Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jim_trent
1) Recite basic statistics on red light running

$100 / ticket times number of tickets issued = big cash for the city. If the mayor's idiot brother-in-law is hired as a subcontractor, then installation is nearly guaranteed.

2) Discuss the major reasons that drivers run red lights and cause collisions

The yellow light was too short and the drivers didn't have a chance to stop

3) Recall general findings from the literature on camera effectiveness

Cameras are more effective at revenue generation if the yellow light is shortened, thus getting more drivers to run a red light.

4) Recite other countermeasures for red light running collisions besides cameras that may be effective in some places

Longer yellow lights - revenue negative.
Obvious police presence - revenue negative.
Two second 4 direction red light - revenue negative.

5) Discuss the basic criteria that guide effective choices of intersection approaches to receive cameras

Put them up where people are more likely to not see the red light, such as at the end of a blind curve. Ka-ching!

6) Argue the key aspects of effective camera systems such as grace periods, signing, public information, and driver versus vehicle citations

Grace periods are no revenue periods = bad
signing and public information - Warning of red light cameras reduce revenue = bad
Driver citation require a clear picture of the driver who is more likely to go to court, while vehicle citations often don't even have a court option = mo money mo money mo money!

7) Discuss the need for camera system oversight and periodic effectiveness evaluation

When drivers discover the cameras and their location become publicly known, they might interfere with the camera revenue by stopping at the red light. Move cameras often to prevent this.

4 posted on 05/07/2008 12:32:11 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Pray for Rattendaemmerung: the final mutually destructive battle between Obama and Hillary in Denver)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: KarlInOhio
We have these in Tucson, AZ. If you are from out of state or out of country (Mexico, Canada), you are safe because they only can give to local drivers. This is discrimination.

Solution: Get a license plate cover that blocks your number from the side and above. This also works on speed photo radar vans.

6 posted on 05/07/2008 12:48:38 PM PDT by Tucson Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: All

What about the excessive accuracy of the red light cameras causing a decrease in revenues. People run fewer lights to revenue goes down. Fewer tickets because no close calls at the “discretion” of the officer.


7 posted on 05/07/2008 12:50:51 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: KarlInOhio; antiRepublicrat

I am not pro-Red-Light-Cameras, but the BS you two are spouting about yellow-lights is not true. The first time that charge was made was a case in California. I actually talked to a traffic guy from there during an ITE meeting shortly after it happened.

He said that the red lights were set to the standard ITE formula. That is 3 to 5 seconds in most cases (depending on the speed limit, width of the intersection, and grade — among other things). Seems that a State legislator got a ticket. He introduced a bill to make the yellow time a flat 5 seconds and got it passed. That made virtually ALL yellow light times in California “illegal”. Unfortunately, longer yellow times than the ITE formula have been proven countless times to be LESS safe than correct times.

To be more specific, there is a short term increase in safety (for 3 to 6 months) when the yellow signal is lengthened. Then regular users of the intersection learn about the longer time from experience and push the limits like they did originally. The technical word for this in the literature is “habituation”. Then the safety goes down to where it was or, in some cases, even lower (since the intersection can service fewer cars in a given period of time, making everyone more impatient.

You two are taking a POLITICIANS side against repeated peer-review scientific testing in this particular case.


13 posted on 05/07/2008 1:06:59 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: KarlInOhio

That pretty well nails it.


28 posted on 05/07/2008 8:10:01 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (<===Non-bitter, Gun-totin', Typical White American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson