When they get a camera that is able to tell if you have salt or cigarettes in your car then Mike's fiefdom will be rolling in the cash.

"The program has been successful, and we want to expand it"

I heard that the enabling statute requires proof of the safety benefits, and NYC has never submitted the required reports. Of course "successful" doesn't mean "safe" in context.

Considering he's talking about it in terms of budget, he's damn well knows it's because it would bring in a shiatload of money. People run red lights in this city like it's their job. fark em, make them pay, they're knowingly breaking the law. Maybe I'll finally be able to cross in the farking crosswalk instead of the middle of the street because 6 people ran the red to block the intersection.

Look for increased taxes on liquor, tobacco and 'comfort foods'. Expect to get nickle and dimed to death for the privilige of living in that city.

How about some jaywalking cameras with face recognition?

Expect to get nickle and dimed to death for the privilige of living in that city.

My sisters love NYC. I refuse to even drive through since Giuliani. One of his orders was for police to seize the cars of speeders, because speeding is a crime and you can seize the instruments of crime. Obviously he didn't order every car seized, just enough to make the city some money. I don't know if the cops went through with it -- I heard enough that I wasn't going into the city with or without that particular policy.

ZAZ:
My sisters love NYC. I refuse to even drive through since Giuliani. One of his orders was for police to seize the cars of speeders, because speeding is a crime and you can seize the instruments of crime. Obviously he didn't order every car seized, just enough to make the city some money. I don't know if the cops went through with it -- I heard enough that I wasn't going into the city with or without that particular policy.

For the record, I don't think anyone actually believes the lie about traffic cameras anymore. Too much data floating around out there that proves cameras are there for $$$ and not for 'safety'.

Traffic cameras should be bright orange and have a flashing light on top. For safety reasons, of course.

So in theory they could put 8 or 12 or 37 cameras at any given intersection and give you 37 tickets, all photos taken 1ms apart. If you had any hilarious notions about double jeopardy, the timestamps will take care of that. Enjoy your stay in NY, citizen.

torch: So in theory they could put 8 or 12 or 37 cameras at any given intersection and give you 37 tickets, all photos taken 1ms apart. If you had any hilarious notions about double jeopardy, the timestamps will take care of that. Enjoy your stay in NY, citizen.

Wow...you're breathtakingly stupid.

Silvara: torch: So in theory they could put 8 or 12 or 37 cameras at any given intersection and give you 37 tickets, all photos taken 1ms apart. If you had any hilarious notions about double jeopardy, the timestamps will take care of that. Enjoy your stay in NY, citizen.

Wow...you're breathtakingly stupid.

Wow, thanks for the ad hominem. Keep reading. And holding your breath.
*plonk*

torch: Wow, thanks for the ad hominem. Keep reading. And holding your breath.

No, she's right. You're breathtakingly stupid.

I have to wonder how bad a problem this is in NYC. I've been there a few times and maybe some local NYers can tell me, but how often do you actually run a red light? It seems impossible to me.

Canadian Canuck: I have to wonder how bad a problem this is in NYC. I've been there a few times and maybe some local NYers can tell me, but how often do you actually run a red light? It seems impossible to me.

Well, it's definitely not impossible, and when I stand outside my office I watch several people do it every single light change.

Canadian Canuck: how often do you actually run a red light? It seems impossible to me.

Get your sensible questions outta here, mister. You're interfering with peoples' paranoia and preconceived notions based on hearsay and no actual evidence. :P

It's NYC, the cameras will be stolen before they can snap picture number one.

New York City discusses having more traffic cameras.

FARK has a greenlit article.

Its like clockwork.

NYC tag please.

It is all the fault of those Wall Street fat cats. If their bonuses were not cut so much, the tax loss would not have to be made up from the working families.

I don't understand the disconnect people have where they demand:

a) hard time for criminals, but
b) their dangerous driving habits deserve leniency

_{/cough up the bread, or don't run the red}

Fark NYC

ZAZ: How about some jaywalking cameras with face recognition?

Expect to get nickle and dimed to death for the privilige of living in that city.

My sisters love NYC. I refuse to even drive through since Giuliani. One of his orders was for police to seize the cars of speeders, because speeding is a crime and you can seize the instruments of crime. Obviously he didn't order every car seized, just enough to make the city some money. I don't know if the cops went through with it -- I heard enough that I wasn't going into the city with or without that particular policy.

