Crime

Is Your Community Profiting by Installing Traffic Cams to Monitor You?

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — You see a flash behind you as you coast through a red — sometimes you get the flash even if you run through oddly enough — and you hang you’re head. You’re not alone, one out of every five Americans lives in a community that pays a for-profit company to install and operate cameras that record traffic violations.

Report Says Traffic Camera Companies May Put Profits Over SafetyAnd while most of us have at one time speculated police departments have ticket quotas to meet, did you know that some of these contracts require cities to share revenue of tickets with the camera vendor?

Suffolk County, N.Y., for example, diverts half of the revenue from its red-light camera program to its vendor, according to the report being released Thursday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Another type of agreement – conditional “cost-neutral” contracts – also contain provisions that link payments to the number of tickets issued, although the payments are capped, the report said. Under these contracts, local governments pay a monthly fee to a camera vendor. If ticket revenues fail to cover the vendor’s fee in any given month, cities may delay payments. That gives vendors “an incentive to ensure a minimum (number) of citations are issued,” the report said.

As many as 700 communities, with a combined total of more than 60 million people, outsource their street and highway camera systems, the report found.

While vendors capture violations, police or other local officials approve which violations are issued tickets. Some contracts penalize cities if they don’t approve enough tickets, effectively setting a ticket quota, the report said. That can undermine the authority of local authorities to when to issue tickets, it said.

“Automated traffic ticketing tends to be governed by contracts that focus more on profits than safety,” said Phineas Baxandall, the report’s co-author.

Baxandall acknowledged that cash-strapped communities have a financial incentive to maximize the number of citations they issue even when they don’t use a vendor. But local governments are also accountable to voters, whereas private vendors aren’t, he said.

Red-light cameras have been effective at saving lives by deterring motorists from running lights, said Anne Fleming, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

An analysis by the institute showed they saved 159 lives from 2004 to 2008 in the 14 biggest U.S. cities with cameras. If cameras had been operating during that period in all cities with populations of more than 200,000, 815 fewer people would have died, the institute estimated.

But Baxandall said research on the effectiveness of the cameras is unsettled. Some studies, he said, show motorists who are aware of the cameras sometimes cause injuries by slamming on their brakes to avoid being caught running a light.

Some red-light camera vendors have created and bankrolled organizations like the National Coalition for Safer Roads that appear to be grassroots civic groups, but which mainly promote greater use of red-light cameras, the report said.

David Kelly, president of the safer roads coalition, said the flaw in the research group‘s study is that vendors don’t create traffic violations – motorists do.

Vendors “aren’t creating a market. The people running the red lights are creating the market,” he said.

“We have saved lives,” said Kelly, a former acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under President George W. Bush. “Do we want to have more people dying at intersections because they are running red lights, or do we want to do something about it?”

The move to privatize red-light camera and speed camera enforcement is part of a larger wave of outsourcing of government services, Kelly said.

“We have private industry all across traffic safety,” he said.

The traffic enforcement industry has amassed significant political clout that it uses to shape traffic safety regulation nationwide, the report said. Camera vendors are aggressively lobbying to expand authorization for private traffic law enforcement to more states, and are marketing enforcement systems to more communities, it said.

About half of states have authorized the use of red-light cameras.

Camera vendors employed nearly 40 lobbyists this year in Florida whose agenda included killing a bill that would have required communities to adopt longer yellow light times to increase intersection safety and killing a separate bill that would have banned red-light camera systems, the report said.

Kelly said the research group also lobbies.

Comments (130)

1 2 3 4
  • LARR
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:25am

    You can tell it’s all about the $$ – one community told the camera company they could not issue tickets for a “california” stop/right on red. Knowing that was the bulk of the revenue, the camera company pulled out of the arrangement.

    Report Post »  
    • motonutt
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:46am

      Not in my town. fortunetly we still have enough conservatives where I live that when they tried to install this system the outrage was overwhelming and they stoped the whole process. They had already installed some of the cameras, and signed a contract to run the system and the city canceled all of it and removed what they had installed. It’s funny though, the lib‘s didn’t like the intrusions either. That’s why I live where I live.

