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.

(Sun Sentinel)   Cities have put millions of dollars into the Red Light Camera program, so naturally it's time to revisit the issue of banning them across the state   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 97
    More: Florida, red light cameras, Don Gaetz, Florida Department of Highway Safety, Department of Highways, Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Legislature, Petersburg  
•       •       •

4083 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2013 at 3:25 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-29 12:05:06 PM
img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-09-29 01:07:18 PM
They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.
 
2013-09-29 01:19:12 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.


But.. but.. safety!
 
2013-09-29 01:59:49 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.


What about ticketing out of state plates during major tourist events?

Indiana-465 (the loop around Indy) always seems to have plenty of state cops picking off out of state plates right after the 500 or a Colts game. You know, for safety.
 
2013-09-29 02:05:58 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.


So reducing the number of people running red-lights does not improve safety?
Pretty certain that you do not understand the definition of the word safety.
You do realize that running a red light is illegal and punishable by a fine. You do realize that it is cheaper to do this with an accurate camera than using a lying cop? right?

/Yes, the article addressed the possibility of increased rear-end collisions. But the net number of collisions are down and rear-ends are safer.
/Yes, the article addressed the need for uniform length yellow lights.
 
2013-09-29 02:13:56 PM
Now about those for profit prisons...
 
2013-09-29 02:16:46 PM

namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.

So reducing the number of people running red-lights does not improve safety?
Pretty certain that you do not understand the definition of the word safety.
You do realize that running a red light is illegal and punishable by a fine. You do realize that it is cheaper to do this with an accurate camera than using a lying cop? right?

/Yes, the article addressed the possibility of increased rear-end collisions. But the net number of collisions are down and rear-ends are safer.
/Yes, the article addressed the need for uniform length yellow lights.


Jesus, where have you been?  Take the police department dick out of your mouth before you talk, it's all coming out sounding like, "wharrgarbl".
 
2013-09-29 02:21:04 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.

So reducing the number of people running red-lights does not improve safety?
Pretty certain that you do not understand the definition of the word safety.
You do realize that running a red light is illegal and punishable by a fine. You do realize that it is cheaper to do this with an accurate camera than using a lying cop? right?

/Yes, the article addressed the possibility of increased rear-end collisions. But the net number of collisions are down and rear-ends are safer.
/Yes, the article addressed the need for uniform length yellow lights.

Jesus, where have you been?  Take the police department dick out of your mouth before you talk, it's all coming out sounding like, "wharrgarbl".


what a cunning argument. almost like you are a troll, rather than a human. I am so glad that you respond to my comments rather than just with an insult. thank you for spending so much of your valuable time.

you are completely correct. we should get rid of all states' rights and pass red light camera laws at the federal level. because we need more big government.

/lol
 
2013-09-29 02:38:28 PM

namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.

So reducing the number of people running red-lights does not improve safety?
Pretty certain that you do not understand the definition of the word safety.
You do realize that running a red light is illegal and punishable by a fine. You do realize that it is cheaper to do this with an accurate camera than using a lying cop? right?

/Yes, the article addressed the possibility of increased rear-end collisions. But the net number of collisions are down and rear-ends are safer.
/Yes, the article addressed the need for uniform length yellow lights.


I will agree to red light cameras with one simple change.  Have a completely neutral traffic engineering firm analyze the MINIMUM safe yellow light time for every intersection with a camera.
Set the yellow light for that interval.
THEN set the yellow light for five more seconds, during which the red light is also rapidly blinking.  After that time, the yellow goes off, the red comes on, and the camera takes a picture.
Anyone who runs those red lights has now had a HUGE yellow interval in which to safely stop.  If they decide not to, it's on them, and they deserve a ticket.
This will, of course, drop revenues at those intersections down to nearly zero, as well as drop accidents down to nearly zero.  Since it's not about revenue, but about safety, we will have solved the entire problem.
 
2013-09-29 02:40:25 PM

namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.

So reducing the number of people running red-lights does not improve safety?
Pretty certain that you do not understand the definition of the word safety.
You do realize that running a red light is illegal and punishable by a fine. You do realize that it is cheaper to do this with an accurate camera than using a lying cop? right?

/Yes, the article addressed the possibility of increased rear-end collisions. But the net number of collisions are down and rear-ends are safer.
/Yes, the article addressed the need for uniform length yellow lights.

