If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Press-Enterprise (So. Cal))   California city threatens to sue red light camera company for tracking how many cars run red lights   (pe.com) divider line 59
    More: Strange, Murrieta, red light cameras, tracking  
•       •       •

6582 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2013 at 1:35 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-21 07:36:10 PM

Stone Meadow: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Stone Meadow: So, you still have nothing to say about their info being used to improve traffic safety, eh?

That's a myth. Red light cameras do not improve safety, they generate money.

"Yet Doherty's argument goes deeper - to the mixed bag of statistical analysis on the public benefit of the cameras. Studies have gone both ways, but the most relevant one for New Jersey was released last November, based on the incidence of accidents at camera intersections around the state. The study found that overall the number of crashes went up 0.9 percent, while the incidence of right-angle crashes, which tend to be the worst, went down 15 percent. Doherty points out, however, that the rate of rear-end collisions went up 20 percent and resulted in more injuries, and that severity of injuries in the "T-bone" crashes increased, even as the incidence dipped.
Clearly, the devil is in the details - and the details, while not yet based on long-term observation, don't make the case that intersections with cameras are safer."

It's funny, how people say "safety" and it's magically supposed to be true. It never occurs to them to follow the money. If red-light cameras were money losers or revenue-neutral they wouldn't exist, safety be damned. They are fundraisers, pure and simple.

I agree with you, which is why I was calling out namatad for claiming the data could be used to improve traffic safety.


My bad. Sometimes I lose the flow.
 
2013-04-21 07:42:04 PM

This About That: Bungles: Are you suggesting speed limits have just been randomly chosen by moon-goblins to irritate you, as opposed to vast amounts of global traffic statistics over 50 years?

As a matter of fact, a great many speed limits have been set by one or two cranky old farts in a neighborhood getting up a rabble to frighten the city council. A lot more have been concocted by commercial speed traps and red light traps. State and national highways tend to be governed by engineers. Local streets are governed by the ever-reasonable local governments and by commercial interests. If it works for commercial homeowners' association companies (and it does) it will work for commercial traffic trap extortion as well. If you have either, get out there and overturn the entity that enables it.


I don't live in a country where the speed cameras and speed limits are set by the local citycouncils, but by a national non-governmental semi-autonomous body that uses statistics, and no revenue to gain.

And the limits..... look remarkably like the US limits, Mr Tinfoil.
 
2013-04-21 07:53:56 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: That's a myth. Red light cameras do not improve safety, they generate money.


so no one drives better when they know that they might get a ticket automatically??
LOLOL


Stone Meadow: So, you still have nothing to say about their info being used to improve traffic safety, eh?


WTF are you talking about?
are you saying that the data can NOT be used to improve safety?
 
2013-04-21 07:56:48 PM

namatad: so no one drives better when they know that they might get a ticket automatically??
LOLOL


If only you had read that it increases rear-end collisions and the intensity of t-bone accidents. Clearly that indicates improved driving and/or safety. LOLOL? Yes, I'm laughing at you. What is this, AOL Instant Messenger?
 
2013-04-21 08:40:22 PM

namatad: Stone Meadow: So, you still have nothing to say about their info being used to improve traffic safety, eh?

WTF are you talking about?
are you saying that the data can NOT be used to improve safety?


WTF am I talking about? I'm talking about your claim that the data could be used to improve traffic safety. Specifically, I challenged you to show one instance...JUST ONE, where the data were used to improve traffic safety.

I'll make it easy on you. There aren't any such instances, because the camera company isn't in the business of traffic safety. It's in the business of making money off the cameras by making fighting the citation all but impossible, and use seductive and corrupting marketing pitches to local government -- you can increase revenues with our cameras -- to sell their services.

They don't give a fark about traffic safety.
 
2013-04-21 10:05:37 PM
The City of Houston and HPD manipulated the results of a HPD sponsored study conducted by Rice-Texas Transportation Institute. HPD pressured the professor doing the study to alter results.

The HPD study in the end destroyed the money grab by the city and invalidated the widely accepted TxDot-Texas Transportation Institute study that said red light cameras reduce accidents.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2156856/posts
 
2013-04-22 05:08:08 AM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: namatad: so no one drives better when they know that they might get a ticket automatically??
LOLOL

If only you had read that it increases rear-end collisions and the intensity of t-bone accidents. Clearly that indicates improved driving and/or safety. LOLOL? Yes, I'm laughing at you. What is this, AOL Instant Messenger?


Isn't the logical conclusion from that that people are speeding, and suddenly switch to "legal" behaviour when they think someone's watching?

Therefore surely the solution is *more* cameras, everywhere, so people actually obey the road laws?
 
2013-04-22 11:55:26 AM
Anybody want to start that old saw of "if voting made a difference, it would be illegal"?

This month, a Riverside County Superior Court judge ruled that the voters do not have the right to dictate traffic management.

By chance, the "judge's" name? I'd like to send a retirement card.
 
2013-04-22 11:56:46 AM

Bungles: Adolf Oliver Nipples: namatad: so no one drives better when they know that they might get a ticket automatically??
LOLOL

If only you had read that it increases rear-end collisions and the intensity of t-bone accidents. Clearly that indicates improved driving and/or safety. LOLOL? Yes, I'm laughing at you. What is this, AOL Instant Messenger?

Isn't the logical conclusion from that that people are speeding, and suddenly switch to "legal" behaviour when they think someone's watching?

Therefore surely the solution is *more* cameras, everywhere, so people actually obey the road laws?


Yes, human and canine behavior has been shown to change when the subject is aware of surveillance.
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report