      Report Post » motonutt  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:48am

      Put all cars on rails that the government controls, then you will save even more lives. Of course the cars can only go to certain places….its for your safety. You will like it, we will prove to you that we have your best interests at heart. I got nailed once by these things and ever since then I am very paranoid about going through a yellow light. The moment the light turns red, it takes your picture. In my case it was at 35mph going what was still yellow just a fraction of a second earlier. Bammm! Its red! Your photographed and booked for the fine right on the spot. Get your summons and fine in the mail. Two photos are taken. One from the front to see your face, one from the back to grab the plate. It is not about saving lives, its all about revenue.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:51am

      Next it will be your photo in the crosswalk jaywalking, throwing a gum wrapper on the ground or spitting in a public place. All are not good citizen practices, but are we going to be monitored everywhere we go once we leave the comforts of home…oh yea they monitor us from there too..THE GOOGLES!

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • Shiroi Raion
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:05am

      These cameras are all over the place in my city.

      Report Post » Shiroi Raion  
    • theTorch
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:07am

      A 4 second yellow light will do as well, if not better, and cheaper than “make money” schemes.

      Report Post » theTorch  
    • ltb
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:12am

      Recently released emails show that the Liberal ex-mayor of Houston, Bill White, conspired to hide the fact that THE ONLY PLACES ACCIDENTS WEREN’T DECREASING IN HOUSTON WERE AT INTERSECTIONS WITH RED LIGHT CAMERAS. That’s right, I said, THE ONLY PLACES ACCIDENTS WEREN’T DECREASING IN HOUSTON WERE AT INTERSECTIONS WITH RED LIGHT CAMERAS. Evidently, people tend to slam on their brakes at red-lights with cameras, thus causing more accidents. At any rate, the way Liberals in Houston manipulated data and used grant money to get a statistical “scientist” to reach the conclusion they wanted is exactly how the UN has used billions in grants to get global warming “scientists” to reach the conclusion that global warming is caused by Man.

      http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2675.asp

      Report Post » ltb  
    • V-MAN MACE
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:26am

      Of course they are.

      They don’t even need cops anymore, they just use robots and cameras and crap. All about money, nothing about safety.

      They even removed the burden of proof from police in Ohio to say you were speeding. Now they can just say they saw you speeding…as if they have an accelerometer and radar in their eyeballs.

      Nazis and their little toys exist only to generate rveenue from you, like milking a cow in a cattle chute.

      They’re even setting up TSA road checkpoints, and plan on having on-site judges to give warrant for blood extractions, and possibly forced vaccinations.

      Stop supporting the Nazis, stop letting your tax dollars go to pay for your own surveillance and your own prison guards in this Police State.

      They have shotgun mics that can listen to you, face scanners in cameras, mobile microwave scanners, mobile guard towers, ultralight drones the size of a child’s toy bristling with all sorts of imagers, etc.

      STOP LETTING THEM DO IT!!!

      Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 1:42pm

      Of course it‘s about ’profits’. “Law enforcement” isn‘t about ’monitoring‘ or ’fining’ or any of these weak excuses they give, like a third grader getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar. This is about BIG dollars both coming into the revenue coffers AND installing surveillance infrastructure BOTH at the expense of tax payers.

      I’ve been (temp job) working in Europe the last year or so, and spending months at a time there. There is a lot of news about this stuff over there. Since London has the LARGEST surveillance network for civilian populations on earth.

      Last month I was there a woman had her purse ripped off at a restaurant (because crime is epidemic there) the entire thing was caught on camera. But the police refused to hunt through the e files because “it would take a room full of men and weeks of time to sort out. Then we would have to find him.”

      There you go. BILLIONS spent to install and operate and maintain but if you aren’t a dignitary or politician then you are meaningless in the equation.

      Wasn’t it Miami or Atlanta that recently decided it was too expensive to continue with and they are dismantling their system? Maybe it was New Orleans?

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • csbulldog
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 3:21pm

      We would have to have a traffic light before they could put a camera on it. LOL We do have one blinking yellow warning light in our town. Good thing about living in a small town.

      Report Post » csbulldog  
    • DaytonConserve
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:18am

      If these cities were truly concerned about protecting the public with these red light cameras and the newest item, speed cameras in the middle of the block, they would pool all of the revenue into a fund for reimbursing victims of uninsured/underinsured drivers. Otherwise, one must conclude that it is nothing but municipal money laundering.

