So, they going to cut back on investigating murders because it's not raising enough money?

A while back, some small town raised the speed limit because the police needed a bigger budget. Is anyone really surprised anymore?

FTFA: Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

What cost? They've already installed the cameras. If the camera sits on top of the light and nobody speeds does it really cost the city that much money?

Go ahead. Run the red lights again. The cameras aren't on. Ha ha.

Go back to sleep America. Everything is under control.

"Hey everyone, we turned off all these cameras so pay no attention to them anymore. Just pretend they aren't there".

This is about safety and not revenue, right?

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

What cost? They've already installed the cameras. If the camera sits on top of the light and nobody speeds does it really cost the city that much money?

My guess is that it's all about the budget meetings (there are still maintenance costs, etc.) Hard to raise money for something when your program isn't producing dramatic results.

if it's about safety, than cost shouldn't be a factor, right?

RedDyeNumber4: some small town raised the speed limit because the police needed a bigger budget.

How'd that work out? I would have expected them to *lower* the speed limit if they were trying to generate money...

Good. That's awesome. People have been trained not to run red lights.

Red light cameras are the only traffic camera I fully support. I had a friend who was nearly killed by an idiot who ran a red light. It wrecked his car and if someone had been in the passenger seat, they would have died. I was nearly hit myself by someone who ran a light. I have no tolerance for such irresponsibility.

Um, if people are no longer running red lights, then the problem has been solved, right?

Its like the drug companies...there's no profit in eliminating problems. Dealing with the symptoms is where the money's at.

Red Light Cameras are great, so long as the yellow isn't impossibly short.

FTFA: a new state law requiring that municipalities send half of their net red-light-running camera revenue to Austin

they're turning the off because they aren't allow to profit (as much) from them

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

What cost? They've already installed the cameras. If the camera sits on top of the light and nobody speeds does it really cost the city that much money?

from TFA:

"Dallas pays ACS a guaranteed $3,799 per month for each operational camera, and just a fraction of that to maintain inoperative cameras."

Remember kids, reading is fundamental.

Obvious tag broken?

I hope this happens in Chicago. I hate those things. The yellows are too short, and if you stop at a yellow you'll have a dozen cabbies honking on your ass. (Not to mention if you stop too suddenly at a yellow you could get rear-ended.)

That's the most retarded plan I've heard today. LOL

Weaver95: if it's about safety, than cost shouldn't be a factor, right?

I can imagine somebody in the city government saying that, followed by uproarious laughter from all.

Wombatron: Red Light Cameras are great, so long as the yellow isn't impossibly short.

Maybe this is what Dallas is doing wrong. They need to shorten their yellows to keep generating revenue.

I'm pissed at Americans. The Brits go and destroy all these traffic devices while we type away on Fark.

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

What cost? They've already installed the cameras. If the camera sits on top of the light and nobody speeds does it really cost the city that much money?

I'll bet anything the city doesn't own the cameras. They leased from some company, which provides a contract, for X$ a year, that they'll replace all worn out sensors, rodent chewed wires, etc.

I think the biggest shocker in this story is that the state takes half the city's revenue. It's like being slowly, and cruelly ass-farked, then suddenly hear your rapist go "Ungh" and land on top of you, 'cause some bigger, meaner farker has come along, to teach him a lesson, without letting you go.

StillH2O
Maybe this is what Dallas is doing wrong. They need to shorten their yellows to keep generating revenue.

Sounds pretty cynical. Then again, I guess this is fark...

Thats gay. I loved the thought of them putting these red light cameras up here in Dallas. It's BS that they want to turn them off. I hate red light runners

/fark that

For $3,799 per month, I will stand at the corner with a camera and take the pictures myself.

/have had worse jobs

Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

What cost? They've already installed the cameras. If the camera sits on top of the light and nobody speeds does it really cost the city that much money?

