So, I-team, how about some real investigation...?

[glhs837]

Watching a piece about local red light cameras....

Which Red Light Cameras Generate the Most in Fines? | NBC4 Washington

they offer up the official line that the cameras are effective at "changing driver behavior", but oddly enough, don't dig into the numbers to see if the cameras are actually saving lives, or even reducing the amount of damage and pain and suffering. Guess actually investigating something might be too hard.

I read that article about the local plan to mount cameras on school buses. I also note, that as written up, it violates MD law. Which states that automated enforcement systems operated by vendors may not pay on a per-citation basis. Way to go......"who cares if it's legal, as long as we know we wont ever have to get in trouble for it".

[bcp (Premo)]

Work with me here.
I am still having serious trouble understanding why people are so upset about red light cameras.
light turns red, F-ing stop
no ticket.

light turns red and you try to run that 2 second delay before the other direction gets its green? get a ticket.

the only problem I see is that some tailgater is going to end up totaling his/her car on the back of my truck, because before I get a red light ticket, I will stand up on my brake to stop.

[glhs837]

Originally Posted by bcp

Work with me here.
I am still having serious trouble understanding why people are so upset about red light cameras.
light turns red, F-ing stop
no ticket.

light turns red and you try to run that 2 second delay before the other direction gets its green? get a ticket.

the only problem I see is that some tailgater is going to end up totaling his/her car on the back of my truck, because before I get a red light ticket, I will stand up on my brake to stop.

Well, the stated purpose of these things is safety, correct? And if they do not in fact increase safety, then why have them? And if, by chance, they actually increase accidents, even if you made lots of money, you have not fulfilled the stated goal of the operation.

My problem with these isn't enforcing the law, I'm okay with that, and I never condone running a red light, ever. My issue is with performing law enforcement for profit, because that way lies corruption, especially when the governments involved can shuffle the worst of it off on the evil corporations.

I'm not sure exactly how much evidence you need of the fact that generally speaking, these sorts of systems are breeding grounds of corruption and malfeasance, I have certainly provided enough over the years, from shady calibrations to rigged inspection logs and illegal practices in the contracting process and the blatantly illegal forging of officers signatures in violation of MD law in multiple justidictions.

Or haw many studies showing that at best, the safety benefits of these things are a wash, with improvements at some places, no change at others, and more crashes at other locations.

Remove the profit motive and I'll be quiet about them. you want increased safety? Make the fines real, make it a point on the drivers record. That's right, you cant do that because you have no damn proof who was driving, me, my wife, my daughter, or my buddy who borrowed my car.

The politicians need money to cover the promises they made? Let'em raise taxes and take the pill they bought dry.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

Well, the stated purpose of these things is safety, correct? And if they do not in fact increase safety, then why have them? And if, by chance, they actually increase accidents, even if you made lots of money, you have not fulfilled the stated goal of the operation.

My problem with these isn't enforcing the law, I'm okay with that, and I never condone running a red light, ever. My issue is with performing law enforcement for profit, because that way lies corruption, especially when the governments involved can shuffle the worst of it off on the evil corporations.

I'm not sure exactly how much evidence you need of the fact that generally speaking, these sorts of systems are breeding grounds of corruption and malfeasance, I have certainly provided enough over the years, from shady calibrations to rigged inspection logs and illegal practices in the contracting process and the blatantly illegal forging of officers signatures in violation of MD law in multiple justidictions.

Or haw many studies showing that at best, the safety benefits of these things are a wash, with improvements at some places, no change at others, and more crashes at other locations.

Remove the profit motive and I'll be quiet about them. you want increased safety? Make the fines real, make it a point on the drivers record. That's right, you cant do that because you have no damn proof who was driving, me, my wife, my daughter, or my buddy who borrowed my car.

The politicians need money to cover the promises they made? Let'em raise taxes and take the pill they bought dry.

All you have really provided is your opinion based on your not wanting to comply with the law.
I bet you are one of those that will run a red light if there is no traffic coming from any direction.

[glhs837]

And you would be wrong. Hell, I even do a full three count at stop signs. You have been involved in these discussions over the last three years, I have provided links to reputable sources of information including university studies, various state DOT studies, both VA and TX, countless mainstream media accounts of shenanigans.