      Report Post »  
  • TomFerrari
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:23am

    Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

    I don’t care if they DO make us safer. We still must ask SHOULD we use them?

    Using their efficacy as their justification would lead to cameras and microphones in your house!
    No, I am not saying that is what they are trying to do. I am pointing out, that JUST BECAUSE THEY WORK, does not mean they should be used. – If we spied on everyone, we would be able to reduce crime. But, we don’t do that. Why? Because WE ARE A FREE !

    Many California judges refuse to enforce camera tickets – especially in Los Angeles, because they are operated by 3rd parties, not by the state, and the state only takes a cut. I hear that sometimes, the fines are double a normal red-light fine, and that the corporation gets half, and the state gets half – so the state still gets its money. As such, many courts will drop the charges if you contest it – I read this is based on “non-enforcement.”

    My GPS also offers a subscription to tell you where the cameras are.

    “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
    ( I stole this from a long-ago laptop advert which depicted a person on their laptop – seated in a crowd – in a folding chair – - – at a funeral. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.)

    Report Post » TomFerrari  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:55am

      We are not really free, its just an illusion of freedom. This is only a temporary hold for now, the younger generation do not subscribe to our old American ideals of freedom, what they want is protections, security from the State at all turns. Its just a matter of time before they come up onto the city boards and higher government and say we should have more monitoring, they were monitored in their cribs so it will be a normal thing.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • SgtB
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 5:11pm

      They don’t even offer the illusion that they do work in order to make people think they are okay. Others have said it and I’ll say it again, traffic cameras make any intersection less safe. That is fact and I’ve seen it with my own eyes and driven on streets with these things. It is the exact same as if someone on the highway sees a cop car parked on the side and they are cruising 10 over. They slam on their brakes and slow down to 5 under and someone enevitably gets creamed from the rear by car that didn‘t see the cop and wasn’t expecting a person to slam on the brakes for no f’n reason. Either one, officers on the road, or cameras make us all less safe because they make people react in unnatural ways that are even less predictable than our usual unpredictable human behavior and they cause stress as well which we all know leads to a depressed immune system and a shorter life span with the increased risk of cancer. So there you have it. I believe that cops and camera cops on the shoulder of the road cause long term ill effects such as cancer. Just one more reason to get rid of them both. Don’t get me wrong, we need cops to do things like respond to 911 calls (aka, put up caution tape around the crime scene) and serve arrest warrants (probably the only really justifiable use of police), but other than that they should be community service officers and stay out of the way as we make money to pay them (which I’d rather not do).

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • dlmarsh
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:22am

    Also numerous jurisdictions around the country have found that at intersections with cameras they have shortened the time of the yellow light compared to intersections without cameras, which is illegal, in violation of their own laws and regulations.

    Report Post »  
  • Corwin of Amber
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:22am

    forget traffic cams…let us all lobby to install “work-cams” in the offices of our lazy government workers to see just how our $$$$$ are being used. Your employer probably does it to you…and you are the employer of the goverment worker…

    Report Post » Corwin of Amber  
  • Cornfed 528
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:16am

    I do understand the argument here, but we all need to drive better and the cops need to issue tickets to folks that are a half a block away from a yellow light and then speed through a red light, I got stopped for the light and I was closer to the light than them. Did they make a mistake and push on the wrong pedal? A yellow light means to slow down not speed up! Also there are people that are constantly speeding 10 to 30 mph over the speed limit what’s that about? Or how about drivers that don’t know what stop means at a stop sign, it doesn’t say ROLL it says STOP! Too many drivers have bad habits and they don’t want to pay fines or admit they are violators by habit. If I was a traffic enforcement officer I’d need several new ticket books a day. If it keeps hurting your finances you tend to quit doing it!

    Report Post »  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:01am

      Where does it stop is the question I think many are raising here. If a real law enforcement officer is not issuing the ticket and we use this system or become accustomed to it, then we’ll start using other types of electronic systems to monitor human activities and issue fines to punish them as you so aptly put. If its about using the system to enforce laws and thereby alter peoples behavour then we have fallen well off the path of being accountable through being taught by another human like a parent or even two parents. Thats the real problem. If we start relying on the state more for enforcing every human activity then we are in real trouble. I would content that your thinking on this is well intentioned but with a very bad outcome. Its the very thinking that has gotten us where we are today.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • BLS
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:42am

      Finally, someone with common sense!! It is very simple, if you want this to go away, just learn to drive!! I would wager that if everyone drove following the rules for just two to six months, the cameras would go away, insurance costs would drop, less accidents would happen, you would save fuel and maybe there would be a need to have an entire division downtown in most cities that process these violations, therefor, saving your tax dollars. You might get to where your going a minute later though!!

