http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/traffic/entries/2007/11/07/redlight_cameras_on_council_ag.html#comments The article is just an alarm going off that is expected, but... the real shocker are the comments from people. They do not have a clue that the local govt _will_ become greedy and start reducing those yellow lights down to dangerous levels. This honestly makes me want to not drive around here. Too automated is what I say. Any system has a fault tolerance. This includes the government in what they can get away with, or the 5-10 mile an hour over the speed limit you can get away with. But too automated of a system is just striving to drive revenue into their pockets.
If red light running is as big an epidemic in Austin as it is in the DFW area, I would say that this is good news.
certainly not like DFW. People that complain about traffic and nutty drivers in Austin have never been to Houston nor Dallas.
We have a few red light cameras here is Oakville Ontario. We actually we did have. The political and legal people got involved and they were all removed. Although this was a pilot project initially I can tell you that the initial costs of the cameras is quite high. I have been told that the percentage amount of return on each camera, shall we say collection, did not agree with the bean counters on the investment return. But, wait... there is more, they actually have empty cases still mounted on traffic signal poles, to give drivers the illusion of being photographed.
We already have those dome cameras mounted at most 4-way intersetions but most poeple don't notice them. In the past few weeks I've noticed a few cameras that were shot and destoyed in SW Austin.
<GASP> You mean......It's about the $$$$$$$$$?!?!?!?!? Like a Revenue-Generating Investment?!?!?!?!?!? I'm shocked. SHOCKED!!!!, I tell you. AAAWWWWWW !!!!!!!! It's a start.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa071108_lj_fw.1edff88cd.html The guy that killed two people in this family and injured three more today ran a red light. Granted, his reported DWI confounds the matter. The bottom line though is that bad things tend to happen when innocent people are t-boned by red light runners who would rather not abide by a law that would end up costing them no more than 60 to 90 seconds longer drive time. I don't know why so many people instantly say these devices are only installed to make money (although I'm sure much money is made) or why people applaud destroying the cameras. I know that the lights in my area where such cameras were installled initially had quite high monthly citation numbers and that these numbers have subsequently dropped dramatically over time. I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that these intersections are not now safer as a result. Cutting down on red light running seems to me to be an issue that everyone should be behind.
Yeah, that's what they say. We don't have many traffic problems in the neighborhoods of SW Austin but we sure do have a bunch of cameras. I don't care for cameras that can see into people's homes and back yards.
Those cameras are just for monitoring traffic by Tex DoT. The red light cameras sit on the sidewalk and are mounted in big metal boxes pointed at the intersection. You can't miss them. The ones I have seen in Houston have warning signs posted before the intersection. I don't know if that's true for all. I don't like the "big brother" aspect of the cameras. But considering how many times I have almost be t-boned by some idiot who totally ran the red light, I'm all for them. The fine should be more like $250 though.
Until those cameras will physically swoop down to form a protective barrier between a light runner and his "target", they are nothing more than a fiscally beneficial "implied deterrent". As such, they are (or soon will be, as proven time and again) subject to distorting their purpose for more revenue (and authority conditioning) over actual safety. I think this is what several here have hinted at, referening to the practice of shortening the Yellow to up the take. It's not only counter-purpose, it's dangerous, but irrelevant to the bean-counters in the bowels of the (or any) state entity, and those to whom they answer (excepting us, the "ign'unt proles" who pay their salaries).
I agree up to a point. Will it stop it totally? No. Will it help? Yes. It's a good idea as long as the camera can make you think twice before running the light. Because most of boneheads on the road are not thinking at all. Houston has some of the worst drivers I have ever seen in any city. The comment aboout them shortening the yellow in order to generate more revenue is hogwash tinfoil hat talk.
Tinfoil hat eh? It has been done before: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060428/ai_n16223087 Also, in NY as well.
More in the news... http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/111207DNtswbudget.386f55b.html
Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/
They seem to work in my neck of the woods: http://www.plano.gov/Departments/Police/RedLightCameras/ "Since its implementation, the Automated Red Light Camera Enforcement Program has had a positive impact on traffic safety for the citizens of Plano. As indicated in the table below, crashes at the first four monitored intersections decreased significantly from March 1 through December 31, 2006, versus the same period in 2005: As additional cameras have become operational, we continue to be encouraged by the results of the program. For example, between January 1 and November 30, 2007, intersection crashes declined 31.4% at the thirteen monitored intersections, versus the same period in 2006. Furthermore, we have seen significant decreases in the number of violations at each monitored intersection since the beginning of the program. This indicates a higher level of driver compliance with red lights and correspondingly enhanced traffic safety for our citizens." I guess it is true that one can manipulate or interpret statistics to "prove" just about anything one wants to. I'm still all for the cameras.
Decent piece on the red light camera issue with discussion of both the pro and con side of things: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/