WTF man,is it that hard for you to follow a goddan speed limit?

Weaver95: Look for increased taxes on liquor, tobacco and 'comfort foods'. Expect to get nickle and dimed to death for the privilige of living in that city.

or any city really.

Hey come to texas weave we are keeping our heads above water

torch: So in theory they could put 8 or 12 or 37 cameras at any given intersection and give you 37 tickets, all photos taken 1ms apart. If you had any hilarious notions about double jeopardy, the timestamps will take care of that. Enjoy your stay in NY, citizen.

Podna: Weaver95: Look for increased taxes on liquor, tobacco and 'comfort foods'. Expect to get nickle and dimed to death for the privilige of living in that city.

or any city really.

Hey come to texas weave we are keeping our heads above water

nah, I'm gonna stick around and watch the east coast burn. There's plenty of out of the way places in there mountains to hide from the collapse of civilization. I'll hole up there with a couple/few friends and ride it out.

I don't live, work or vote there.

Not my problem.

Canadian Canuck: I have to wonder how bad a problem this is in NYC. I've been there a few times and maybe some local NYers can tell me, but how often do you actually run a red light? It seems impossible to me.

It would be easy to not run lights, except that most places with red light cameras reduce the time the yellow light stays on so it is impossible to safely stop. Even going the speed limit.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Chicago is next

Make$ perfect $en$e to me...

Instead of living within their means, your government is now predatory...It now means you should be able to use ANY means possible to keep them out of your wallets...

Completely in favor of this. Drivers need to start paying their part in this farking city

derbtastic: Completely in favor of this. Drivers need to start paying their part in this farking city

Gas taxes, registration, brake tags

You were saying?

If it's revenue they're worried about, I have a proposal:

1) Improve safety by ditching all of the red light cameras and increasing the length of yellow lights, and then

2) Open an internet donation scheme where your license plate is tied to the amount of money you donate, such that your threshold ticket speed is determined by your generosity

Weaver95: nah, I'm gonna stick around and watch the east coast burn. There's plenty of out of the way places in there mountains to hide from the collapse of civilization. I'll hole up there with a couple/few friends and ride it out.

Please leave. Please leave now. We don't want you here anymore.

Well I guess all you retards agreeing with these cameras must not have ever actually lived somewhere that they operate in.

They do nothing to make the roads any safer. If anything, they create a hazard at that intersection. I was nearly smashed from behind at a few of these different camera locations because I had to slam on my brakes because I definitely would not have made it through the 1 and 1/2 second yellow.

Now i was able to stop, but the guy behind me swerved around me, barely missing me. Well at least they got $50 from him huh? So what it almost caused an accident. Now if i would have continued to go through, I would have been a good 50 feet past the light before the other turned green.

These cameras are meant to catch people going through while its yellow. There is not a serious problem of people just blatantly running the light when its red. Except for tow truck drivers, and the police of course.

cast55: 1) Improve safety by ditching all of the red light cameras and increasing the length of yellow lights, and then

Increasing the yellow just causes people to blow through more yellow lights. Most people drive the same routes every day and (consciously or not) learn the light timings.

Here in Philly, they've only allowed 4 cameras at the four worst intersections, and they've reduced traffic accidents by 70-80% at those intersections, so it seems to me they work just fine.

/speeding cameras are a different story.

no1likesme: Canadian Canuck: I have to wonder how bad a problem this is in NYC. I've been there a few times and maybe some local NYers can tell me, but how often do you actually run a red light? It seems impossible to me.

It would be easy to not run lights, except that most places with red light cameras reduce the time the yellow light stays on so it is impossible to safely stop. Even going the speed limit.

Well that's one thing. If NY is anything like Boston -or most places in Mass.- you'll see 4 or 5 cars flying through a light long gone red, and blaring the horn at the guy who is trying to come out on his green.

/Truthfully, the few times I went in to NYC this year, I thought the traffic was a lot more civilized than Boston.

Weaver95: For the record, I don't think anyone actually believes the lie about traffic cameras anymore. Too much data floating around out there that proves cameras are there for $$$ and not for 'safety'.

If they put the cameras in school zones and park zones instead of on busy 6-lane arteries, I'd support the system.

10 km over in rush hour on an artery? Good work, have a good evening.

10 km over in front of a school? Your car should be crushed into a cube that you have to drag to work.