Jesus, where have you been?  Take the police department dick out of your mouth before you talk, it's all coming out sounding like, "wharrgarbl".

what a cunning argument. almost like you are a troll, rather than a human. I am so glad that you respond to my comments rather than just with an insult. thank you for spending so much of your valuable time.

you are completely correct. we should get rid of all states' rights and pass red light camera laws at the federal level. because we need more big government.

/lol


Alright, I'll play.

Please do corroborate your implication that red light cameras result in improved safety.  Do so with credible sources and not someone's sucky blog.  This includes refuting the numerous studies that indicate that it does not, but it does improve police department revenue at a disproportionate rate.

Please also cite credible sources that all police officers lie when enforcing red lights, and that red light cameras result in a reduction in police lying.
 
2013-09-29 03:16:47 PM

dahmers love zombie: I will agree to red light cameras with one simple change.  Have a completely neutral traffic engineering firm analyze the MINIMUM safe yellow light time for every intersection with a camera.
Set the yellow light for that interval.
THEN set the yellow light for five more seconds, during which the red light is also rapidly blinking.  After that time, the yellow goes off, the red comes on, and the camera takes a picture.
Anyone who runs those red lights has now had a HUGE yellow interval in which to safely stop.  If they decide not to, it's on them, and they deserve a ticket.
This will, of course, drop revenues at those intersections down to nearly zero, as well as drop accidents down to nearly zero.  Since it's not about revenue, but about safety, we will have solved the entire problem.


which is at least what they were starting to do with uniform yellow lights.
dont get me started on the private contracts ... I get enough of that out sourcing crap in chicago
 
2013-09-29 03:21:28 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Please also cite credible sources that all police officers lie when enforcing red lights, and that red light cameras result in a reduction in police lying.


cameras capture a car running a red light. this is physical proof of a car entering the intersection while a light is red. In chicago, the police are hired based on their ability to lie constantly. I dont know about the rest of the US, but there are no known records of a cop telling the truth on the stand. In fact, they have coined a word for their testimony, testilying. This is police slang for lying under oath. Think about that for two seconds. The police have coined a word for their own actions.

/I have seen a number of red-light camera videos of people doing rolling stops and running a red light in chicago. It was crystal clear what had happened and there was zero room for debate. Strange that chicago was able to get this right.
 
2013-09-29 03:40:53 PM
FTFA:
Q: How much money does the state collect from these cameras?
A: When you pay your $158 ticket, $75 goes to the local government and $83 goes to the state.


Wrong, at least 50% goes to ATS based in Arizona.
 
2013-09-29 03:44:52 PM
I'd be in favor of red-light cameras if they would exempt "rolling right-on-red" infractions (which have not been demonstrated to be a public safety threat) and proscribe jail time for public employees/officials who manipulate red/yellow timing to increase ticketed violations.
 
2013-09-29 03:45:15 PM
I'm just back from YouTube after watching a few videos that came up for "red light running". Lots of fun there. These cameras should be staying up just for the sake of letting us watch these losers. It's worth the dollars.
 
2013-09-29 03:49:19 PM
Anyway, ten years ago in Chicago, someone would run almost every red light. The joke was red meant "four more cars!".

Today few people run red lights. I think it's because of red light cameras.
 
2013-09-29 03:49:54 PM
My main problem with red-light cameras is that they are not run or monitored by local law enforcement. They are run by private companies who usually dont even reside in the state that they operate in.

Private companies enforcing the law. It just doesnt sit right.

If they're allowed to do it... then i should be too.

I should be able to use my dash cam to snap pics of people breaking traffic laws... send them a ticket & pocket 10%.

I could make $100 every morning before i even got to work!
 
2013-09-29 03:51:06 PM

namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.

So reducing the number of people running red-lights does not improve safety?
Pretty certain that you do not understand the definition of the word safety.
You do realize that running a red light is illegal and punishable by a fine. You do realize that it is cheaper to do this with an accurate camera than using a lying cop? right?

/Yes, the article addressed the possibility of increased rear-end collisions. But the net number of collisions are down and rear-ends are safer.
/Yes, the article addressed the need for uniform length yellow lights.


Boot licker.
 
2013-09-29 03:51:10 PM
Time and time again, statistics prove that red light cameras actually INCREASE traffic accidents. Drivers see the cameras, slam on the brakes, and cause rear end collisions.
 
2013-09-29 03:51:21 PM
namatad:
cameras capture a car running a red light. this is physical proof of a car entering the intersection while a light is red.

