Traffic Ticket Cameras?

By boycotting all businesses within a half block of any red light or other types of traffic cameras that are strategically placed to generate revenue, city officials would effectively lose tax dollars in lost sales and have to put up with screaming merchants too.



That may be an effective way to fight back against big brother.



Cameras are said to help prevent accidents but they are not being placed in locations with high accident rates. They are placed where they will generate the highest revenue.



In addition to that, they also create more accidents, i.e. rear end collisions because typically the city changes the timing of the yellow light to as fast as three seconds in order to insure that extra money will be generated. People slamming on their brakes by a sudden and untimely appearance of a red light, almost instantly, causes many of us additional headaches that we don't need.



We can also slow and bottleneck traffic at these intersections by cruising through them at 10 MPH below the speed limit to assist others in not becoming victims of this added tax collection by greedy politicians.



To make this a question, I suppose I should ask, "What say ye?"



.Traffic Ticket Cameras?
I totally agree with you! I've seen what these traffic light cameras can cause! They're totally devastating traffic HAZARDS that are only being used to bring in revenue to the areas where they're located. It's also benefiting the INSURANCE Cos. by them being able to Increase Rates on the ALL the Crashes caused by these Cameras! Below is a story carried in our local paper, %26amp; reports a study done by our local University/the University of South Florida where my son is finishing his 1st yr. It fully explains my opinion on this...



Tampa, FL (March 11, 2008) -- Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Floridas elderly drivers, the researchers recommend. The report was published this month in the Florida Public Health Review, the online journal of the college and the Florida Public Health Association.



The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don鈥檛 work, said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health. Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the states high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.



Red-light cameras photograph violators who are then sent tickets in the mail. Hillsborough Co. Commissioners unanimously agreed earlier this month to install the cameras at several major intersections in the county. The devices could be adopted by more cities %26amp; counties if Florida legislators pave the way by changing a state law this spring. The USF report highlights trends in red-light running in Florida, summarizes major studies, and analyzes the automobile insurance industries financial interest in cameras. Among the findings:



* Traffic fatalities caused by red-light running are not increasing in Florida and account for less than 4 percent of the states yearly traffic deaths. In contrast, more than 22 percent of the states traffic fatalities occur at intersections for reasons other than red-light running.



* The injury rate from red-light running crashes has dropped by a third in less than a decade, indicating red-light running crashes have been continually declining in Florida without the use of cameras.



# Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs. The researchers suggest local governments follow the states lead in designing roads and improving intersections to accommodate elderly drivers, which would ultimately benefit all drivers.

鈥?Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.

鈥? Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major research design flaws, such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

** The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras. Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say. **

Langland-Orban said the findings have been known for some time. She cites a 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, reporting that red-light cameras are a hidden tax levied on motorists. The report concluded cameras are associated with increased crashes, the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running, and one researcher from the IIHS conducted most research concluding cameras are effective. %26gt;%26gt;**** Since then, studies independent of the automobile insurance industry continue to find cameras are associated with large increases in crashes.%26lt;%26lt;****

Red-light running can be reduced by engineering improvements that address factors such as signal visibility and timings, wet roads and traffic flow, the USF researchers say. The researchers suggest local governments follow the states lead in designing roads and improving intersections to accommodate elderly drivers, which would ultimately benefit all drivers.
In our city of Upland, Ca., we have had these at 3 major intersections for a long time. They are now being removed because their cost has overrode the revenue. Court fines are drastically reduced by people challenging them in court and the courts reducing the fines, sometimes below the cost of producing the ticket. Get the judges to do this more often and make it more costly to produce these tickets. Good luck to your cause.Traffic Ticket Cameras?
Did ja know that for about ten bucks + shipping you can get a wavy plate that will distort your license to the camera ONLY while others who view itwith human eyes will see it as intended.

I got one but they never got around to installing the cameras in Louisville and then I backed into something and shattered it.

They are illegal in some states so check first.

As of this writing they are still legal in KY
There are more important things to worry about than mere traffic tickets, and better things to do than waste peoples' time. There is also a critical shortage of people willing to take responsibility for their misdeeds.



It's much too easy to find ways to ruin someone else's day, and just as difficult to solve real problems affecting society.Traffic Ticket Cameras?
They only generate money in the beginning when they install the cameras. They lose money overtime because people know they are there and do not break that law. Pretty pointless
i have also noticed the thing with the yellow lights which is flat out ridiculous. where i live the yellow lights are noticeable slower than were these traffic lights are. you practically have to slam on the breaks if you are going at a normal speed. i got one and i nearly got into an accident because i didn't know what was going on. i don't know if the boycotting thing would necessarily be a good idea. i mean it's our money. it's our tax money so if the majority of the ppl don't want the lights they should probably just call their representatives and let them know that they aren't happy with it and want them removed.
Here's my view on the whole thing...pointless yet somewhat effective. I don't think it's a bad idea for safety sake, however to generate revenue...it's terrible. A.) because our police prescence should not be based on revenue but based on the motto "To Protect and Serve" When a cop pulls you over, it shouldn't be because he needs to make a buck for the revenue, it should be because of a safety violation, or law violation. However, we all know that this isn't always the case. B.) because people aren't stupid, they may not notice the prescence at first, however they WILL notice it and not break those laws....it's kind of like if you travel the same road every day for 3 years on your way to work, and every day parked next to the donut shop is a local police officer (no offense to you blue line men and women) you know they are there, therefore you always watch your speed, and focus on your driving. No problems. The same thing with the camera at the light....you know it's there you do the same....it's like having a police presence there 24/7. Only problem is.....human police officers cannot possibly catch every offender....we are human and it's impossible....The cameras however....can. Back to case at hand, can it create a safer environment, can it build revenue...yes....can it create more hazards in driving conditions, and be a major pain in the you know what....YES....Still if every driver, obeys the speed limit and rules of the road...it shouldn't be a problem..keep back at safe distances and don't run red lights, dont speed up at yellows..it means slow down and use caution.



I'm climbing off of my soapbox now....