Ya, people that run red lights are retards. I'm all in favour of more red light cameras, because running a red is a really stupid thing to do.

On another topic, i'm not that big on speed cameras, because they're set to hit you at such modest speeds. Going 5-10 mph over the limit is obviously a violation, but it's not outright stupid to the point where you should get a $100-200 ticket for it, because it's not usually unsafe driving. I'd be ok with speed cameras if they were only set up to trigger for drivers, say, 70% over the limit (like over 55 mph in the city or 95 mph on the highway...at that point you're pushing the bounds of reasonable driving).

Or, at least, I'd like to see the speed cameras in places where speeding is dangerous--near playgrounds, shopping areas with lots of pedestrians--instead of the bottom of long hills on wide, well lit streets with no lights or stops over a long stretch. When placed like that, the goal of the camera isn't to promote safety or change driving habits, but to grab cash from unsuspecting drivers who are driving in a way most people agree is safe and sensible.

Increasing the yellow just causes people to blow through more yellow lights. Most people drive the same routes every day and (consciously or not) learn the light timings.

Actual studies, as opposed to pro-camera propaganda, prove the opposite.

While living in Houston, I saw people run red lights like crazy. It was really quite sad, and I wanted them to stop.

Then they put up some red light cameras. I didn't see much change before I left, but aren't these supposed to actually be more harmful than helpful?

I think I remember reading that more accidents occur because people see a yellow light, and slam on their brakes in order to avoid a fine. This causes rear end collisions.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading a report along those lines.

ZAZ: Actual studies, as opposed to pro-camera propaganda, prove the opposite.

[citation needed]

theMagni: 10 km over in front of a school? Your car should be crushed into a cube that you have to drag to work.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!!?

I definitely agree with school zone speed restrictions during the school day while kids are outside (and there are, what, two months out of the school year where they let kids play outside?). Where they become ludicrous is when they are issued at 3am on a Saturday.

If the show Spooks is to be believed MI5 uses their CCTV cameras every day to stop terrorists. I don't know how we don't it yet.

Don't want a ticket? Don't run a red light.

And don't give me that BS about slamming on your breaks when it turns yellow. If you follow the speed limit, you will have more than enough time to stop.

/Hates red light runners.

ScottHimself: Gas taxes, registration, brake tags

You were saying?

Those exist everywhere. Given the amount of people in New York and the importance of mass transit to this city functioning there needs to be more contribution by everyone to ensure that it is actually possible to get from point A to point B.

If you think traffic is bad now wait until everyone who rides the Z, G, M8, etc has to start driving.

Why not impound the car and auction it off?

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: I definitely agree with school zone speed restrictions during the school day while kids are outside (and there are, what, two months out of the school year where they let kids play outside?). Where they become ludicrous is when they are issued at 3am on a Saturday.

You obviously live in upstate New York; down here, there were maybe two or three weeks (in the middle of winter) where they didn't force us outside.

Also, our school zones are only in effect while the kids are actually in school, not during nights weekends or the summer.

Dr. Frisbee

Serious rear end collisions go way up. Presumably minor rear end collisions go way up too. The official statistics don't count accidents with less than $500 in damage. (Or whatever the dollar threshold is in the state for filing an accident report; it varies a bit from place to place.) We're talking about whiplash and broken glass, not scratched plastic.

More importantly, the total number of injuries and serious accidents from all causes is not reduced by cameras. Usually the totals go up. Once that became clear companies started advertising a drop in accidents "caused" by red light running. If you hit something -- or someone -- because you were watching the light instead of watching the road, your accident didn't happen in the minds of camera advocates.

Carth: If the show Spooks is to be believed MI5 uses their CCTV cameras every day to stop terrorists. I don't know how we don't it yet.

The UK has no fundamental First Amendment Right, and specifically, no implied right to privacy; they're all still the Queen's subjects, and she can do what she wants.

Installing a CCTV system in a major US city would be extremely tricky, as we are protected by the Constitution.

Private companies run this. They either get a percentage of each ticket, or they get monthly rental fees.

I have been inside one of the places that receives the pictures. Almost all of the tickets were people who ran the red light by .1 - .9 of one second.

I suggest we install Hooker-Cams (TM), so that can get pictures of Bloomberg snorting blow from a hooker's ass with one hand, while he's accepting cash bribes with the other. For the children, or for public safety, or for some other lie that he just made up...