      Report Post » BLS  
  • Smokey_Bojangles
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:12am

    It is called Revenue Generation.Any time law enforcement or Government says they are doing something to protect you,guard your Constitution and your wallet.

    Report Post » Smokey_Bojangles  
    • Bill Rowland
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 12:07pm

      Corpus Christi admits that most people ignore the citations, under TX law you cannot put a hold on a drivers license or issue a warrant because you do not have a live witness to testify in court.

      OMG

      Report Post »  
  • mcFirst
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:10am

    of course it is – do you think county goverments have teh money to install these.

    The sales pitch from the makers is all about how much revenue the county can bring in, not about safety. I think the makers get a cut too.

    Report Post » mcFirst  
    • Hankstwocents
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:21am

      There is an ad in Motor Trend magazine selling a paint that makes plates so reflective that it overexposes the plate to these cameras. It claims to be outlawed in some states.

      Report Post »  
  • Cat
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:08am

    Government doing its best at being its worst.
    In the early 80’s, the economy was going through a hunger pang.
    A couple of unemployed entrepreneurial young ladies decided to provide for their families.
    Both were attractive single moms who knew the value of a day’s work.
    Both sold hot dogs on a busy street corner on opposite sides of the intersection.
    Both wore nothing more than a bikini top and a thong bottom while selling hot dogs.
    Both became known throughout the community as the ‘hot dog girls’
    This went on for about five months.

    Most of the community, especially the men (who were still working) patronized the entrepreneurs.
    Most residents did not.
    The idea that nearly naked women, could be viewed by children became the mantra.
    That’s not what ultimately shut their enterprises down.

    A report one evening on TV noted there were nine rear end collisions at the hot dog girls’ intersection.
    There were no deaths, only minor injuries.

    The history of auto accidents at that intersection revealed the number of rear end collisions.
    According to accident records, there were actually more rear end collisions, including several that resulted in deaths in the years before.
    Curiously, there were no death collisions of any kind during the hot dog girls’ presence.

    What was happening?
    People were slowing down to get a glimpse of nearly naked attractive women.

    Report Post » Cat  
    • ChiefGeorge
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:05am

      SO we should have these girls on every corner…in this society of show it all esp with the young girls of today, their would be no shortage of hotdog girls who would step up to sell or be sold on the corner. I don’t get your logic or what your trying to suggest here.

      Report Post » ChiefGeorge  
    • Cat
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:42am

      The first point is responsibility.
      Now we have machinery monitoring our responsibility.

      The second point is the newscaster used partial statistics to make the argument to shut the girls down because the residents were loosing their “kids are looking” argument.

      Sounds like you’re an advocate for Sharia Law … Put women in their place, under your control.

      BTW, the ‘hot dog girls’ combined income was nearly $5,000 a month selling hotdogs, which was WAY more than either of them made as secretaries.

      Report Post » Cat  
  • GeorgeWashingtonslept here
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:07am

    Yes.

    Report Post »  
  • LOD
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:01am

    OK, why is it that NO ONE discusses the constitutionality of these cameras, or should I say the lack thereof? This is just another attempt by government to get around your rights. Do I agree with people who run red lights? NO! Not the point. The point is, you get a ticket, and have to go to court, you HAVE THE RIGHT to face your accuser. (See bill of rights Amendment VI). A camera cannot be an accuser because you do not have the opportunity to cross examine a camera. Some states try to get around the “criminal” aspect by making the issue a civil procedure, in which case you can blow it off and not even show up. I guess my point here is learn your rights. Because if you do not know your rights, you don’t have any. I have beaten every ticket I have ever gotten due to the research I have done over the years and learned my rights and how to deal with the courts that constantly usurp power at your expense. Red light cameras are a dumb idea, it is another way to control the people and they should all be removed by any means possible. Government needs to stay out of our lives!

