Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So would you change your mind if you got hit by a red light runner? In this state is probably a good bet they don"t have insurance.Accidents aren't a pleasant experience, so be careful what you wish for!
Why? Do you run a lot of red lights on the way to work?
You betcha. All day long. But only when there's no room on the sidewalks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwjoyak
Or like to dodge others that are running red lights?
So as I understand it, you are implying that these things actually make intersections safer? I've yet to see one credible piece of evidence that supports that position. From the beginning the cameras have been nothing other than an additional revenue stream for the city, a de facto tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohyes
So would you change your mind if you got hit by a red light runner?
No, I don't think so. I've witnessed plenty of red light running at multiple monitored intersections, so I believe their deterrent factor is largely overrated. I've also seen drivers prematurely slam on their brakes (to avoid the red light violation) and receive a rude rear end impact that probably wouldn't have happened if the driver had just cruised through the yellow.
Basically, these things do not have the positive "safety" effect that they were touted to impart, and in fact impair the normal behavior/flow of traffic where they are installed.
So would you change your mind if you got hit by a red light runner? In this state is probably a good bet they don"t have insurance.Accidents aren't a pleasant experience, so be careful what you wish for!
The report showed the cameras did little, if anything to make the intersections safer, right?
Less of our money going to Arizona. I'm ok with that.
So would you change your mind if you got hit by a red light runner? In this state is probably a good bet they don"t have insurance.Accidents aren't a pleasant experience, so be careful what you wish for!
The issue here is that after the cameras were installed, the city shortened the yellow light. They denied it, but when confronted with evidence they changed some lights back. It was clear from the start that this was a revenue producer and not a safety issue.
Studies in other states have shown that after the installation of red cameras, intersection collisions were reduced but rear end collisions increased. Some states have also found that lengthening yellow lights by 1-2 seconds greatly decreased all accidents (which more cities would do if safety really was a concern).
So as I understand it, you are implying that these things actually make intersections safer? I've yet to see one credible piece of evidence that supports that position.
You never will see one credible piece of evidence that proves to everyone they make intersections safer... How can you prove it? It's hard enough to convince people that vaccines save lives, or that seat belts save lives, etc.
But I consider people who speed or run red lights to be dangerous. I would like to bleed their bank accounts dry... Just for general principal...
For the record (AIAC), my first exposure to red light cams was Munich Germany, 1977, they had them there, and to the best of my knowledge they still have them. But we wouldn't want to drive like the Europeans, it would be un-American.
Since these citations are not real traffic tickets, they do not affect your driving record. I think we should hire police to police those intersections which our DOT decided could not use the cams. In ABQ, it is the responsibility of APD to enforce the traffic laws at those sites. Real traffic tickets, real humans observing the laws...
For the record (AIAC), my first exposure to red light cams was Munich Germany, 1977, they had them there, and to the best of my knowledge they still have them. But we wouldn't want to drive like the Europeans, it would be un-American.
Rich
I support the European Tail-Gating Cameras. Maybe a combination of Red-Light cameras and Tail-gating cameras would yield a better result?
Other possible Cameras:
How about a cell phone camera or a make-up camera? A camera for cars burning oil? A camera for lifted trucks that don't meet DOT regulation for too wide a tire and improper fender length?
I'm all for red light and speeding cameras, should be state run and the state should get the proceeds, would help if they added points with every ticket too.
Back in England they posted signs warning you of an upcoming red light camera and the white lines on the roads at the speed cameras were an obvious giveaway. If you are too oblivious to miss the warnings then you deserve to get the points/fine (in England you got 3 points too).
They should also ban the license state covers which prevent cameras taking a clear photo, in some states the fine for this can be higher than the actual red light ticket.
I always objected to having these cameras funded by a private sector company that shared the revenue. These people forced, of just arbitrarily shortened, yellow light times to boost their take regardless of the traffic issues. If a town decides it needs these things for traffic reasons they should be budgeted, paid for and owned by the municipality involved.
Up here in the frozen north we do not have these things. As this town gets more crowded and the soccer moms are hurrying off to the games the number of folks "stretching" the green has increased. I almost always allow a count of three before I start on the green to let the unconscious or distracted clear the intersections.
You never will see one credible piece of evidence that proves to everyone they make intersections safer... How can you prove it?
I hear you. But on a personal basis, I will usually give a wide degree of latitude for such imperfect endeavors. But as I stated before, I've never seen or heard of an independent study that even comes close to validating the "safety" argument for these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM
But I consider people who speed or run red lights to be dangerous. I would like to bleed their bank accounts dry... Just for general principal...
I also consider those that run red lights to be dangerous. But additionally, I consider those that deviate significantly from the normal flow/speed of traffic around them to be dangerous as well. This includes speeders and slow pokes. To me, driving at 45-50 mph when the flow of traffic is moving at 60-65 mph is every bit as reckless as driving @ 80-90 mph in the same conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM
Since these citations are not real traffic tickets, they do not affect your driving record. I think we should hire police to police those intersections which our DOT decided could not use the cams. In ABQ, it is the responsibility of APD to enforce the traffic laws at those sites. Real traffic tickets, real humans observing the laws...
I agree 100%.
Chap
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
