U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2009, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
11,661 posts, read 9,947,678 times
Reputation: 14993

Advertisements

Hip-hip-hooray for Montana!

Just read the forums on Phoenix regarding photo radar/stop light cameras and you'll see why I hightailed it out of Phoenix after my 3rd moving violation.

13 years in Las Vegas and not a single ticket. And if I do get one here, which will be well-well-deserved, I'm going to shock that patrol officer speechless. If he says I was doing 75 in a 65 zone, I'm going to say: You're wrong, wrong, wrong! I was doing 85!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2009, 03:32 PM
 
369 posts, read 963,581 times
Reputation: 252
Stephen_K opines:
Quote:
Traffic cams are nothing more than revenue generators. That's their main purpose. I'd like to know what the average revenue is on one... and know what the original revenue was for the intersection prior to it being installed ! Probably interesting figures to say the least.
And there is a problem with cities generating revenue from scoflaws rather than law abiding tax payers??!!

I lived with this system in Germany for about 8 years and one that nabbed you for speeding as well. The process makes think about slowing down for stop lights and driving at a safer speed. BTW on most of the Autobahn there was at that time no speed limit except near cities where the cameras were. It's nothing to get your jollies in a jingle about if you think it through. And, no, this is not some conspiracy by the United Nations or Obama to take away your liberties. It's designed to save lives. Slow down.

Last edited by grizzfan; 05-08-2009 at 03:33 PM.. Reason: Capitalization
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 05:22 PM
 
154 posts, read 35,192 times
Reputation: 52
Red light cameras violate your constitutional rights. Remember the Constitution people? You have a right to due process, trial by a jury and to present your ticket in court.

Last edited by JoeMama2009; 05-08-2009 at 05:23 PM.. Reason: reason enough
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 06:33 PM
 
Location: NW MT
1,436 posts, read 2,052,274 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzfan View Post
Stephen_K opines:

And there is a problem with cities generating revenue from scoflaws rather than law abiding tax payers??!!

I lived with this system in Germany for about 8 years and one that nabbed you for speeding as well. The process makes think about slowing down for stop lights and driving at a safer speed. BTW on most of the Autobahn there was at that time no speed limit except near cities where the cameras were. It's nothing to get your jollies in a jingle about if you think it through. And, no, this is not some conspiracy by the United Nations or Obama to take away your liberties. It's designed to save lives. Slow down.
There are plenty of things that can be done to save lives and make driving more safe BEFORE traffic cam use ! And those things that should be done before ever considering such pieces of BS equipment aren't because of the revenue they generate. Simple as that !

Like I mentioned earlier, the laws of physics will cause everyone at one time or another to run a light. It's unavoidable. It is not right that local Gov should profit from it when things can be done to keep the so called violation from happening in the first place and make it more safe when it does.

Until anyone can show me that traffic lights are delayed and times extended for cautions where traffic cams are installed, its just revenue generation and not safety that is the priority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 06:39 PM
 
989 posts, read 2,300,052 times
Reputation: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMama2009 View Post
Red light cameras violate your constitutional rights. Remember the Constitution people? You have a right to due process, trial by a jury and to present your ticket in court.
The constitution says "you have the right to face your accuser." If one pleads not guilty they can "face their accuser" (the officer signing the citation) in court.

Red light cameras, or speeding cameras for that matter, seem to have held up in court so far haven't they? I'm not asking this sarcastically, I really don't know; although I would assume they have given the amount of money they are investing into these photo cops.

Personally I don't like red light cameras, I push a yellow once in a while and I dont want my odds of getting caught to be increased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
6,488 posts, read 7,607,717 times
Reputation: 1996
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzfan View Post
And there is a problem with cities generating revenue from scoflaws rather than law abiding tax payers??!!
But it's not about scofflaws. It's about trying to make sure everyone gets a ticket, law-abiding or not, so Redflex and its kin can enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. Don't think so? Well then.. here's how redlight cameras work:

If the camera thinks you were going slow enough when you came to a stop, all is well. BUT... if you were going "too fast to stop" BUT STOPPED IN TIME ANYWAY, you will still get a ticket, because the camera sensor makes a guess that you WILL run the light even if you don't actually do so. Also, if your front bumper so much as touches that white line, you get a ticket. Doesn't matter that you weren't actually in the intersection and didn't actually run the light.

Second, if it were really about public safety, then why does the yellow light duration "need" to be REDUCED in order for the redlight camera to issue enough tickets to be profitable?? And the word here IS profitable -- for Redflex. Municipalities often wind up losing money on the deal.

In most areas that have camera-based ticketing, the ticket is no longer contestable, by decree of the local courts. If you got a camera-issued ticket you must be guilty, end of argument. Here in SoCal you aren't even ALLOWED to contest the ticket. Due process goes out the window. And the cameras are often wrong -- especially at multi-lane intersections, where it's common to get a ticket based on what the car in the next lane did. (And I certainly would not dare do a legal right-turn-on-red at a camera-controlled intersection, because the camera just might decide I was running the light.)

Go read the articles from TheNewspaper.Com: Front Page -- Redlight cameras are NOT what you believe, and they are a public safety hazard.