Cities pay companies a shiat ton of money to monitor & maintain the cameras. In some cases that company is responsible for sending the tickets for the courts too. Those things usually cost millions a year to operate.

fortean chicken: Good. That's awesome. People have been trained not to run red lights.

Red light cameras are the only traffic camera I fully support. I had a friend who was nearly killed by an idiot who ran a red light. It wrecked his car and if someone had been in the passenger seat, they would have died. I was nearly hit myself by someone who ran a light. I have no tolerance for such irresponsibility.

All white eggs are the only eggs I support. My friend was once hit in the head with a frozen brown egg. If he had not been wearing a hat, he would have been killed.

Does it sound silly when I replace it with eggs? I hope so.

shiat happens. Red light cameras are not going to stop that homicidal speeder. They're just going to give out a shiat load if tickets with no real recourse other than pay.

Look into them. They increase danger, not decrease it.

Light Fuse Get Away: StillH2O
Maybe this is what Dallas is doing wrong. They need to shorten their yellows to keep generating revenue.

Sounds pretty cynical. Then again, I guess this is fark...

Well, it works for Chicago. I was obviously being sarcastic. If Dallas refuses to go down the Chicago path just to make a buck, I have great respect for them.

/Still wouldn't live in any non-Austin part of Texass, though.

FTA: In the first case, cameras will remain perched above the intersections they monitor but won't snap pictures of red-light runners, and therefore, won't generate $75 civil citations, which the city mails to the offending vehicles' owners.

$75?! My girlfriend got nabbed by one here in California, and it was $375 before traffic school costs, about $410 afterwards.

In LA, there are virtually no turn arrows and a good amount of red light cameras. Due to the lack of turn arrows, it is routine that 3 cars will turn at the yellow light. This has been the standard practice here for years. I can't tell you the number of times I see that camera flash go off on people turning left.

Wait, what? I thought they were for safety concerns.... why would you disable something that ensure safety? I'm so confused....


I hope it isn't about the money. How can you put a price on someone's well being.

Actually, there are companies now that offer municipalities completely FREE camera systems and maintenance just for a cut of the revenue. No cost; all profit.

I love that the government isn't even bothering to pretend they're for public safety anymore.

So wait, they contracted 62 cameras at an annual cost to the Camera manufacturer of 45K/yr per camera. Could they not maybe think 62 new traffic officers might be a better bang for the buck?

And seriously, if a company is demanding 45K per yr per camera, how is this not structured to be nothing more than a revenue generator and not necessarily to improve safety? There is no rational argument you can make that a camera needs 45K in maintenance every yr to run. The only reason this kind of money is agreed to is that the Municipality assumes they will make money off the deal.

If you are spending money on a project as an ruse to improve safety and your business model solely relies on the stated goal to never occur(reduced red light runners, and improved safety)..you are doing it wrong.

flaming99: Arthur Jumbles: FTFA: Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents.

What cost? They've already installed the cameras. If the camera sits on top of the light and nobody speeds does it really cost the city that much money?

from TFA:

"Dallas pays ACS a guaranteed $3,799 per month for each operational camera, and just a fraction of that to maintain inoperative cameras.".

shiat, that is just farking stupid. Why the hell did they out source part of their law enforcement? Does a separate company own the farking traffic lights too?

How exactly is taking a picture suppose to make things safer?

Yeah, the soccer mom in the Hummer yapping on the cell phone ran the red light, tore up the Civic, and squashed the driver like a bug. But don't worry... it was a safe accident.... we have the pics.

/or am I over analyzing?

StillH2O: Maybe this is what Dallas is doing wrong. They need to shorten their yellows to keep generating revenue.

I remember reading on Instapundit that that's exactly what some cities have done.

OTOH, some places have also programmed them to not turn the other light green if someone is running the red--a pretty good idea.

DigitalCoffee: How exactly is taking a picture suppose to make things safer?

Yeah, the soccer mom in the Hummer yapping on the cell phone ran the red light, tore up the Civic, and squashed the driver like a bug. But don't worry... it was a <i>safe</i> accident.... we have the pics.