    Report Post » LOD  
    • Smokey_Bojangles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:17am

      I am Curious to know how many people disagree with the cameras still support Government forced drug testing for Food Stamps? You are using a Government supplied Road.So does that give them the right to set up these Commie cameras?It is not much different from MADD having law enforcement set up revenue generating road block/ID checks.

      Report Post » Smokey_Bojangles  
    • Al J Zira
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:32am

      LOD: Couldn’t agree more! The whole idea of cameras is to create a revenue stream for townships/cities to add to their general funds. I had a conversation with a former mayor of my town that actually boasted about a $2m yearly income from fines. I would love to know where to find the research needed to beat tickets from cameras.

      Report Post » Al J Zira  
    • SgtB
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 2:35pm

      @ Smoky Bojangles,

      Personally, I think we should destroy and then burn every traffic camera in America. Second, I am against welfare at all, but if the majority of you want to continue to steal from me to feed a third party that owns an iphone and ipad and doesn’t work, I’d at least like to know that they are not on drugs, although a more important test would be a basic grammar test or even a presentation test that grades individuals on their hygene and their communication skills in general so that they have to raise themselves to a hirable standard before they can get any assistance. Of course, the place they should learn all of the skills to do well on these test should be the home. Any parent who lets a child go off on their own without the necessary skills is a horrible person and should be publicly ridiculed.

      BURN DOWN THE TRAFFIC CAMERAS!!!!!!!
      WE DON’T NEED NO WATER, LET THE MOTH@##*&KERS BURN!

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • Fina Biscotti
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:00am

    I had a problem with a car following too close for miles – and could not get away from him – because were were in traffic.

    When we approached a light that had turned yellow, I was starting to slow down – but he speeded up.

    If I would not have moved my car – to the neutral ground area, he would have rear-ended me.

    You could see the move on the camera-shot – the trunk end of my car – and the front of his – when I was sent the invoice for the ticket. But because I moved my car – but still stopped for the red light – the camera registered that I had run the red light – when I did not.

    I still had to pay the ticket.

    Report Post »  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:15am

      that is completely screwed up. These cameras have got to go. Every intersection in my area that has these the collision rates hae tripled. it creates a road hazard for profit it inades our privacy and has to stop but who actually believes it will….

      Report Post »  
  • Fina Biscotti
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:55am

    There is a class-action suit in my city over the red-light cameras.

    Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:58am

      you have the right to face your accuser.

      Report Post »  
  • LARR
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:55am

    “HI” – there is more evidence that the cameras cause more accidents than there is that they prevent accidents. So you favor more accidents?

    Report Post »  
    • saranda
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:12am

      That is hilarious. Causing more accidents likely because some are actually now trying to stop for red lights and the idiots who speed and run yellows are hitting them. What a bunch of maroons.

      Report Post »  
    • vic138
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 5:23pm

      People “slam” on the brakes at the first turn to yellow to avoid the potential of a ticket. The person behind thinks its safe and can’t avoid an accident. These are the facts. My town just took all the cameras away because of this FACT. Think about it…

      Report Post » vic138  
  • jb.kibs
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:54am

    i hate, no loate, these headlines that ask questions…

    Report Post »  
  • LARR
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:50am

    Check out http://www.thenewspaper.com I get a daily email from them relating to camera enforcement around the country/world. Given the chance to vote on it, the citizenry has voted it down 100%. Look at the groups pushing the cameras…they are always funded by the camera operators. In fact, out west, a judge fined the camera company for coming into a community, getting a person to agree to sue the city to enforce cameras, and then denying any association in court.

    Report Post »  
  • Joel Knows
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:44am

    We’ve got one in our community where the speed limit drops from 55 to 45. The light now might have a 2 second yellow before it starts snapping pictures. The people who know about it are a safety hazard when they stop for a green light to avoid the ticket, as it’s on a pretty busy federal highway, and you cross 6 lanes.

    Another camera set-up is on another congested area where it starts snapping if you get caught in the intersection because traffic for the next light backs up across the other intersection. But then again, it goes along with the “Do Not Block Intersection” signs, problem is that you can sit through a couple of green lights waiting for the intersection to clear. On top of that the yellow light barely blinks before turning red.

