Federal Highway Administration report that cameras reduce right-angle crashes while increasing rear-end crashes:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

Article with links about cameras reducing violations but increasing accidents (but if they reduce violations enough to not be profitable, they remove them):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/231629539.shtml

Article about cities shortening yellow lights to increase violations after installing cameras:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10458570-71.html

Site about yellow light shortening… of particular interest is the “Red Light Camera Information” section:
http://www.shortyellowlights.com/

If the cameras truly did what they were supposed to do, not many would have a problem with them. Unfortunately, they have unintended consequences, and enable the tweaking of an intersection to increase violations for more revenue.

For an example of how the camera companies do not want improvements to our highways for it cuts into profits:
Washington: Camera Companies Oppose Congestion Reduction Measure
Red light camera makers fund battle against Washington state ballot initiative designed to fight congestion.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2579.asp

One person talks about using cameras for surveillance purposes and nothing wrong with that, for the issue here is the cameras are used in conjunction with other mechanical equipment for the sole purpose of generating citations. If these systems were about improving a traffic situation, then why do they take measures to insure a constant rate of citations and where they have had a drop in citations (some cities also changed signal timing as part of the deal for camera systems and saw a drop in citations) the private company running the system pulls out.

An example of the system not delivering on safety or on profit:
Arizona: City Dumps Money Losing Traffic Cameras
Avondale, Arizona cancels photo enforcement after it failed to generate accident reduction or profit.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3054.asp

Reduce expnditures and put more officers on the traffic lights? Wouldn’t you have to pay the more officers? Wouldn’t that raise expenditures?

AND

“I believe this technology is a lazy man’s way out of the red light running problem ”

I agree, it looks like the lazy way to remedy the red light running problem. No car in hot pursuit. No officers tied up to do what a camera could do just as well. No sleeping. No potty breaks.

Should we always take the hard way?

David thinking tools are handy

I’m tired of watching people run through our traffic lights like they weren’t there, but I am also suspicious of a technological solution that will be expensive (as previously noted by others), and will likely grow our local government’s power over a citizen’s right to a fair system and a right to challenge the accuser.

I believe this technology is a lazy man’s way out of the red light running problem – and I strongly object to the use of this system in our county. Big Brother can stay out of our county.

I’m all for law enforcement, but I would rather have the trained eyes of an officer that can show up in court over the easily manipulated technology that county administrators hope will be a cash coffer or cash cow.

Want to stretch the Escambia County budget? Reduce expenditures, and look at ways to stretch the dollars that the taxpayers contribute to the general fund. Be responsible with the taxpayer’s hard earned money, otherwise you might find fewer and fewer taxpayers.

If you DO, then YES, throw a run-mad fit. You don’t have to assume it will happen just because it CAN happen. For that matter, they can do such trickery without using traffic cameras. I remember back when Century used to require a certain number of speeding citations per officer per shift. The town council was upset to discover it was illegal. Same thing here.

One of the benefits of living in the Sunshine State is the Sunshine Laws which would not allow such foolishness to go on too long. Fred Levin (my hero!) would save us if nobody else did. You can point out abuses and poor designs. That is good because that points out what to avoid.

Here’s another thought: You know how they use LEDs, just a bunch of glowing dots in an array to make the traffic lights? You also know how most images are made of picture elements, pixels which are basically small dots in an array? Now imagine incorporating in the amber lights a countdown to let folks know how many seconds before the amber light goes red 8 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1 – RED. (or however many seconds the things are amber)

It might help, might hurt, just a thought.

David for informed drivers

I DO like doughnuts.

But you seem to think I am involved in law enforcement. I’m not. I’m just tired of folks who think they have a right to run over anybody who gets in their way.

I’m not excusing them. Why are you?

What I was referring to was a traffic study to see what problems existed at the light; not allowing for stupid excuses by drivers.”

as·i·nine
1. ridiculous: utterly ridiculous or lacking sense
2. like ass: relating to or resembling an ass
[15th century. < Latin asininus < asinus "ass"]

I had never looked up that word before. Thanks for inspiring me to check. I've been called a lot worse.

It doesn't really matter so much what you had in mind when you wrote it. It just made me think of the excuses people DO use when involved in a fatal crash. You aren’t stupid and I don’t intend to act like you are but we both know people who will use any excuse to justify what they’ve done wrong. I listed a few.

Studies are good. Road improvements are good. Timing improvements are good. Sometimes people are bad, though.

I’m not worried about Big Brother on public roads. As long as government stays outside the house, it isn’t Big Brother. I’ve long wanted better monitoring of roads and intersections. I’ve seen plenty of bad drivers who drove that way a long time before getting others injured or killed. This strikes me as a way to get to them sooner and save a few lives in the process.

I don’t care where the money goes if it succeeds in saving a few lives. With proper monitoring, we could find DUIs, careless drivers, speeders, daredevils. Done properly we could even find robbers and murderers simply by knowing who was on the public roads in the area at the time of the crimes.

Nobody has a right to privacy in public. It’s a contradiction of terms. Public safety shouldn't be.

And David Huie Green, you should consider running for office, with the excuses you keep coming up with you sound like you would fit in with our corrupt hall of fame.
put the doughnut down and get a job producing rather than robbing.

Jan Brewer from Arizona has it right… keep the spy cams out of our county.