[stlrocket]

A POPULAR VIEW OF THE CAMERAS

[Alberta's Child]

I offered a pretty competent response to debunk the major idea put forth in Part 2 (improving safety by extending the yellow phase) the other day. This article is very interesting because it illustrates the quandary I predicted many of these "red-light camera" cities would find themselves in when the issue was first raised months ago. These cities, by installing traffic safety devices that are supposed to serve a legitimate purpose (ostensibly to improve safety) have exposed themselves to civil liability in cases where these devices have unintended consequences or inadequate results.

[TheBattman]

If people would just quit running the darned lights, there would be no ammunition for those who want the cameras...

My experience is that the running of red lights is getting much worse. The only intersections I have seen an improvement are those with cameras - go figure.

Longer yellow lights just worsen the problem. People then get use to a longer yellow - more time to go even if not green.....

[babygene]

"The police could make intersections safer with longer yellow lights. But the city wouldn't make any money that way.

"Years ago when I lived in Pennsylvania, I got out of a ticket for running a red light by quoting PA State law that required a yellow traffic light to remain yellow for 3 seconds.

I worked for Hewlett-Packard at the time, and had at my disposal instruments that when connected to a photocell could measure the "on" period of the light down to the microsecond. It also didn't hurt that I had certification traceable to the National Bureau of Standards as to the accuracy of my measurements. The Yellow light was timed at just under 2 seconds.

The judge ruled in my favor.

[FormerLib]

I believe the concept of red-light camers is a good one since too darn many people run them in urban areas (barring having a cop on each corner). Having said that, I have to admit that the methodology of their use stinks! In DC, the fine is around $50 for a ticket, payable by the owner of the car. Challenging the ticket will cost you a non-refundable $45. The owner has to be able to prove that someone else was driving at the time. The company providing the service has an incentive to get as many tickets as possible. It just stinks!

[Rustynailww]

a person could make a lot of money being in a rear-end accident.

[medved]

bookmark

[RightWhale]

Increased incidencd of rear-end collisions? No doubt. That's usually the fault of the driver plowing into the vehicle in front of him. Try to blame it on traffic control lights and signs; the insurance company is deaf.