None of these are unsupported opinion, but factual data. Hell just pull up the Baltimore Sun and search "red light cameras". you will get a list of crud that has gone on in Baltimore, which is a good microcosm of the way it's worked on a national level. Also read this article, notice it's not not my opinion, but does mirror it in many ways. See, demonizing me as some sort of blood crazed lunatic who laughs while running school buses off of cliffs makes it easy to dismiss me. I suppose because you really don't want to think things through. And that's fine, you can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. And they support me.

Lights, cameras, reaction: Resistance builds against red-light cameras - Open Channel

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by bcp

All you have really provided is your opinion based on your not wanting to comply with the law.
I bet you are one of those that will run a red light if there is no traffic coming from any direction.

Enforcing for profit does nothing but open the doors for corruption.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by glhs837

And you would be wrong. Hell, I even do a full three count at stop signs. You have been involved in these discussions over the last three years, I have provided links to reputable sources of information including university studies, various state DOT studies, both VA and TX, countless mainstream media accounts of shenanigans.

None of these are unsupported opinion, but factual data. Hell just pull up the Baltimore Sun and search "red light cameras". you will get a list of crud that has gone on in Baltimore, which is a good microcosm of the way it's worked on a national level. Also read this article, notice it's not not my opinion, but does mirror it in many ways. See, demonizing me as some sort of blood crazed lunatic who laughs while running school buses off of cliffs makes it easy to dismiss me. I suppose because you really don't want to think things through. And that's fine, you can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. And they support me.

Lights, cameras, reaction: Resistance builds against red-light cameras - Open Channel

Here, read it all the way through. Not only are there interesting numbers for the accidents at camera vs non camera lights, but its also interesting that cities are starting to turn them off because once people learn where they are, they change the way they drive, and the municipalities were actually losing revenue by having the lights.

Now, you will see that the number of accidents stayed fairly level with the lights compared to without, however the injuries were much lower due to the accidents shifting from a t-bone type accident to a minor rear end accident.

it would seem that my opinion is also backed by studies. and, being one to think things through, I would opt for the rear end accident over the t-bone in almost all instances, Im sure if you had your kids strapped into the car, you would too.
Think about that all the way through before you suggest someone else is not thinking only because they dont share your opinion.

and, I dont recall mentioning you as one that would run a bus load of kids over a cliff,

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

Enforcing for profit does nothing but open the doors for corruption.

ok, interesting.
would you say that turning off cameras that have statistically proven to reduce injury in accidents is a good idea if that idea is based on the theory that profits go up when people run the light without the cameras?

[Baja28 (Premo)]

This is very simple. Don't speed or run red lights and the cameras don't make a dime. Simple.

Skeered that the cameras are wrong? Mount your own camera in your car and prove it. File a lawsuit. Get lots of money when you win.

Or just stop at red lights. Your call.

[glhs837]

Originally Posted by bcp

Here, read it all the way through. Not only are there interesting numbers for the accidents at camera vs non camera lights, but its also interesting that cities are starting to turn them off because once people learn where they are, they change the way they drive, and the municipalities were actually losing revenue by having the lights.

Now, you will see that the number of accidents stayed fairly level with the lights compared to without, however the injuries were much lower due to the accidents shifting from a t-bone type accident to a minor rear end accident.

it would seem that my opinion is also backed by studies. and, being one to think things through, I would opt for the rear end accident over the t-bone in almost all instances, Im sure if you had your kids strapped into the car, you would too.
Think about that all the way through before you suggest someone else is not thinking only because they dont share your opinion.

and, I dont recall mentioning you as one that would run a bus load of kids over a cliff,

No, but you assume because I think differently than you, I run red lights. Note I said there were studies were showing different things. One thing I didnt mention, but should have, is that the only studies that really show constant improvement are ones done by parties with a financial interest in the outcome. Like the IIHS. Which is owned by the insurance companies who have lobbied to make camera citations reportable, meaning they could raise rates.

I agree, a rear end is generally speaking better than a T-bone. But hom many rear end collisions are you willing to accept to prevent one T-bone. Notice %99 of the blather supporting these talks about "changing driver behavior", not concrete numbers of reduced crashes. DCs Chief had those numbers, but when you dive into them, they mirror crash numbers in general, with or without cameras.

I suggested you were not thinking becuase of your simplistic take to start. "If you dont run red lights, dont worry". If you want to debate the facts, I would love to do that. So, if you can reduce red light running through the simple expedient of longer yellow lights, an approach recommended over cameras by those radicals at the NHTSA, why not do that instead? You know why, right?