And read this one:
Montana City Rushes Camera Ordinance, Plans to Shorten Yellows
"In a memorandum to the city council, Billings Police Chief Rich St. John foresees the prospect of increased revenue from shortened yellow warning phases at intersections equipped with red light cameras."
Public safety? Not hardly. Every traffic safety study points to shortened yellow duration as causing more accidents. (That's why there are Federal minimums for yellow light duration, based on the speed limit at any given intersection.) But he admits flat out he wanted to do it solely to increase revenue.

The article goes on to state:
The TTI also recognized a 40 percent reduction in collisions from longer yellows and an increase in crashes of between 125 and 225 percent from shorter yellows. St. John foresees the possibility of increased crashes in Billings after the installation of cameras.
More injury accidents -- who cares, so long as we suck more money out of your wallet?? But when public safety is the primary concern:
Lawmakers in the state of Georgia recognized the value of longer yellows with a law mandating one extra second. Since it took effect in January, violations plunged 80 percent and profit dropped to a level that has forced seven cities to cancel their photo enforcement contracts.
And if you really care about public safety, read up on the problems with redlight cameras: Red Light Camera Studies Roundup

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
6,488 posts, read 7,607,717 times
Reputation: 1996
Quote:
Originally Posted by AQHA View Post
The constitution says "you have the right to face your accuser." If one pleads not guilty they can "face their accuser" (the officer signing the citation) in court.

Red light cameras, or speeding cameras for that matter, seem to have held up in court so far haven't they? I'm not asking this sarcastically, I really don't know; although I would assume they have given the amount of money they are investing into these photo cops.
Generally when the camera-based tickets can be contested, they are thrown out, for many different reasons but it boils down to not enough proof that it was you behind the wheel, or that it simply wasn't a picture of your car in the first place, or that the camera was just nutso (speeding-ticket cameras have ticketed for speeds in the 140MPH range on cars that couldn't break 80MPH downhill with a tailwind). Estimates on "bad tickets" run around 10%, from the studies I've seen, but are probably higher, as most people just fling up their hands and pay the ticket, provided it doesn't impact their insurance rate.

However, increasingly municipalities deal with this problem by making camera-based tickets NON-contestable, one way or another.

Insurance -- there's another problem. Insurance companies love these things, because in states where every ticket adds "points" to your license (and those "points" can cost you up to a grand apiece in some states), they get to jack up your rates without the tiresome formality of proving that you're an unsafe driver. It's free money for the insurance companies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 12:08 AM
 
Location: NW MT
1,436 posts, read 2,052,274 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
Most of the red light camera support that I have heard and seen has come from:

1: Government employees hoping for revenue to justify salary increases.

2: Law Enforcement people (some of them friends) that agree with #1.

3: People that have moved here from out of state and want to change the social and political climate.

4: Representative(s) of *unsaid company* that have tried to solicit my shop with promise of maintenance agreements so they can sit back and watch the money come, while paying us a monthly fee to maintain and calibrate equipment and do status monitoring.

(Not going to happen... EVER.. even if the offer was raised by a thousand percent, some of us still have principles and will not give in to that kind of greed.)

5: I've said too much already, but you get the point.
I wasn't going to say anything else about this but I guess I will touch briefly on it again without violating my disclosure agreement. A year and a half ago I sold my business. I owned and operated a surveillance product distribution co, a rather well know large Internet based business. I dealt with the very same OEM Korean manufacturers that Bosch, Pelco, Honeywell, GE ect. and all the smaller so called "manufacturers" dealt with. Visited them on a regular basis. S Korea is a wonderful place by the way !

At one point I almost added a traffic cam division but decided not to on principals that they were designed for revenue generation and had little to do with safety or security which is what my company was about. My staff and I had morals... districts wanting them did not ! And we would have had a hard time servicing them all over the US. We were big on service as there is little in the distribution end. We were big but just not big enough to be efficient on 24 hr turn around service agreements. Would have had to relinquish service control to subs which always turned out BAD... very bad. Whole other topic...

I'd love to post actual docs prepared by the OEM's regarding these devices that would really put things in perspective to the doubters... but that would violate my non disclosure agreement currently in place and jeopardize my financial future and quite frankly (no offense) you guys just aren't worth it . Almost but you fall just a little short of that ! But I can tell you without a doubt that what Rez posts and the points you make are absolutely 99.9% correct !

Safety was a sales term and a basis of moral to justify them... It's all about the coin ! I know this FIRST HAND. All else is just blowing smoke almost 100% of the time. Safety was NEVER the reason for inquiring about them.

BUT... at the same time I'm not saying that safety wouldn't be a byproduct of these devices either. Which does happen under rare circumstances in locations with the proper setup. But then they do not pay for themselves either ! Not what the district wants...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 12:10 AM
 
Location: NW MT
1,436 posts, read 2,052,274 times
Reputation: 531
Where'd your post go Timber ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2009, 12:22 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
6,488 posts, read 7,607,717 times
Reputation: 1996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephan_K View Post
Where'd your post go Timber ?
I've noticed posts disappearing here and there myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top