Comments on: Florida House Approves Use Of Red Light Cameras

By: Joe B

Joe B — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:13:52 +0000

Driving is a privilege, and under that license your driving rights can be revoked for infractions of the motor vehicle law. So happens, running a red-light is one of those infractions, one that can have deadly consequences. If cutting down on the number-s of red-light runners, who are losing self proclaiming their loss of some unwritten civil right to run red lights, too bad, grow up, get a life. Crusade for a better cause. Right now you are crusading and supporting the death of families from red-light runners. But if we must keep you crusaders happy we can always get rid of the cameras, breathalyzers, radar guns, and why not the cops too for you while you’re at it.

By: David

David — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:56 +0000

This is all about revenue, not safety. Clay Ford and Matt Hudson know that the worst, fatal accidents at intersections occur WELL into the green light cycle, due to inattentive drivers, NOT someone who misses a red light by half a second. I wonder how people would feel if they knew that this scam is sending a significant commission to foreign interests. Doesn’t matter if Crist is a Republican or an Independent, no way I’m voting for him now. Will do everything I can to make sure this is a campaign issue.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 04:18:59 +0000

REGARDING:
“Too bad Gulf Breeze has a representative that lumps running red lights (on topic) with killing school children (making sensational things up again, Clay?), ”

As best I can read the mind of a politician, what he is thinking is that those who would run red lights will sometimes run into vehicles containing school children which will sometimes kill them. Therefore, he is still on topic since he is discussing the reasonable and inevitable result of running red lights. (It won’t always happen but it WILL happen sometimes.)

Interesting thought that the times they run into and kill people MY age is not as important, probably because I have had a full life and it’s time for me to shove off anyway.

It’s good to be loved

By: whitepunknotondope

whitepunknotondope — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:32:21 +0000

“We have a lot of liberties in this country,” said Rep. Clay Ford, R-Gulf Breeze. “Running red lights and killing school children isn’t one of them.”

Too bad Gulf Breeze has a representative that lumps running red lights (on topic) with killing school children (making sensational things up again, Clay?), but the fact is this:

Why should paying the penalty for running a red light be predicated solely on the chance that a police officer sees you doing it? How many times have you seen someone pulled over for speeding when dozens of cars before and after were speeding as well? That’s selective justice and it riles me. Running a red light is a traffic offense, and the automated system of red light cameras simply makes the enforcement of that offense more consistent and efficient.

By: dunno it

dunno it — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:37:20 +0000

DHG

A big thumbs up from me!

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:25:21 +0000

Let’s see, people who run red lights kill people who get in their way.

Red light runners are a form of bully. I’m not fond of bullies, especially those who kill in the process–or even the ones who just run into me or those about whom I care deeply.

The police should catch all of them they see so they wouldn’t kill folks. The police can’t be everywhere and I don’t want enough police to put them everywhere.

Cameras are cheap and objective. (The current methods of using them may be expensive, but that is not the camera’s fault.)
Cameras don’t lie.
Cameras don’t need potty breaks.
Cameras don’t need to stop observing for any reason.
Cameras are good (actually indifferent, but definitely not bad); bullies are bad.

Intersections are public areas; there is no expectation of privacy so there is no invasion of privacy.
Run all the red lights you wish in the privacy of your own home.

Many will obey laws if they see law enforcement officers, break them if they don’t. Cameras aren’t invisible but since law breakers may miss seeing them, they will be forced to consider obeying the law at every intersection, not just those near the doughnut shop. (or where ever protection is thickest)

Criminals will be forced to pay more of the burden of dealing with criminals.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the downside here.

David for protecting the innocent
and reducing my tax burden in the process

By: MET

MET — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:47:35 +0000

Sounds like more money for the coffee shop lol!

By: Miss M

Miss M — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:29:37 +0000

It’s always about the money. And what’s worse, many areas are willing to risk the lives of motorists by reducing yellow light times in order to increase the number of offenders.

Red light cameras are unnecessary for a properly-engineered road and intersection.

http://www.shortyellowlights.com/

Very eye-opening site, especially the “Red Light Camera Information” section.

By: lazy cops

lazy cops — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:51:16 +0000

Stop me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t this the cops’ jobs? To issue you a ticket if you break the law? Come on guys…there’s always an excuse to do this or that…Though I don’t doubt people will get tickets that are deserved, I just feel that the police should step up and do their job. I understand they can’t be everywhere at once, but even when they are there in some instances, they do nothing! I have witnessed on several occassions where someone breaks the law, whether it be speeding or ‘not stopping completely before turning right on red’ and they keep going…they are giving more excuses for cops to be lazy…

By: SW

SW — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:10:55 +0000

Safety? Hardly.

Revenue? Likely.