...except that's not really true.

They also tend to do things like "show a car entering the intersection" while stopped, often with a pedestrian walking calmly in front of the car. Or catch someone for "running a red light" when they had to panic-stop in the middle of the intersection because someone else ran the light or did an illegal turn.

Or show a car going through a green light, which you have to get during the discovery part of the trial - not all jurisdictions send you the photo in the first place.

There's also the "yellow timing" issue. There is a minimum time for a yellow light, according to traffic regulations in every state. That's to give someone going at the local speed limit time enough to either make it through the intersection - or stop in a reasonable distance. What happens in real life? for some reason, the yellow lights at the intersections with red light cameras have a bizarre tendency to be very short - almost comically (or dangerously) so in some cases. At 45 MPH, the standard is supposed to be five seconds for a yellow - which somehow turns into three or four seconds on camera-monitored intersections.

The "short yellow" is part of the reason a lot of "camera" intersections have increased accident rates... while adding a second to yellow lights can drop the accident rate at an intersection by up for forty percent. On the other hand, red light camera zones like Chicago set all of their yellow lights at three seconds, no matter what the speed. A three second yellow at a 45 MPH intersection is both dangerous and lucrative...
 
2013-09-29 03:51:26 PM

traylor: I'm just back from YouTube after watching a few videos that came up for "red light running". Lots of fun there. These cameras should be staying up just for the sake of letting us watch these losers. It's worth the dollars.


I got caught by a red light camera. The city lets you watch video of your offense online. It was appalling and cured me of the habit.
 
2013-09-29 03:52:58 PM
Everything was fine with the red light cameras until they started catching rich white people.
 
2013-09-29 03:53:25 PM

jaytkay: Anyway, ten years ago in Chicago, someone would run almost every red light. The joke was red meant "four more cars!".

Today few people run red lights. I think it's because of red light cameras.



I think it's because of my magic rock.
 
2013-09-29 03:54:20 PM

cirby: On the other hand, red light camera zones like Chicago set all of their yellow lights at three seconds, no matter what the speed. A three second yellow at a 45 MPH intersection is both dangerous and lucrative
.

All yellow lights in Chicago have been three seconds for decades.
 
2013-09-29 03:54:36 PM

namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: Please also cite credible sources that all police officers lie when enforcing red lights, and that red light cameras result in a reduction in police lying.

cameras capture a car running a red light. this is physical proof of a car entering the intersection while a light is red. In chicago, the police are hired based on their ability to lie constantly. I dont know about the rest of the US, but there are no known records of a cop telling the truth on the stand. In fact, they have coined a word for their testimony, testilying. This is police slang for lying under oath. Think about that for two seconds. The police have coined a word for their own actions.

/I have seen a number of red-light camera videos of people doing rolling stops and running a red light in chicago. It was crystal clear what had happened and there was zero room for debate. Strange that chicago was able to get this right.


Sill waiting for corroboration from a credible source, and for any corroboration of your first claim.  You want to call me out for failing to engage in a real debate, you'd better be prepared to engage in one yourself.

Or, we can go back to the joke, which was that there have been many, many posts here on Fark about how red light cameras do not improve safety, and do make money for police departments and contractors, but police fight their removal on the grounds of safety and anyone who defends that behavior is a cop-sucker.

One is easier than the other, but it's your choice if you want to back your claims or not.
 
2013-09-29 03:59:07 PM
They are all over Arizona too. Either abolish them or add a timer that counts down to the red light so you have a fair ability to not get a ticket.

In case you missed it in the article, there were about a million tickets given out in Florida in 12 months.

Out of those million, only 20,000 were challenged in court. Out of those 20,000, 14,000 were overturned.

That means 70% of those challenged weren't valid.

Would everyone have the same "safety" argument if 700,000 of 1,000,000 were invalid?
 
2013-09-29 03:59:59 PM
I'm lucky enough to drive Griffin Rd in Broward almost from end to end every morning. The lights use to be synched up so if you went about 50 mph then it was an east ride. Once the cameras when up, the man changed that to cash in...biatches!
 
2013-09-29 04:02:31 PM
namatad:
Yes, the article addressed the possibility of increased rear-end collisions. But the net number of collisions are down and rear-ends are safer.

One
study suggested that - but other studies, in other locations, show a dramatic increase in accidents at camera intersections. In some cases, accidents doubled. Moreover, there's a problem with accident reporting. There's a strong tendency for accidents to move to nearby intersections - the bad drivers avoid red light cameras, so they have their accidents a block away instead.

