[ds968]

It is not possible to "hate" inanimate objects ( other than some mothers-in-law or some ex-girlfriends who might fit that definition ) . That aside, this notion that you have any privacy or right to privacy in any other aspect of your life is naive and grossly misguided - red light cameras or cameras on every street corner for that matter is the least of your concerns, so just get over the paranoia and move on.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[paulzebo]

why do people hate red light cameras?





In short, most people feel they are exempt from rules. Run a red light? They will say 'Well I've only done it a couple of times by accident, I shouldn't be cited for it. In the broad sense with all the time I spend on the road, you should expect it every now and then." The only people who hate red light cameras are the ones concerned they will be "flashed". I must confess I really don't understand this "[color="#282828"]right to privacy" out in the public domain that some folks are concerned about. Do stupid stuff in public and end up on YouTube with 1,000,000 hits, serves you right. Man up and don't do stupid stuff any more. In your car cheating on you spouse and run a light, Karma kicks in. Especially if "your" car is in the brides name to avoid photo tickets. Nobody's exempt from Karma. I remember being cited by the CHP in the 80's for following too close during rush hour traffic. Which was OK until I started to get lectured by the officer on the dangers of following too close. With their reputation of citing and not warning back then, I informed the CHP officer I would take his lecture or the citation but not both. What's it going to be? Karma kicked in.. [/color]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Bulti]

There certainly are a bunch of studies and numbers out there. Who can really tell which ones are correct?



Safety is used, sadly enough, too often as a sick way to earn money, why else would they paint the camera poles in grey and hide them behind trees and traffic signs, and cops are hiding in the bushes? People are aware of that. Red light cameras may not be the same as speed cameras, but motorists tend to put them in the same basket.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Lear35A]

I have never asserted any "right" to privacy in the argument against red light cameras. My objection is to any inanimate object being the sole accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. And to have that object owned and operated by a very much for profit business. These systems are sold to municipalities as cash generators pure and simple. To believe otherwise is (to use others' words) naive and irrational. And by the way not liking the implementation of red light cameras has nothing to do with condoning running red lights; it has nothing to do with one being told he/she can't do something; it has nothing to do with not understanding the power of the state in licensing driving privileges. Numerous judges have agreed that these cameras violate that inconvenient right (and this one IS a right) of due process.

Good discussion.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Lance, my remarks were not directed at your post, it was a general observation and comment based on tne totality of posts and even past threads where the same topic of cameras and other tools used by municipalities to "catch" various violations has been discussed in the same light ( no pun intended ) and associated with intrusion into personal privacy and erosion of our rights. Whether red light cameras make money or they don't , or if they cause occasional fender benders is irrelenvant IMO ; if a single life or limb is saved by imposing fines severe enough and preventing any given driver from committing the same offense a second time, that's good enough for me.. and one can certainly challenge the ticket in court where due process is indeed a right :-) :-). But the concern that cameras are nothing more than big brother watching and a sign of " what's next ? " in invading personal privacy is what I found to be a somewhat paranoid view and argued that it is the least of our problems in that respect; with just about everything else about who we are and what we do easily tracked and available to a multitude of agencies and other sources, red light cameras are not even on the very margin of my proverbial radar screen .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Lear35A]

Dan, I understand. I would not use the privacy issue in my concern about red light cameras. I do believe there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy by many municipalities and the companies that sell/lease/manage these systems for the municipalities in promoting their use for safety when the driving force is cash. I believe a much bigger improvement in decreasing red light running could be made by good solid traffic engineering (timing of yellow/red cycles, better traffic light synchronization, etc)



However the privacy side of this did get me to thinking. [This is thread creep, and I apologize.] But is "the end justifies the means" an acceptable approach to privacy, technology and driving safety? For example, many, many more people are killed and injured by alcohol impaired driving than by red light running. So by the logic that there is no privacy or rights to driving shouldn't there be some kind of interlock on EVERY vehicle requiring the driver to blow into a tube or something EVERY TIME before the car starts? Somewhat intrusive, but "[color="#282828"] if a single life or limb is saved by imposing fines severe enough and preventing any given driver from committing the same offense a second time, that's good enough for me.." Something like this isn't even a fine or penalty, just good use of technology to save a life of limb. Any reason this isn't acceptable?[/color]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i keep hearing this argument about cash. the only ones making money on the cameras are the companies that operate them. many of the cities LOSE money on them, which is why they are being pulled. that's the whole focus of the news stories lately. the only reason they are installed is for safety. perhaps the companies operating them are "selling" the idea that they will make money, but it does not turn out to be the reality. i wish it were the case though, and i'm all for cities making money. if they would raise the fines, they could. it would also act as an excellent deterrent to those who would run the light.



