
I pass 5 camera lights on my way to work and like I said I have never had a ticket or accident but one of the camera lights is on a road where the speed limit is 55 MPH. There are times when I am caught in between I either have to gas it to make it through or have to hit my breaks fairly quickly in order to stop in time and trust me I am paying careful attention.

I have a few lights where I live that are 50 MPH and I agree with you, you have to make a quick decision when you hit that light and it turns yellow. I guess not everyone has lights on speed limits over 30-40 MPH?

theonedru
11-04-2011, 08:09 PM
but how do accidents increase?

bad drivers making bad decisions

jaybird_1981
11-05-2011, 04:10 AM
bad drivers making bad decisions

Or good drivers that are forced to decide when the light is yellow for 3 seconds and going 55 MPH it could take appoximately 275ft. to stop your vehicle. So if I am within that almost football field size distance I have a split second to decide to go through the light or slam on my brakes.

It is not about being a bad driver. The kinds of crashes that usually occur from running a red light are not preventable with cameras. 45% are DUI related do you think a camera matters there? 24% are police chases/emergencies does a camer matter there?

And it is always fun when the cameras malfunction which happens all the time. I know of a few people who have gotten tickets for making a legal right on red and had to waste their time to get the ticket corrected. Most people just pay the fine so they don't have to show up in court.

You are the first one to trumpet about soldiers being killed innocently in wars when you say we are only their for greed? What is the difference here?

bud7562
11-05-2011, 09:48 AM
How exactly would a camera cause more accidents?

Bottom line, people don't like them because they don't want to get a fine for a traffic violation if they don't know they are there. They are much harder to see than a police car. Should police not be allowed to pull people over because they pose a threat to other drivers with sitting on the side of the road writing a ticket? ether way they are going to get a ticket or a fine ?????

themanishere
11-07-2011, 03:19 PM
These were installed in a major street intersection in my city about 5 years back. The area barely had any accidents before then, and still does not.

Most people around here feel it's just a cash grab, which I would agree with. It hasn't affected the accident rate, to my knowledge, one way or the other.

theonedru
11-07-2011, 06:26 PM
These were installed in a major street intersection in my city about 5 years back. The area barely had any accidents before then, and still does not.

Most people around here feel it's just a cash grab, which I would agree with. It hasn't affected the accident rate, to my knowledge, one way or the other.

Its not a cash grab its a matter of people doing illegal things and getting caught and fined for their stupidity. I see nothing wrong with that, people need to accept responsibility for their actions..........

bud7562
11-07-2011, 07:34 PM
just do you best in life does not matter what you do in life and be happy:party0053:

themanishere
11-08-2011, 01:20 AM
Its not a cash grab its a matter of people doing illegal things and getting caught and fined for their stupidity. I see nothing wrong with that, people need to accept responsibility for their actions..........

Except the cameras make things overly black-and-white.

I was in the car with a friend of mine driving about two months ago, and we came up on a red light to turn right. He stops completely before the crosswalk at the red light, then turns safely. The flash from the camera goes off, and he gets a letter with a fine about a week later.

My brother got fined a year ago for going through a yellow that turned red while he was in the intersection. Around here, it is legal to pass through the intersection on a red, as long as you entered it when it was green/yellow.

Now, you could argue about taking preventative measures (e.g. slowing down as you approach a yellow, or stopping for longer at a right turn) for safety and such, but that would just reinforce my point that there is more to it than just what the camera captures. And of course, there are always examples to the contrary as well.

I'm trying to say that enforcing cameras as a "watchdog" of sorts only concentrates the treatment of bad driving. Unless you have them at virtually every intersection, people are not going to change their habits.

So in that sense, you could look at it as the government literally betting on people doing "illegal" things. Otherwise, it would not be worth the money to install the cameras in the first place. To me, that doesn't sound like the best interest of the public.