by the very nature of the product they provide, the company has no honor.Hey dipsh!t, don't run red lights if you don't like it. Do they force anyone to purchase or use the product?
Which one doesn't have honor, really?
You, the red light runner jeopardizing the safety and lives of others?
The agency using it for money, not safety?
Or, the provider of a product brought about because of dimwitted red light runners?...You know who you are.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
free advice: switch to decaf.
These cameras are revenue generators pure and simple. We have them here in El Paso and when they don’t produce enough cash they are removed. It is the same in Houston.
In New Mexico, the state recognizes that overall accidents at red light intersections go up and has banned cities from placing them on state maintained roads. The state of Arizona has canceled it’s contract for speed cameras for similar reasons.
The camera companies create a product that makes roadways less safe and enables bureaucratic thieves. I hold them in the same esteem as pay day lenders and porno shops. To foist their product on the public, they rely on useful idiots who assume that anyone opposed to cameras is simply a red-light running derelict...You know who you are.
Do they force anyone to purchase or use the product?
Yes. They do. They force the taxpayers to buy these things by striking insider deals with corrupt politicians after lining their pockets with campaign contributions and wining and dining them with the promise of an endless revenue flow.
Put it to a public vote and I guarantee you the contract for these things would be canceled. But the public didn't get to decide this one.