Comments on: Escambia Moves Toward Red Light Cameras, Could Net $3 Million Per Year

By: Get them up

Get them up — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:01:43 +0000

I am glad they are looking at putting these into place! They will make a difference.

By: silverrr

silverrr — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:27:20 +0000

These red light cameras have an nothing to do with revenue. They fine us $10 or $400 per ticket. The bottom line is still the same: obey traffic laws to keep you and others safe on the road.

By: Ricky

Ricky — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:58:31 +0000

Finally! I’m tired of people thinking there are no consequences for their dangerous actions, especially running red lights! Maybe after a few tickets they’ll change this bad behavior!

By: lillian

lillian — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 03:16:40 +0000

I just don’t understand the idea of this being a scam to make money. Putting up Red Light Cameras will help prevent accidents. You can’t put a price tag on safety and if you obey the law you have nothing to worry about.

By: Cam Wheeler

Cam Wheeler — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:49:17 +0000

And so what if money is the motivation? If that’s the kind of pain it takes to make our streets safer so be it – let the people that break the laws help balance our budget. I see far more statistics and reports, from non-interested parties, that indicate reduced accident rates and traffic deaths.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:45:08 +0000

REGARDING YOUR CITATION:
“There have not been significant reductions in collisions, while only a few of these collisions during this time frame, have actually resulted from a red light violation.”

There were few collisions due to red light violation. One wonders if there were always few or if they went down due to surveillance.

“Despite the dismal results in Grande Prairie, city officials insist their camera program should be expanded. The province recently authorized issuing automated speeding citations from the existing red light camera units.”

The elected officials looked at the results and decided they were having a problem with speeders and decided to crack down on that problem using the existing set-up.

“Only a third of citations issued by the camera program went to straight through violations. Instead, the majority of tickets were issued to drivers who made right-hand turns on red. The number of turning violations would have been higher, but several of the camera-equipped intersections had dedicated turning lanes without traffic signals.”

So given the legality of “right on red after full stop” here in this state, there would have been few violations with the system in place?

“The review found that after a full year of use, cameras generated $1.2 million in revenue along with a 126 percent increase in injury collisions.”

So the result WAS more injuries, but it does not report what the change–if any–in fatalities was. Again, a scratch and a crush are both injuries but if I had to choose…..

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:30:30 +0000

REGARDING:
” why accept a system that does not address the causes when engineering measures need to be improved and why not push for random policing that puts a public presence on enforcement and stops the violator at the time of infraction?”

And MY confusion is why you assume it must be an EITHER/OR situation? Surely engineering improvements CAN be made, surely random policing CAN be done, surely red light cameras WILL identify problem areas and problem people.

Nothing I have seen indicates only one is allowed and the others have to be ignored.

David for concerted efforts toward public safety

By: Darryl

Darryl — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:35:50 +0000

Regarding injuries and accident rates; one report:

excerpt:
“These findings are consistent with independent studies conducted over the past decade that have documented significant increases in both overall and injury accidents where red light cameras are used (view studies). Despite the dismal results in Grande Prairie, city officials insist their camera program should be expanded. The province recently authorized issuing automated speeding citations from the existing red light camera units.”

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2936.asp

I guess my confusion with supporters of these systems is this: why accept a system that does not address the causes when engineering measures need to be improved and why not push for random policing that puts a public presence on enforcement and stops the violator at the time of infraction? Because the money flow is just not there with these measures.

By: Darryl

Darryl — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:27:19 +0000

It is amazing how many of you will automatically accept the notion that all citizens who get tickets by these devices are guilty, and any measure to write citations is good. The problem is you are sacrificing sound policing methods and sacrificing sound engineering measures that do provide better public safety for a ruse. These systems have been installed not to improve safety but to generate revenue, and if it takes poorly marked intersections, short yellow signal times, etc. to keep citation counts high that is what they will do.

As to these systems reducing injury accidents, not true. Several independent studies show increase in accidents and in injuries.

Why compromise your principals, your established legal procedures, and your safety?

By: Darryl

Darryl — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:22:37 +0000

DriveSafe, if you are quoting the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety’s statistics, don’t bother. They lie through their teeth in undying support of these systems, and their goal is to get points added. You see the IIHS is an organization funded by insurance companies, and this has nothing to do with public safety for independent studies show that it does not improve safety. It is about how to make more money.