Comments on: Red Light Cameras are fundamentally flawed http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/red-light-cameras-are-fundamentally-flawed/ A blog about surveillance cameras in public and private spaces Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:26:20 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gator http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/red-light-cameras-are-fundamentally-flawed/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Gator Wed, 06 May 2009 20:21:41 +0000 http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/?p=146#comment-12 Another point s that the latest studies I've seen, ( but don't have a cite here) show that RLCs never meet the cities revenue projections. In fact some cities are taking them out because they cost more to operate than the revenue they produce. The reason? Within a few months everyone who drives thru that intersection on a regular basis learns about the RLC and is especially cautious about running it. Tickets quickly drop off as the citizens respond to the RLC. Within a a year it costs more to operate than it is bringing in. Another point s that the latest studies I've seen, ( but don't have a cite here) show that RLCs never meet the cities revenue projections. In fact some cities are taking them out because they cost more to operate than the revenue they produce. The reason? Within a few months everyone who drives thru that intersection on a regular basis learns about the RLC and is especially cautious about running it. Tickets quickly drop off as the citizens respond to the RLC. Within a a year it costs more to operate than it is bringing in.

]]> By: Jason Spielfogel http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/red-light-cameras-are-fundamentally-flawed/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Jason Spielfogel Tue, 05 May 2009 20:20:06 +0000 http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/?p=146#comment-10 Well-written opinion piece John. If governments were using traffic cameras purely for deterrent or safety value, that would be one thing, but overwhelming news coverage indicates that cities only see more $$$ when considering RLCs. Time-and-time again Cities have shown that revenue is more important than safety or common sense. You can recall a few years back when the city of Santa Monica arrested a senior citizen because she was adding change to expired parking meters to keep people from getting tickets. The city passed an ordinance stating that only the driver of the vehicle could put change in the meter. Why? So they could issue more parking tickets and rake in more revenue, of course. Finally, the thing that makes me the most sick about RLCs is that not only does the city see $$$, but they don't even want to pay for the installation of the systems, instead often opting to pay the installer a portion of revenues. Of course this sets entirely the wrong incentive, because now the installer doesn't care about the safety aspect of the RLC at all, they want it to issue as many tickets as possible to increase their revenues. There are some instances where RLC cameras have a great amount of potential, such as use on School Busses to penalize drivers for passing a school bus when it's lights are flashing. This is a legitimate safety issue. Well-written opinion piece John. If governments were using traffic cameras purely for deterrent or safety value, that would be one thing, but overwhelming news coverage indicates that cities only see more $$$ when considering RLCs. Time-and-time again Cities have shown that revenue is more important than safety or common sense. You can recall a few years back when the city of Santa Monica arrested a senior citizen because she was adding change to expired parking meters to keep people from getting tickets. The city passed an ordinance stating that only the driver of the vehicle could put change in the meter. Why? So they could issue more parking tickets and rake in more revenue, of course.

Finally, the thing that makes me the most sick about RLCs is that not only does the city see $$$, but they don't even want to pay for the installation of the systems, instead often opting to pay the installer a portion of revenues. Of course this sets entirely the wrong incentive, because now the installer doesn't care about the safety aspect of the RLC at all, they want it to issue as many tickets as possible to increase their revenues.

There are some instances where RLC cameras have a great amount of potential, such as use on School Busses to penalize drivers for passing a school bus when it's lights are flashing. This is a legitimate safety issue.

]]> By: DJKA http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/red-light-cameras-are-fundamentally-flawed/comment-page-1/#comment-8 DJKA Mon, 04 May 2009 17:17:53 +0000 http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/?p=146#comment-8 This sounds great until you get a mysterious fine notice in the mail 6 months later. Don't remember running a red light? So sorry! The city wants its money. It's very clear that there is nothing altruistic about red light cameras -- it's a money grab by greedy politicians. There's no defense against mistakes. This sounds great until you get a mysterious fine notice in the mail 6 months later. Don't remember running a red light? So sorry! The city wants its money.

It's very clear that there is nothing altruistic about red light cameras — it's a money grab by greedy politicians. There's no defense against mistakes.

]]> By: Bob http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/red-light-cameras-are-fundamentally-flawed/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Bob Mon, 04 May 2009 12:27:14 +0000 http://fightingcrimefromabove.com/?p=146#comment-7 What is your argument against RLCs? Are you saying that practice of running red lights results from too much traffic congestion and the law should not be enforced? I'm not sure that I understand the point of this blog. What is your argument against RLCs? Are you saying that practice of running red lights results from too much traffic congestion and the law should not be enforced? I'm not sure that I understand the point of this blog.

]]>