You also have the other problem with accident reporting: cities aren't reporting accident rates at camera intersections to the state, so the increase in accidents doesn't show up on the official reports - so you "number of collisions are down" comment is not proven at all.

From a report by WPTV (West Palm Beach): "The city of West Palm Beach has had the cameras the longest, but a city spokesperson told the Contact 5 Investigators they haven't been keeping track of accidents at red light intersections."

Gee - no wonder the accident rate went down overall...
 
2013-09-29 04:04:50 PM

cirby: namatad:
cameras capture a car running a red light. this is physical proof of a car entering the intersection while a light is red.

...except that's not really true.

They also tend to do things like "show a car entering the intersection" while stopped, often with a pedestrian walking calmly in front of the car. Or catch someone for "running a red light" when they had to panic-stop in the middle of the intersection because someone else ran the light or did an illegal turn.

Or show a car going through a green light, which you have to get during the discovery part of the trial - not all jurisdictions send you the photo in the first place.

There's also the "yellow timing" issue. There is a minimum time for a yellow light, according to traffic regulations in every state. That's to give someone going at the local speed limit time enough to either make it through the intersection - or stop in a reasonable distance. What happens in real life? for some reason, the yellow lights at the intersections with red light cameras have a bizarre tendency to be very short - almost comically (or dangerously) so in some cases. At 45 MPH, the standard is supposed to be five seconds for a yellow - which somehow turns into three or four seconds on camera-monitored intersections.

The "short yellow" is part of the reason a lot of "camera" intersections have increased accident rates... while adding a second to yellow lights can drop the accident rate at an intersection by up for forty percent. On the other hand, red light camera zones like Chicago set all of their yellow lights at three seconds, no matter what the speed. A three second yellow at a 45 MPH intersection is both dangerous and lucrative...


There are no surface streets in Chicago with a 45mph limit and getting over 25 between lights is impossible
 
2013-09-29 04:05:13 PM
Just because you spent a lot of money on something means it's a good idea , kidmitter
 
2013-09-29 04:07:33 PM
jaytkay:
All yellow lights in Chicago have been three seconds for decades.

So what? It just moved the ticketing from cops to cameras. Three seconds is still far too short for any intersection with a speed limit of 30 MPH or higher. It's actually dangerous, especially for drivers who are used to sane timing on yellow lights.
 
2013-09-29 04:12:28 PM

cirby: jaytkay:
All yellow lights in Chicago have been three seconds for decades.

So what? It just moved the ticketing from cops to cameras. Three seconds is still far too short for any intersection with a speed limit of 30 MPH or higher. It's actually dangerous, especially for drivers who are used to sane timing on yellow lights.


Sorry to hear you're such a poor driver. Where do you live?

Farkers can be very helpful. Maybe someone here can suggest a good driving school for you.
 
2013-09-29 04:15:01 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Please do corroborate your implication that red light cameras result in improved safety.


The Wikipedia article on red light cameras has an extensive collection of references to articles on, and direct links to, peer-reviewed studies. IMO this issue is quite debatable, with both sides raising important points, but according to the summary, most studies show that cameras offer some improvement.

I think this is a good example of how public policy is sometimes implemented too quickly in the wake of early scientific study of a subject. But it's hard to do a more detailed study on something of this nature when it hasn't been tried on a large scale. You have to roll them out across a wide area and then study THAT impact.  That's what we did here in Florida. The results were more mixed than we thought they would be. Now we have a more complete picture, and now we (and other areas) can make a more informed decision about expansion/reduction of cameras.

You're welcome.
 
2013-09-29 04:15:09 PM
Y'know, whenever I see the phrase "red light camera," traffic lights are not the first things that come to mind.

/Is it just me?
 
2013-09-29 04:16:18 PM

Fantasta Potamus: Out of those million, only 20,000 were challenged in court. Out of those 20,000, 14,000 were overturned.

That means 70% of those challenged weren't valid.

Would everyone have the same "safety" argument if 700,000 of 1,000,000 were invalid?


Brilliant use of extrapolation there, Sparky.

/ And by brilliant I mean retarded.
 
2013-09-29 04:20:46 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level.  They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.


...and most of the revenue generated goes to the companies that lease them to the cities.

It's a scam perpetrated by bribed city council members, nothing more.
 
