Posted on 09/22/2014 2:20:41 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
After pleas to remove red light cameras back in 2010, they are finally coming down in South San Francisco.
Although the South San Francisco City Council voted 4-1 back in March to not continue its red light camera program, the cameras didn’t become inoperable until early August. In 2010, the city fronted $1.5 million in refunds for the almost $500 tickets after an administrative error nullified tickets generated from cameras at two locations. The dismantling of the cameras should happen very shortly, said Mayor Karyl Matsumoto. Matsumoto was the one vote in favor of keeping the cameras.
Snip
I personally think they do serve a purpose, but when you look at expenses involved, the only one making money is the vendor,” said Vice Mayor Richard Garbarino. “You’re looking at about a $700-$800 payout (with traffic school and fines). It’s way, way, way too unfair. For working people who don’t make a lot of money, it’s a big bite of their monthly take-home pay. … There’s got to be some amount of reasonableness to this thing. The rationale just kind of ran out.”
South San Francisco is joining San Carlos, Burlingame, Belmont and Redwood City, who also nixed their red light cameras. Burlingame paid an early termination fee in 2010 to end its program, while San Carlos shut down its system in 2011. Belmont and Redwood City ended their programs in 2013.
(Excerpt) Read more at smdailyjournal.com ...
More Socialist Tyranny, read the whole article.
I have a 12ga camera disabler. Works fast but makes a whole lot of noise.
Actually, I’m in favor of tickets that take income into account, with a floor minimum.
That might get these a$$es like Bieber a little more interested in driving like an adult.
There is no power the State will not abuse.
Several years ago I was listening to NJ 101.5. A councilman from a Northern NJ town was telling a story of his town council meeting to consider the red light program.
A presentation was made by a representative of a red light company.
The councilman went on to say that 5% of the presentation involved safety concerns. The other 95% was dedicated to revenue enhancement for the town.
The problem I have with these schemes is that they penalize the owner of the vehicle, and not (necessarily) the perpetrator of the infraction. That’s an unjust assumption that ought to negate the entire practice.
That's the only problem you have?
You are indeed forgiving.
Red light or speed cameras become cash grabs, because the fines were set when most offenders didn’t get caught. Deterrence is based on the fine times the probability of getting caught. If you have only a (say) 5% probability of getting caught, a large fine is needed for deterrence. If you have a near 100% chance of getting caught, a much smaller fine should be a sufficient deterrent. When cameras are used, fines should be reduced.
When cameras are used, government should be reduced, until it is gone, if necessary.
Cops: Revenuers for the Welfare State.
These things have been a scam in every city and township that used them. In NJ, there was a scandal when a study showed that something like 75% of the tickets given by the cameras were for right turns on red, which are legal. The issue was the people didn’t stop long enough, and the decision on what was “long enough” was arbitrary from township to township. The bottom line is that the cameras don’t catch many people simply blowing through red lights. They catch people waiting 5 seconds instead of 10 seconds to make a legal right turn on red.
Finally,... a FReeper I can agree with.
Where you been?
When a company sets up common name PACs (makes it harder to research them) to stuff money (excuse me, donations) into local politicians pockets then files lawsuits to keep The People from protesting or airing their views about them you should pay attention. When they make a percentage off each citation collected on, sell the product focusing on the revenue it will generate and not safety and push self- manufactured propaganda FOR the cameras using PR firms that they set up themselves YOU CAN EXPECT PROBLEMS...
In NJ, there was a scandal when a study showed that something like 75% of the tickets given by the cameras were for right turns on red, which are legal.
Guy I know got a ticket for going past a yield sign. They actually had a light on it. It was 2:00 in the morning. It had been mistaken for a right hand turn and installed erroneously. Riiight!
Also in the case of Brick NJ, the program had been previously suspended because the timing of the lights were mistakingly off the state regulated average. Riiight!
“The rolling stop is a safety issue.”
Funny, if I try a “rolling stop” at a red light where I live, my car will get DESTROYED by cross traffic. I know enough to come to a FULL STOP at red lights. If people drive that bad where this babe lives, I suggest she invest some money in driver education.
“The rolling stop is a safety issue.”
Horse manure. I have done extensive research on this, and won't waste my time rehashing it on this thread.
The rolling stop is a revenue issue.
That's more like it.
Actually I was being sarcastic. Obviously a “rolling stop” is referring to right turns, yet the cameras are NEVER sold that way. Instead, we are told that they have the magical ability to stop a car driving 48 MPH that doesn’t see (or ignores) a red light.
I know they took them out of Emeryville,Ca.
Removed in several places. Judges often found they had been lied to regarding yellow light duration, and many other settings.
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.