/or am I over analyzing?

Yes, you are.

Is that the "serve" or the "protect" part in action?

And since Americans are not prone to litigate, no one who's going to be struck/killed by someone running a red will end up the cause of a lawsuit against the city that removed the cameras that might have done enough to stop such a thing happening.

Nobody would sue over that, right?

There's your money, Dallas.

Right out the courtroom doors.

here's the key, FTFA

Also, city records indicate Dallas has lengthened yellow-light intervals on 12 of its 62 monitored traffic signals, giving motorists more time to beat a red light.

If you set the light timing per ITE/MUTCD guidelines, a red light camera will *not* be profitable, unless there's other factors making people likely to run the light at that intersection, or you've got a pool of really assaholic drivers. Fact. I really object to the reporters use of the phrase "to beat a red light," the idea is to simply give a driver going at a normal speed enough time to either stop safely or proceed through the intersection before it goes red, without a dilemma zone where neither is possible. This is not a Bad Thing or accomodating negligent drivers, it's simply prudent engineering practice and something that should have been done before the cameras ever went up.

Or is that just what they want us to believe?

Unsuspecting drivers = more profit!

DigitalCoffee: How exactly is taking a picture suppose to make things safer?

Yeah, the soccer mom in the Hummer yapping on the cell phone ran the red light, tore up the Civic, and squashed the driver like a bug. But don't worry... it was a safe accident.... we have the pics.

/or am I over analyzing?


Well, one important question, is the soccer mom a MILF? Is so, I'd like to see the pics please.

DigitalCoffee: /or am I over analyzing?

Actually, I think you're under-analyzing.

just_dis_guy: If you set the light timing per ITE/MUTCD guidelines, a red light camera will *not* be profitable, unless there's other factors making people likely to run the light at that intersection, or you've got a pool of really assaholic drivers. Fact. I really object to the reporters use of the phrase "to beat a red light," the idea is to simply give a driver going at a normal speed enough time to either stop safely or proceed through the intersection before it goes red, without a dilemma zone where neither is possible. This is not a Bad Thing or accomodating negligent drivers, it's simply prudent engineering practice and something that should have been done before the cameras ever went up.

This.

/is why too many places shorten their yellow time intervals
//you know, for "safety"
///safety to continue generating revenue, that is

kmt11: In LA, there are virtually no turn arrows and a good amount of red light cameras. Due to the lack of turn arrows, it is routine that 3 cars will turn at the yellow light. This has been the standard practice here for years. I can't tell you the number of times I see that camera flash go off on people turning left.

I wish they would introduce these in Vancouver - people going left *well into the red* has become a gigantic problem.

It isn't unusual to see three cars going left after the signal has turned and traffic is already trying to move through the intersection.

If I was king of the world that would be an instant $500 fine.

If you admit that law enforcement is a profit center, aren't you admitting to extortion? Isn't that some kind of crime or something?

ne2d: OTOH, some places have also programmed them to not turn the other light green if someone is running the red--a pretty good idea.

There is already a full three-second "all red" buffer pretty much everywhere. It's damn near standard now (as it should be.)

I still say the fines should be calculated based on a graduated scale. The people getting nailed by these things when the yellow changes for crossing into the intersection a few farking hundredths of a second too late are a danger to no one. Never have been. Never will be. (Those who slam on their brakes to stop before that quick yellow changes- they are a danger. The accident numbers support this.) Regardless, a twenty five dollar fine which you can mail in and a letter to be more careful next time.

You start crossing in the 1+ second range, the fines start getting higher and higher. This is where you should start seeing your $100-400 tickets and up...

Some cocksucker on a cell-phone weaves between crossing traffic 8 seconds after the light went red, you fine them a shiatton. Then hit them. Repeatedly. Preferably with a rattan rod... kind of like in Singapore.

We need caning in this country. There are plenty of offenses that don't deserve jail time, but just a good ol'fasioned asswhipping.