Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 17, 2007.
It is worth too much income for locals govs to not go nuts about this.
We have 1 traffic light camera at an intersection (it gets the north and south bound lanes, but not the east and west). It made something like $90,000 in one year.
As a general rule, I believe in the least amount of government possible, but...
One thing I noticed when we moved here five years ago was how dangerous it was to cross intersections when the light turned green.
Frequently there were red light runners still cutting thru. Really frequently. Since Alpharetta has installed these cameras, I'd say red light running has been cut by about half. Still enough people who think their time is worth more than my life to make me hesitate before charging forward, but there has been improvement.
So, reluctantly, I think these cameras are a good thing.
Speed cameras, like they have in Great Britian and Arizona, are a completely different animal. Those truly are revenue generators. In England, accidents have increased where these cameras have been installed but no way they'll ever be removed!
They atleast need to apply a little common sense when reviewing citations from red light cameras. I was caught by the one at State Bridge and Peachtree Ind. in Duluth while making a left turn.
According to the citation I was sent, I entered the intersection .25 seconds after the light changed and cleared the intersection 2 seconds after.
Have you ever tried to stop a loaded 24 foot commercial truck when a light changed on you? It's easier said than done.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but I read that when they put the camera up at Windy Hill and Cobb Pkwy, that the number is accidents increased. People were slamming on their brakes when the light changed and were getting rear ended.
The Auto Club (AAA) has some stats regarding red light cameras. Where the cameras are installed, accidents INCREASE, usually rear-end accidents, as drivers slam on the brakes to avoic having their picture taken.
Saw this tidbit while I lived in CA, and know it was AAA, but don't know where it is published.
I have heard that too. In CA they were introducing cameras at intersections as a way to reduce the amount of accidents at major intersections. The running of red lights decreased, but the number of accidents (which is why they said they wanted to install them) either stayed the same or increased.
However, by then they were making money so they just kept them in place.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 20766.html
This from a report by the Canada Ministry of Transporation study.
Camera intersections went up 2% and the nearby uncamerad intersections went down 12.7%.
Virginia DOT says something similar.
OK, maybe they're not such a good idea.
I stand corrected and have changed my opinion. Rip them out!
Red light cameras are like gun control in that they seem to "make sense" on the face, but the facts of life do not bear out the promises of the proponents.
I have my appeal date for my red-light violation on Jan 24. Coincidentally, that is the same day GCO is speaking at Emory... I'm in a bind here! I want to do both!
I've requested, through FOIA, the city of Mariettas records pertaining to the testing and inspection of the red-light camera at Windy Hill and Cobb (where I got my ticket). I was hoping to get them on not inspecting on a "regular" basis, but it turns out they "inspect" it on a daily basis... at 3am. I should have known they probably get that request 10x a day. It's just an electronic self-diagnostic or else that's what it looks like. Just a printout saying everything is "OK".
I'm not sure how I can fight this thing. Sure as hell the camera got me running it... but it doesn't prove how long the amber was, or how far I passed after the red. It has 'their' numbers, which I guess I should assume or correct. I don't recall running it. I can't think of anything to fight it on... if I walk in there saying it's unconstitutional or causes accidents or that 'regular' isn't once a day, I'll probably get put in contempt.
I'll probably just pay it... I hate the things.
My girlfriend just got one. Rainy as heck, brake lights on and hit the red light .17 seconds after it turned red. You can see how terrible the weather is in the camera pics, I wouldn't have stopped either. She's a cop and she told me she wouldn't have wrote that ticket either if she saw someone do it.. not at 1am when nobody is out there and mashing your brakes probably would have caused you to hydroplane anyways.
Purely revenue generating. Next are speeding cameras. Then, the world!
Hard to do from inside
Seriously, so far you have not even stated something on which you could fight it, much less said how you are going to provide evidence in two days. On the other hand, they have a photo of you entering the intersection after the light turns red and a statute relating to the introduction of such evidence.
There are no points on the license for this (that is in the statute, too). Is the money worth the trouble?
Is it against the law to shoot them? Assuming that it isn't a publing gathering place, etc, etc, etc.......
Probably is. So far only the cities of larger size have intalled cameras and I would guess that all of the cities that have them also have a prohibition on discharging inside city limits (other than self defense).
A suppressed .22 from a wooded area might stop pesky cameras...
I wonder what a well aimed laser pointer would do to one.
Anyone know if it's a CCD camera?
I guess someone would have to throw one at me and I would have to be in fear for my life and in fear of great bodily harm for it to be legal.
And that's the problem with all this stuff, it takes out the human discretion.
That and I'm pretty sure our Founding Fathers would shoot out those cameras just on principle.