    Report Post » Joel Knows  
  • birther2012.com
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:42am

    While on a trip to Washington DC, I became very familiar with traffic cams. There, the traffic lights are mounted on poles at the curbs, not hanging above the intersection as i am used to.Watching out for pedestrians crossing against the crosswalk signal, I was confused and stopped in the middle of the intersection as not to hit them. Once i began to move again, FLASH I was captured “rumming” a red light.

    Later the same day, A parking meter attendant on a Segway ticketed me for lapsed meter fee that clicked to zero as i approached about 10 deet away.

    That was a trip where I contributed fimamcially to the city of D,C. much more than I had intended!

    It’s A CONSPIRACY man!!!!

    Report Post » birther2012.com  
  • hi
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:39am

    I like the red light cameras. They definitely save lives. Driving is a privilege. Stay off the road if one doesn’t like it.
    I don’t like the speed trap cameras. They are just to generate money. We have them everywhere.I try not to speed but sometimes do by accident.

    Report Post » hi  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:56am

      yes, to travel, to leave your current position is a “privilege” and not a God given right… yeah… hmm i can’t agree…

      Report Post »  
    • dlmarsh
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:19am

      Actually driving is not a privilege, it is a right under the right to travel, the right to liberty. Do you research and find out the truth for yourself. Numerous courts including State Supreme Courts have found that driving is a right and not a privilege. One of the cases was in the Washington State Supreme Court. Read what the actual state motor vehicle codes actually say. They almost all apply only to commercial motor vehicles which means if you transport goods or ferry passengers than the motor vehicle codes apply to you. Not to almost all private passenger vehicles. Don’t believe me, verify for yourself.

      Report Post »  
    • CaPnK
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 3:09pm

      How do we separate the two as far as revenue generators? It has been show time and time again that the camera operators are getting revenue and the more tickets the more revenue. It has been proven also that they have reduced the yellow light cycles at many red light intersections to increase their revenue. It also has been shown that these vendors also have control of the signals at these intersections. C’mon man. Really?

      Report Post »  
  • Doug Harvey
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:38am

    Hey, I have an idea… slow down and stop trying to out run the yellow light. You don’t have to slam on the breaks to stop in time if you are doing the speed limit.

    Report Post »  
  • Mary Just
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:34am

    Further proof on how cowardly Americans are.

    Report Post »  
    • drkmagneto
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:47am

      Excuse me?? Where might you call home and how is it more brave than America.
      As to the red-light cameras, I agree they don’t significantly save lives and are just moneymakers for local cities who are exploring new and inventive ways to extract more revenue out of its citizens. Well, you can’t get blood out of a turnip!

      Report Post »  
  • grickm
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:20am

    In Houston, the city installed the red light cameras under a revenue sharing agreement with the company that makes them. A year later with inconclusive results on safety but lots of tickets issued, opponents of the cameras got a referendum onto the ballot. The people voted to shut the cameras down. Because of the city’s contract with a private company, the matter is now in the courts. Other cities in Texas still use the things. Personally, I believe in personal responsibility. I obey the traffic signals and oppose the use of the cameras as an intrusion on our liberty.

    Report Post » grickm  
    • Dustyluv
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:35am

      As I recall, the cameras also caused accidents because people do not want to get caught going through even a yellow light, so they slam on their brakes causing the person behind to hit them….Like all Government control, there is a consequence that is not thought of. Loss of liberty leads to death…ALWAYS!

      Report Post »  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:45am

      I just avoid the intersections that have cameras here in St Pete.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
  • mike_trivisonno
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:18am

    These devices are an expression of those in power and their quisling bureaucrats.

    If they could, they would put them in your house and on your person.

    Report Post » mike_trivisonno  
  • JLGunner
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:17am

    These cameras are nothing but profit. What happened to (under the US Constitution) being able to face your accuser in court. The lady pushing these here in the Tampa Bay area argues that her husband didn’t get a second chance when a motorist ran a red light , struck her husbands car and killed him. I feel for her loss but I will not give up liberty to coddle anyone and the cause they champion.

    Report Post » JLGunner  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:15am

    They tried the cameras here to make a fast buck, and turned out the rate fo traffic accidents went up by almost three times the usual amounts in the areas where the cameras are located.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • HKS
    Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:10am

    It’ all about the money, including police with their revenue quotas. A few chosen ones may actually work on crimes but the lions share are simply revenue generators in disguise. Those cameras are all about the money.

    Report Post » HKS  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love