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

glhs837

Power with Control
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

In My Opinion
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

Power with Control
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

In My Opinion
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

Power with Control
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

Well-Known Member
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

In My Opinion
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

In My Opinion
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

Obama destroyed America
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. :coffee:
 

glhs837

Power with Control
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?
 

bcp

In My Opinion
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.

What is clear in the study, when it is taken overall, is that red light cameras led to no real change in the number of accidents (4,059 with versus 4,063 without). But they did reduce the number of people hurt in those accidents, by just less than 5 percent (459 versus 482).

Let me ask you this.
if it was your child strapped into the back seat up against the door, how many rear enders would you be willing to accept before someone drove into the side of your car where your child was? At what point does the dollar value of the car become greater than the safety of your child?
5? 10? maybe more? unlimited number of rear enders?
as far as your childs safety goes, I would much rather see you rear ended when he/she was in the car. and if you leave space, you can pretty much be certain that you wont be the one rear ending the other. (various weather conditions not accounted for)

one more thing, the article does go into the number of crashes, where the number was lower by a very small margine, the type shifted from t-bone to rear end. The injuries are generally much less severe with a rear end accident than a t-bone. So when you look at the number injured, you have to ask, did the level of injury go down.
 
Last edited:

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
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?

I think any proven instance where the govt., or a govt. agency profits from policing is a bad thing.

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. :coffee:

So, instead of asking our govt. to be honest, or raising hell about something, we should all go out and buy dash cams, pay for an attorney, take time off of work, and wait for that legal battle to finish, just to prove our innocence?

Let me remind you of "innoncent until proven guilty".
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I do love how the proponents just ignore the constant parade of corruption and official misconduct involving these systems, which is one of the biggest issues with them.

How many would I accept, bcp? Cant say, too many variables. And the VA DOTs study says financially, including medical expenses, it was a wash. And dont be fooled by the wording, most programs dont get shut down because they achieved the goals and all is well. They get shut down after voters rebel.

And the numbers, if you look at a lot of studies, are not conclusive about a simple trade-off of t-bones for rear ends. It's not that simple. The numbers show all sorts of changes. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes it's no change, sometimes it's for the worse. The end result is that the gain, if any,is slighter, in fact slighter than the gains from longer yellows.

So, a simple solution that's easy to implement, and more effective than cameras will ever be. How isnt this a no-brainer unless you are making a profit.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
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. :coffee:

Sounds kind of like..

Nobody wants to take your guns...

If it's against the rules for the statevto have them, then they shouldn't have them. Law enforcement is not supposed to be a revenue producer, why speed traps are illegal.
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
If y'all wanna obsess over these things, have at it. I have better things to think about.

I know where they are and I stop or don't speed at those locations. Easy Peasy.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
So, you ignore the fact that enforcement for profit is inherently a bad idea, since it doesn't affect your personally? Go right ahead. I don't get tickets from these either, except my apparently annual wrong one from Baltimore:) but I still think this is bad idea and think it should not be implemented down here.


It still will be, of course, politicians cannot resist "free" money anymore than a dog can resist raw meat. I only hope by illuminating the pitfalls and lies that go along with them to shorten the amount of time it takes for the general public to realize these things are not about safety, almost never have been, never will be.

Simple test, remove the profit motive and it goes away. That says all that needs saying right there.
 

slotpuppy

Ass-hole
So, you ignore the fact that enforcement for profit is inherently a bad idea, since it doesn't affect your personally? Go right ahead. I don't get tickets from these either, except my apparently annual wrong one from Baltimore:) but I still think this is bad idea and think it should not be implemented down here.


It still will be, of course, politicians cannot resist "free" money anymore than a dog can resist raw meat. I only hope by illuminating the pitfalls and lies that go along with them to shorten the amount of time it takes for the general public to realize these things are not about safety, almost never have been, never will be.

Simple test, remove the profit motive and it goes away. That says all that needs saying right there.

You will want to stay away from the dorf. Charles County is adding more red light cameras. :coffee:
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
I was cleaning out my file cabinet 2 weekends ago and came across a red light ticket I received from Howard county a couple years ago. Must have been when they first came out.

They confused a D with an O on my tag. I took pictures of my truck from the same angles their cameras did, mailed them the photo's and they replied with a letter dismissing the ticket.

Cost me the price of a stamp and about 30-45 minutes of my time (tops).

I'd rather worry about the price of gas than a jurisdiction making money off of speeders and red light runners.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
SP, I dont have to, I am not worried about these things personally, I am not at risk from them from my driving, although Baltimore sends one once a year of someone else struck, which has only cost about 2 hours of my time to straighten out.

Baja, yet again, you only seem to care about these on a personal level. So you are okay with jurisdictions ignoring state law and rigging the systems to prevent you from having a day in court when the system is wrong? Your case was easy to fight, as was mine, but many thousands are not, should they get screwed over?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
You will want to stay away from the dorf. Charles County is adding more red light cameras. :coffee:

Hard to get details on that system. I think the county ran it for years themselves and made little to no money on it. But I think they have now gone for a vendor, and with that change comes the profit motive, and that's when things usually go south. Are they placing more cameras because they have a bigger safety problem, or because they want more revenue? Once the profit motive is part of the calculation, no easy way to tell.
 
Top