Red light cameras

**TransAmConvert** · December 8th, 2006, 03:52 AM

I was wondering how long it was going to take before they tried to do it...

http://post-gazette.com/pg/06342/744552-53.stm

I guess it'll be just one more reason to stay out of the city. I mean, honestly, who thinks this would actually be a good idea. Redlight cams have to be one of the most ridiculous/borderline illegal as hell concepts i'ver ever heard of. And sharing the 'ticket revenue' with the camera company...yeah sounds legal/ethical.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not in favor of blowing through lights. But the majority of people cited would be those that timed the yellow a bit wrong. Furthermore, the way to enforce the law is not with automated systems, that is a very slippery slope.

I would start a petition to block the measure/get this jack@$$ out of office...but it probably wouldn't do any good anyway. Seems like the city does whatever the hell it wants regardless of what people want (Stadiums, casinos come to mind).

Pretty lousy...

**LorDiego01** · December 8th, 2006, 08:40 AM

The government commissioned a study about a year or so ago, on the effectiveness of Red Light Cameras.

Their own study found out that they actually increase accidents by a factor of 60% given that traffic lights with a camera have the timer on the yellow light shortened. This means that people either SLAM on their breaks, or they blow straight through the light.

The cameras were determined to be successfull, because the study also mentioned that they generate $3,000,000 per 100,000 people.

There are some insane politicians who want to make STOP SIGN Cameras, as well as cameras that fine you depending on how much noise your car is making (in case you are blasting the radio or your muffler is too loud). I kid you not, these politicians should be taken out behind the shed and shot.

In fact, all politicians should be taken behind the shed and shot.

**SGTUSArmy** · December 8th, 2006, 08:41 AM

The redlight cameras, while not my favorite things, actually serve a purpose. They can also be set to activate X seconds after the light changes. So it would be up to the city and owner/maintainer of the lights to set it. What is wrong with enforcing laws with fewer police? Seems like everyone else on this board is against more cops.

I know that in the DPRM, they put signs up saying which lights are redlight enforced. I have even thought that I was going to be getting a nice ticket once for not timing the light right, and never got it. The LEO I spoke to said that it was not for those who just dont' quite make it, but for those who blow through blatantly.

The ones I hate are in DC...not the read light cameras, but the traffic cameras. If you are driving over the speed limit, FLASH!! Ticket.

**TransAmConvert** · December 8th, 2006, 09:45 AM

I think what bothers me is that theyre not even pretending that theyre doing it in the interest of safety/enforcing the law. They're just using it as a means to increase revenue, and I think that is wrong.

**SGTUSArmy** · December 8th, 2006, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by TransAmConvert

I think what bothers me is that theyre not even pretending that theyre doing it in the interest of safety/enforcing the law. They're just using it as a means to increase revenue, and I think that is wrong.

Ok..That I can understand.

**dragonlibra** · December 8th, 2006, 02:30 PM

I have to drive a few miles in Pittsburgh weekdays to get to work. I don't run lights or usually even try to beat the yellow, but I would bet most of us get caught in a quick yellow turning red occassionally. I sure wouldn't want to see the ticket show up in the mail for this. I for one would seriously considering using this product if Pittsburgh decides to do this.

I don't like the idea of traffic light or speed control cameras. Smacks of Big Brother to me and doesn't allow me to face my accuser.

The product, marketed by online merchant Phantom Plate (www.phantomplate.com), defies laws that preclude motorists from placing covers over their license plates but have no provisions for a clear spray.

Joe Scott, the marketing director for Photoblocker, said he knows of no jurisdictions that ban the spray. Most states have laws against obscuring or distorting license plates, but Photoblocker obscures the license plate only in a photo, Mr. Scott said, making it legal or at least difficult for police to detect with the naked eye.

Capt. John Lamb of the Denver Police Department said a test of the spray proved effective at producing a glare over the license plate.

The District, Maryland and Virginia all have laws permitting the use of red-light cameras, and the Federal Highway Administration says 21 states have red-light or speed-detection cameras in place or are considering installing the devices.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0901-3612r.htm