[jbhtexas]

Originally Posted by Dino

Ok, this is the third time this has been posted. Its from a blog but links to actual studies.

Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

And I showed you a website which cites studies that show that red light cameras reduce accidents. It's looks to me like the issue as not as decided as you make it out to be.

[CyPride]

Originally Posted by Dino

Ok, this is the third time this has been posted. Its from a blog but links to actual studies.

Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

red light cameras are purely about fund-raising. why don't the violations go on your driving record like a violation reported by a real person would?

[DaddyMac]

Originally Posted by Dino

Ok, this is the third time this has been posted. Its from a blog but links to actual studies.

Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It

A blog that's main purpose is to reduce the limitations and laws on drivers - finds 5 studies that cite problems with laws and limitations on drivers?

Color me surprised.

Wonder how many the other side of the arguement can find? Particularly when you consider the impact on injury, and not just fender benders.

Red-Light Cameras to Reduce Traffic Accidents | Public Health Law Research

[alarson]

and your link there is the exact opposite, supporting increased legal involvement.

Public Health Law Research, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation® program at Temple University, is a national initiative to promote effective regulatory, legal and policy solutions to improve public health.

[DaddyMac]

Originally Posted by alarson

and your link there is the exact opposite, supporting increased legal involvement.

I think you need to re-read my post.

I'm well aware of what my link states. That's why I linked it.

And actually, it supports "effective" laws and policy, not necessarily "increased". It's approach is from a health standpoint, if these cameras caused more injury accidents, I would suppose they'd find them ineffective from their perspective.

[Knownothing]

The fact the the police try to sell these things to us as more than a money grab from the public is funny. That is all it is. It has nothing to with public safety. Nothing. The other thing is they are trying to keep police officers and trying to sell us on the fact that we will be less safe if we lay off police officers. That is totally wrong. There will just be less of them at Quick Trip when I go there. They will actually have to patrol.

[DaddyMac]

And what about the black helicopters and strange noises on your phone ???

[Cyfan4good]

Originally Posted by Knownothing

The fact the the police try to sell these things to us as more than a money grab from the public is funny. That is all it is. It has nothing to with public safety. Nothing. The other thing is they are trying to keep police officers and trying to sell us on the fact that we will be less safe if we lay off police officers. That is totally wrong. There will just be less of them at Quick Trip when I go there. They will actually have to patrol.

So far this year 118 Law Enforcement Officers have died in the line of duty in this country. I've read the brief accounts of how all 118 died at the link below. I know that you probably won't take the time to read even a couple of these so I'll sum it up for you. I can tell you that the Cities, Counties, States, and Country that they served will be a little less safe without them. I can also tell you that their brother and sister officers who are still out there serving would come to help you or your loved ones if you needed it. Ironically four of them were killed while completing reports in a coffee shop. I guess that proves your point, they should have been on patrol.

Honoring Officers Killed in the Year 2009

[michaelrr1]

Anybody who thinks these cameras are for safety needs to wake up.

"In Clive, for instance, the red-light camera program generated $39,548.65 between July 2006 and March 2007, but all of that money went to the camera company because Clive didn't ticket enough drivers in any single month to make money. Clive has since changed its contract and now gets a percentage of each ticket."

Red-light cameras raise some red flags - Life- msnbc.com

[Dolokaju]

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

Do I have to be the guy that says don't run red lights if you can't handle getting a ticket?

And no offense...In Clive you take NO chances at lights...

[jbhtexas]

Originally Posted by michaelrr1

Anybody who thinks these cameras are for safety needs to wake up.

"In Clive, for instance, the red-light camera program generated $39,548.65 between July 2006 and March 2007, but all of that money went to the camera company because Clive didn't ticket enough drivers in any single month to make money. Clive has since changed its contract and now gets a percentage of each ticket."

Red-light cameras raise some red flags - Life- msnbc.com

Unfortunately, that story doesn't prove your assertion that the primary reason for cities to use red light cameras is to make money...

[CyPride]

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

Unfortunately, that story doesn't prove your assertion that the primary reason for cities to use red light cameras is to make money...

I wonder what changed in Clive to make the lights a money loser (the quote in the article) to a windfall that they are now? Something did change as the tickets are WAY up compared to the timeline quoted in the article. Wonder why? I wonder if the time between yellow and red at the camera lights are the same as the interval at a non-camera intersection? Something has to be different.

[Erik4Cy]

Originally Posted by isudoc03

Should security cameras be used to identify a robber/burglar/criminal etc.?

Originally Posted by agrabes

how is it any different getting a ticket with a human vs. a camera? In both cases you broke existing traffic laws, they didn't write new ones for the camera. I don't think it's a loss of freedom. Even if you aren't seen by a cop you are still required to follow the law.

You are the type of people that agree with the cop in harold and kumar for jaywalking:

YouTube - Harold and Kumar - Jaywalking Scene

YouTube - Harold and Kumar - Jaywalking Scene

I'm sorry but you can't compare someone making a right on red with no one else around and someone robbing a restaurant/bank whatever...I'm sure everyone...and I MEAN EVERYONE on CycloneFanatic has broken a law at sometime. The big difference is the majority of people do stuff so small with no one around it's not worth trying to make money off of it and writing a stupid ticket. I mean have you heard some of the stupid laws that are around? Kind of a tangent in essence, but here are some great ones here in this fine state:

Stupid Laws - Iowa

Anyone on here have a moustache and kiss someone in public? Maybe we should get cameras to detect this and send them panzy tickets in the mail?

[Me State]

Originally Posted by Knownothing

The fact the the police try to sell these things to us as more than a money grab from the public is funny. That is all it is. It has nothing to with public safety. Nothing. The other thing is they are trying to keep police officers and trying to sell us on the fact that we will be less safe if we lay off police officers. That is totally wrong. There will just be less of them at Quick Trip when I go there. They will actually have to patrol.

You do know that QT hires off duty police officers to work in their stores right? Those officers won't be on patrol if they aren't there, they will be at home.
Its also not the police trying to get the cameras set up everywhere, it is the the cities that want them.

[3TrueFans]

Originally Posted by Dolokaju

And no offense...In Clive you take NO chances at lights...

Ah yes, Clive is quite the metropolis.