as for the camera being the judge jury and executioner, so what? proof is proof. if you're in the intersection after it turns red, and the camera catches you, you're guilty and deserve the harshest fine that can be imposed. frankly, i think the charge should be reckless endangerment, just as it is if you are guilty of speeding more than 20mph over the limit. i find no acceptable excuse for running a red light. you get a warning light telling you to prepare to stop. you are supposed to be traveling at a rate of speed that would give you ample time to react to that warning. if you still manage to get stuck in the intersection on a red, then it's your fault and you deserve the punishment. you were either not paying attention, traveling too fast, or just plain blew it. have i run a red light? yes. was i wrong in doing it? yes. was i at fault, regardless of what distracted me? yes. that's the problem. people get away with too much. we are not hard enough on drivers. that's why we have accidents.



the problem with trying to stop red light running by altering the timing of the lights is that people will quickly figure out that the timing allows them a couple more seconds to get through, and then we are right back where we started. people are inherently selfish. if they can figure out a way to cheat, they will.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='Lear35A' timestamp='1413210754' post='163004']

However the privacy side of this did get me to thinking. [This is thread creep, and I apologize.] But is "the end justifies the means" an acceptable approach to privacy, technology and driving safety? For example, many, many more people are killed and injured by alcohol impaired driving than by red light running. So by the logic that there is no privacy or rights to driving shouldn't there be some kind of interlock on EVERY vehicle requiring the driver to blow into a tube or something EVERY TIME before the car starts?

[/quote]



I'd have no problem with that measure either.. and maybe technology can also block you from using the phone to text or call, or any other device ( GPS , etc ) which can distract you while the car is in motion, whether it's hands free or not. I also have no problem with that idea.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

there is such a thing out there for alcohol. i've seen it in use.



i would love to see some real limitations on in motion car phone use. loss of the gps would be a drag, as i depend on that thing to get me where i am going.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Chicago supposedly is running at a $ 50 million deficit after installing speed trap cameras because they underestimated how many drivers would quickly catch on where the cameras are located and simply slow down when driving through those segments. They overestimated ( and a huge overestimation evidently ) the income the city will derive from the citations to follow and invested a s***load of money they'll never recover.

Two points to this : 1) on the positive side, at least it was effective in getting a majority of drivers to slow down and 2) it never ceases to amaze me how much government pays for crap and does so without any accountability ; for example, where I live ( San Carlos ) the city paid $ 1,000,000 - not a typo, that's one million dollars - for a single traffic signal to be installed at an intersection which previously did not have one. Guess it goes hand in hand with the US govt paying $ 600 for toilet seats, $ 1,000 for hammers, so on and so forth.. Not sure how many speed cameras Chicago bought for reportedly the $ 100 + million investment but to expect a less than one year ROI and then a subsequent windfall for years to come was clearly misguided ( I'm being very kind here, " idiotic " would be a more suitable term..)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Eric_Oz_S2]

Red light cameras aren't so bad - better than getting t -boned by someone running a red light.



Down here we also have combined speed and red light cameras. You can therefore get a speeding ticket AND a red light ticket at the same time or just one or the other. Minimum fine for red light is $300.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='Eric_Oz_S2' timestamp='1413711270' post='163138']. Minimum fine for red light is $300.[/quote]



About the same around here, but then they add various administrative and "court " fees ( even if you don't go to court ) so the fine nearly doubles , but I still think by comparison to other violations which do not carry an inherent danger as running a red light does, the fee is too low ; carpool lane carries a minimum fine of $ 350 but I know two people, both of whom were fined close to $ 1,000 for their car pool violations . And while I totally support fines for littering, that violation starts at a minimum $ 1,000 fine !! In that case, what should a red light violation cost you ?!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[JTP]

Privacy issue is a hot topic but red light cameras don't do a whole lot on that. They are only triggered when someone runs a red light. In most large cities there's always a helicopter watching people, CC cameras, crime cameras (blue light cams in Baltimore), traffic cams, some idiot with a quadcopter ( http://i.imgur.com/eamX6xp.gif ), and your internet activity being monitored. Everyone is monitored more than we would like but it's the society we live in.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biosurfer1]

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1413236438' post='163017']

i would love to see some real limitations on in motion car phone use.

[/quote]



Me too, like people driving on the freeway using their phone to try and take a picture instead of concentrating on driving

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - yeah, when i've done that, i've had to wait for quite a while to find a spot where there was nobody around me and nothing for me to have to pay attention to. even then, it was not easy, and should not be possible. cell phones should be disabled when in motion. even the passenger on a phone is a distraction to the driver. i'd be happy to give up the ability. frankly, i use my cell phone less than anybody i know. only a dozen people even have the number. i only started texting a couple of months ago, and to date have only had exchanges with 5 people. anybody who knows me knows that. it bugs quite a few of them too. i spend maybe 15 minutes a month on it. i currently have almost 4000 rollover minutes.



so, i'm not the one to be picking on about it, as i would quickly give it up without a thought. i am actually working toward getting rid of it altogether already.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.