2013-09-29 04:21:21 PM
chitownmike:
There are no surface streets in Chicago with a 45mph limit

There's plenty with 40, and that's also way too fast for a three second yellow. Anything over 25 is too fast for a three second yellow.

It also begs the question: there are a lot of streets in Chicago (according to Google maps street views) that would have 45 MPH speed limits in any other city - are the speeds set artificially low because the traffic engineers are trying to save lives due to the stupidly-mandated short yellow lights?
 
2013-09-29 04:21:45 PM
 
2013-09-29 04:22:19 PM
Cameras can't give out tickets. That's silly. Do people actually pay those?
 
2013-09-29 04:24:17 PM
Here is the  Rice-TTI  study that doomed red light cameras in Houston.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2642.asp

The great part is that it was sponsored by the City of Houston and was intended to quiet camera critics. It also called in to light the flawed TxDOT study.
 
2013-09-29 04:25:33 PM

cirby: there are a lot of streets in Chicago (according to Google maps street views) that would have 45 MPH speed limits in any other city


Google street views includes information on appropriate speed limits?

Fascinating.
 
2013-09-29 04:27:57 PM
"They were initially sold as safety devices, but I have come to firmly believe that they are now being used as backdoor tax increases," said Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg


Someone must be up for election...
 
2013-09-29 04:28:51 PM

jaytkay: cirby: jaytkay:
All yellow lights in Chicago have been three seconds for decades.

So what? It just moved the ticketing from cops to cameras. Three seconds is still far too short for any intersection with a speed limit of 30 MPH or higher. It's actually dangerous, especially for drivers who are used to sane timing on yellow lights.

Sorry to hear you're such a poor driver. Where do you live?

Farkers can be very helpful. Maybe someone here can suggest a good driving school for you.


goodnewstoday.org

I recommend Punxsutawney Phil's Driving School. Though you may have to take it more than once.
 
2013-09-29 04:31:21 PM
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/aaa-michigan-study

http://bit.ly/15Df909

I QUIT!

Red light cameras are PURE EVIL.
No really, I changed my view on this from mixed to completely against.

Engineering to IMPROVE intersections and fark REVENUE.
 
2013-09-29 04:32:17 PM
 
2013-09-29 04:32:59 PM

cirby: One study suggested that - but other studies, in other locations, show a dramatic increase in accidents at camera intersections. In some cases, accidents doubled. Moreover, there's a problem with accident reporting. There's a strong tendency for accidents to move to nearby intersections - the bad drivers avoid red light cameras, so they have their accidents a block away instead.


that is REALLY farkED up ....

strangely enough, if we really cared about safety, why arent they taking the licenses away from people who create red-light accidents??

/who do I have to kill to lose my license? well in chicago, probably have to kill cute white girls.
 
2013-09-29 04:33:08 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: They should be banned at the Federal level. They're nothing but a revenue stream, and bear no relation to public safety.


I'll say it again, state law should say that cities and counties can't keep a cent of the revenue from fines. Instead the money would be 'returned to the public'. Meaning every year the state sends you a check for your share.

Side comment: A friend works as an accountant for a very high end retreat. half of the the groups that rent the place are various city and county agencies for their 'staff retreat and training sessions'
 
2013-09-29 04:40:52 PM

jaytkay: Fantasta Potamus: Out of those million, only 20,000 were challenged in court. Out of those 20,000, 14,000 were overturned.

That means 70% of those challenged weren't valid.

Would everyone have the same "safety" argument if 700,000 of 1,000,000 were invalid?

Brilliant use of extrapolation there, Sparky.

/ And by brilliant I mean retarded.


I'll assume your well articulated rebuttal was trying to say that just because 20,000 were challenged that maybe only that few merited a challenge and a vast majority were clear cut.

Or that someone wouldn't bother challenging them if they weren't reasonably expected to win and only a few should even go to court.

The problem with these tickets are that most people don't challenge them for many reasons. Uneducated to their rights, can't get time off of work, can't afford to take time off, etc.

I'm sure plenty of them are valid, but it's clearly not all of them.
 
2013-09-29 04:43:46 PM
Step 1: Propose legislation that would impact a powerful lobby
Step 2: I think we all know what happens here
Step 3: No change in legislation
 
2013-09-29 04:45:59 PM
thesouloftheplot.files.wordpress.com

"I watched you very carefully. Red light stop, green light go, yellow light ... go very fast."
 
Displayed 50 of 97 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