The last camp of critics may be on to something. The Kansas City Star reports that a study by the Kansas City Police Department shows that red-light cameras have not reduced accidents at a majority of intersections where they have been installed. The department's analysis showed that accidents increased by 18 percent at 11 of the 17 intersections where red-light cameras were in use between 2009 and 2010.
We need to be honest about why red-light cameras exist. Their installation is a definitive revenue boom for the city. Safety is actually not the issue here. And please don't consider that a blanket dismissal of those who choose to run red lights — there is clearly a danger element attached to a car that is heading into an intersection where traffic from the left and right has a green light.
It's time to stop putting red-light cameras in the same category as seat-belt stops and instead consider them in the same vein as speeding tickets, which have never been touted as a means of reducing accidents. Speeding tickets are given to violators of the law. Those who run red lights are also violating the law. Tickets issued for this offense are no different from those given for speeding, it's just a question of whether a human or camera is your first point of contact. A person is still reviewing each potential red-light violation.
But even if you reframe the reason for installing red-light cameras, that shouldn't come with a wild cry for their removal. The city has the right to make you pay for traffic violations. But perhaps they owe you the courtesy of being honest about why you're really being charged.
Showing 1-20 of 20
@Realist - You're a multi-layered idiot of the highest order. A car is not a gun and a red-light violation is not murder or robbery.
I have done nothing wrong when I loan an unused vehicle to a friend who lives in a house with 3 other drivers who may or may not have used the vehicle during a violation. It's up to the police to inform me who the violator was and ticket that driver instead of me, not the other way around.
As for your ham-fisted attempt at a political smear, this liberal isn't impressed.
Now instead of worrying about being t-boned at an intersection, I have to worry about being hit from behind. Thanks, government, for keeping me safe, LOL!
Want to make people safer? Make all yellow lights 5 seconds long. Then make that 5 second rule part of the required DOT knowledge to get a drivers license. Then everyone who has a legal license would know exactly how long they have at yellow, regardless of where they are driving. Oh wait, where would the city get its revenue?
"People, my attorney tells me that the city gets only a very small percentage of the $100 fine...the company who installed and owns the camera and attached system gets the majority. It goes to some outfit in Ohio or someplace like that! Total crap!"
The city actually gets 70 percent of the revenue, and the 30 percent goes to the people who install and maintain the cameras, a company in Arizona. You could look that up because it's on the Internet, but obviously you are either too stupid or too lazy. You choose which.
?@Realist--"most of the people attempting to make this ridiculous argument are "personal responsibility" conservatives"---are these politicians ? If so could you name them so that we can refrain from voting for such people?
The whole "they don't know who was driving the car" thing is a red herring. It's your car - you're responsible, unless you've filed a police report about your car being stolen.
If you loan somebody your gun and they use it to commit a crime, should you be allowed to stonewall the investigation because "they don't know for sure who was using the gun" and can't prove it was you? Yeah, that'll work.
The really hilarious part is most of the people attempting to make this ridiculous argument are "personal responsibility" conservatives. They're all for personal responsibility, as long as it's someone else who's being held personally responsible.
Some of you people aren't following instructions--we're supposed to "agree" with Jonathan Bender and "move on".
"I hear George Bush owns the company that installs these and he gets a percentage of all the money from the tickets. He then uses the money to purchase and personally euthanize puppies and kittens."
This sounds like a NOFX song.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
I hear George Bush owns the company that installs these and he gets a percentage of all the money from the tickets. He then uses the money to purchase and personally euthanize puppies and kittens.
People, my attorney tells me that the city gets only a very small percentage of the $100 fine...the company who installed and owns the camera and attached system gets the majority. It goes to some outfit in Ohio or someplace like that! Total crap!
Call it whatever you choose -- it's not within the police department's rights to photograph some unknown person violating the law and decide it's the owner of the vehicle. Worse than alcohol checkpoints which are totally unconstitutional. They have no probable cause to stop you -- just that you happen to be in line at their checkpoint. Seriously, one of these days we'll wake up to find we have no rights anymore.
did the KCPD study show what TYPE of accidents were at the RLC intersections? I'd wager a guess that the increases were in rear-end, non-fatal collisions, with a reduction in more fatal, T-bone style crashes. one could argue that less fatal accidents = safer intersections, but it's just as easy to say that more accidents overal = less safe intersections.
but yes, RLC's are about "efficient" (read: cheaper) enforcement rather than safety.
what if, on random days, there was a cop standing on the corner taking pictures instead of an automated camera?
One Friday night rush hour, I was north bound on the Broadway Extension. Traffic was crawling. Several cars had pulled to the shoulders as you could see they had rearenders. Finally got to the top of the hill, all was revealed. A dozen KCMO motorcycle cops were radaring the few cars traveling south bound. Too busy earning money to even attend to the north bound wrecks.
YES, it is all about the money!
What they failed to mention in this article is that many of them are not even monitored anymore. They don't have the money for the people who watch the camera's.
The city didn't even think this through. They thought they could make money and now they've spent money for nothing.
"Speeding tickets are given to violators of the law. Those who run red lights are also violating the law. Tickets issued for this offense are no different from those given for speeding, it's just a question of whether a human or camera is your first point of contact."
This is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time. What you are saying is traffic laws are a form of taxation. The implication is these laws are primarily there to generate revenue for the local government. A red light camera cannot tell you who is driving the car by taking a photo of the license plate. A human police officer can. There is a very real danger that a red light camera is punishing someone who is not responsible for the violation. There have been instances where teens have printed out false tags - copies of plates on the cars of people they did not like - and then sped past camera traps to get tickets mailed to their enemies. The camera system doesn't cross check to see if the tag and make of car go together.
Traffic cameras are another way to shake down the driving public. There is no justice in it. It is simply more government theft by rent-seeking bureaucrats.
The light at the intersection of 39th & Southwest Trafficway goes from green to red within a split second. There is almost no yellow signal at all. Do they also manipulate the timing at these camera intersections to make the light change to red faster than other non-spying intersections?
fear of the flash.. each light changes at a different time, and people are slamming brakes on so they don't get flashed and sent a big ticket. A safe thing to do would be to have a visual timer that drivers could see at the light, and the timer would obviously count down until the light turns yellow. The timer would reset if no traffic triggered the light from the opposite direction. This is the safe thing to do. No more surprises/russian roulette at the lights. This timer idea is actually in place at a very few intersections, and it's VERY SMART.
Side note, there is a camera light on Bannister between 435 and 70 highway that gives Taco Bell traffic a constant green light. Normal traffic on Bannister has to stop at the red light that only turns green after a few minutes!! So you have to stop at the light when taco bell traffic has the right of way(taco bell traffic ALWAYS has the right of way) and wait or you'll get flashed for running a red light when there is zero traffic and it's the middle of the night. NOT SMART.
"But even if you reframe the reason for installing red-light cameras, that shouldn't come with a wild cry for their removal. The city has the right to make you pay for traffic violations."
I don't think filming people without a vote on the issue is covered in the social contract between the people and the government. So, I think the "wild cry" is justified.
Why didnt we, the people, get to vote on whether or not we wanted these infernal things?
The flash from that strobe light on them is blinding, and probably the reason for the increase in accidents.
like
dislike
