They are currently testing 4 locations.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3477136.html

 

Yeah it sucks, but for a month they are only warnings.

 

Oh, be very careful around those cameras!

It is a little known secret that along with the cameras, some cities shorten the yellow lights.

And don't believe that load of crap about it being for safety and helping out the overworked boys in blue.... It is all about revenue enhancement.

 

i think there some on the beltway 8 and veterans memorial intersection. ahhh, i just got a ticket yesterday for speeding. dont need another one.

 

Blah! this sux! I guess Yellow doesnt mean "Go Faster" anymore!

 

Damn the man...

 

Hey, the company that gets the job, they get a percentage of the $$ from the tickets.

Most camera companies take over the entire operation, they issue the citation, get the check, take their cut and send the city what their share is... Does that sound like it's in the interest of safety to yall?

 

This is why you invest int he Photoblocker to where they cant see your plates yet its completely legal....IM going to test a theroy about hairspray someone told me and if that work ill let you guys know...But if not Photoblocker it is and ill see a bout doing a group buy for it 1can=4 plates I believe.

 

I was wondering if that stuff worked...

 

i heard that blocker works... but since most scion's look the same id figure they look for details? u know stickers etc.. etc.. would really suck.

 

Well car and driver swears by it...but will be testing another someone else said if that works $1 store here we come!

 

I hate this Big Brother technology, but since it allows cities to bring in big $$$ with no effort it is the coming thing. Anyone who opposes it because of privacy issues is painted as being anti-safety.

We have several lights hereabouts and they are great revenue enhancers, bringing in thousands in fines per day. Naturally, they have also reduced accidents at the lights where they are installed, because locals quickly figure out where they have to be extra careful.

In other SoCal cities, they had to make big refunds when the system of having the camera contractor be judge, jury, and executioner was found to be unconstitutional.

To get around this, my city has the photos "reviewed" by a sheriff's officer who is technically the actual person making the accusation. Of course, this job falls to the lowest officer on the seniority ladder and is nothing more than a rubber stamp.

All that is checked is that the plate number is legible and that the driver's face is visible. No check is run on whether the driver is the registered owner to whom the ticket is sent.

It is up to the registered owner to prove that he is innocent if he is not the driver, and they pretty much require that the registered owner provide the name of the person in the picture before he is let off the hook.

A sad thing for America when our elected officials give up our rights so readily.

 

What George said is right... however, one of the unspoken downsides is, even tho crashes IN the intersections are reduced, rear end collisions go WAY up...., SO what do you choose? A ticket or getting rear ended?

 

this sucks

 

No it doesn't. If people drove these days like they had a brain in their head we wouldn't NEED a system like this.

However there IS a need for it. Most people don't even observe stop signs anymore. Next thing you know someone gets hurt. Car wrecks destroy lives and if a camera can lessen that occurence then I think it's a good thing. All I can say is , if you don't want cameras and "big brother" watching your every move, you should obey the law and don't give em a reason. But the reality is...there will always be folks out there trying to get by with something, and making it harder on the folks who are trying to follow the rules.That's how I see it anyway.

Jim C.

 

no problem

 

That's an urban legend. . .

Legal requirement for a yellow light is three seconds on any road with a 35mph speed limit or lower, and 5 seconds on any road with a 45 speed limit and up.

Revenue, doesn't really help anyone. . . except the people who design/make/maintain/run the photo enforcement equipment. A major chunk of the revenues raised by photo enforcement goes to these "private vendors." All in all, it owuld be more cost effective to have police officers themselves post at intersections. The idea is to not waste their time and have them on call for more important things. . . and reduce traffic accidents.

Furthermore, under the letter of the law, it is illegal to accelerate through a yellow light. In fact, if the officer so wished, he/she is legally entitled to pull you over and issue a citation. It's called, "failure to obey a traffic signal." If you cannot clear an intersection without accelerating, you had enough time to stop. . . or so the logic goes.

I don't like red light camera's easy, but for a different reason. It has been proven (in some cases) that they create more accidents than they prevent. . . which negates the logic in setting them up in the first place. People end up paying attention the red light cameras instead of the road. . .

 

like i said before this sucks!!!!

 

Ah, yes, the "If it just saves one life it is worth throwing away our civil rights" argument. As Mr. Franklin said "Those who trade their their rights for safety deserve neither."

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. If there were a serious red light problem there would be other measures taken before the red light camera solution was implemented. Officers would have created "red light task forces" to concentrate on the supposed problem. I've never seen anything like this occur prior to the installation of the cameras.

What really happens is that the camera providers, such as Redflex Systems, make a presentation to the city government, showing how they can improve safety and increase revenue without any expenditure on the municipality's part. The only words that make an impact on the Powers that Be is "increase revenue". They could care less about the safety aspect except as a justifcation for the system. The camera providers, being a private business, can make political contributions to the future campaigns of the people who buy their products.

Follow the money. It flows from the people who get caught, to the government. A cut goes to the camera provider, and a cut of this goes back to the elected officials who voted for the system in the form of a "campaign contribution". Sweet deal for the pols.

 

We've had those for years in San Diego, CA.. They even had to turn em off for a while cuz so many people rallied against them. But now they are back, and more poppin up every day.