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 ...
There are so many cameras out there these days, it might be a good idea to check out the public toilet real good before sitting down.
It's a good thing I read that twice. I first thought you wrote: "I still think that traffic lights are used to facilitate the flow of traffic...", and I was going to offer to sell you a bridge, but, yes, they CAN be useful.
I do not agree that they are, in fact, used that way.
BF Skinner seems to live on in signal light timing.
You need to tape over your laptop camera or put some clothes on.
Thank you.
THANK you.
Photo and redlight cameras are all about tyranny, revenue, and big brother, and not public safety.
The private sector corporate partners rig the system for more profits, and the “public safety” departments that benefit go along to get more kickbacks, and subsidies for pensions, and salaries and goodies.
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/
Did I say "only?" I didn't intend to. There are other problems as well, but the problem I mentioned is a Constitutional one, and outweighs the others.
Interesting that you say this. Both in Asbury Park NJ, Main St HWY 71, and Lakewood NJ just above downtown, Madison Ave RT 9,
If you hit the lights correctly you can travel relatively unimpeded by red lights.
Of course you have to travel 5 miles over the speed limit.
Both are heavily trafficked roads, but if you hit it just right, it works.
Of course You have have broken the law.
Of course You have have broken the law.
There's that BF Skinner, again.
That too.
“I have a 12ga camera disabler. Works fast but makes a whole lot of noise.”
I actually saw that “method” employed in Texas years ago. Back then, they had a thing called Orbis that sat on poles in the middle of the highway that runs between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Someone had “hit” one of the things with a shotgun and it was just hanging on the post being held up by some of the wiring. It was truly a sight to “behold.”
Then there’s the Brits who “set them alight,” by placing a tyre around them and filling it with petrol. There’s a website that shows their handiwork. Just Google “gatso.”
When cameras are used, fines should be reduced. <<
Just wondering.....When you go down a slippery slope...Do you ever catch yourself calling for thicker grease to slow your speed?
00 buck makes a big hole.
Everyone else here was making all the other arguments against traffic cameras — I didn’t see the reason to repeat them. Just because I didn’t repeat them, doesn’t mean I don’t agree with them. I hope that’s clear enough now.
Very few people ever seem to make the connection between the amount of a fine (or severity of any penalty) and the probability of getting caught. It’s a fundamental of law-enforcement policy — there are even formulas for it. I thought that it was worth mentioning, since it actually validates the “cash grab” complaint that many people make.
If municipal politicians just wanted to use traffic cameras to improve safety; they would reduce the fines for violations, to the point where they were just sufficient to do the job. They know that (or, if they don’t, their police chief does). The fact that they don’t reduce the fines, even when they drastically increase the probability of catching violators, proves that the whole camera thing is designed to be a cash grab.
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.