All about the $$$$$$, not about safety.
Whenever I’m in Chicago in a rental car and I see I’m going through one of those intersections, if the light turns yellow, I want to slam on the brakes as hard as I can. Amazingly, I have not been rear ended yet, but the day will come.
Still, police said, rear-end crashes are far less dangerous that the T-bone style crashes caused by drivers barreling through a red light.
The police were told they had to report what impact the cameras would have on traffic.
They did not. They simply installed them.
A couple of years later they were warned they had to report what impact the cameras would have on traffic.
They did not.
Instead they chose intersections that were not on the 100 most dangerous intersections in the Denver area, and it appears they shoes intersections in the more affluent part of town.
The few cameras they have generate more than $7,000,000 per year for the police.
I guess the legislature will eliminate the jobs of the donut-eaters who spend their days looking at films to write tickets. Sounds like a good thing to me to get those people out doing something that might actually improve public safety...though that is not what the local politicos want. Those local politicos want revenue without raising taxes.
The vendor who operates the system only sends about 25 percent of all the total “triggers” back to APD for the officers to consider for tickets, he said.
It flashed me every week. But I never did anything illegal. ;-)
Co Spgs., about 2 years ago ended red light cameras when the contract expired.
Go Colorado! And Arizona, also currently doing some good things re:states rights.
I heard a D.C. muckity muck cop say cameras were a bad idea becausecit 1) disincentivizes cops tp make traffic stops and 2) you usually find alot more problems in a routine stop than just the traffic violation and are able to get those ppl off the street.