In article <telecom23.588.11@telecom-digest.org>, Tim@Backhome.org
says:
> Bitu wrote:
>> I have tested the spray myself. I triggered one of these nasty cameras
>> intentionally one early morning when there was nobody around. I saw the
>> flash go off but I have yet to receive any tickets. It is a nice
>> feeling to know that I am not driving naked. These cameras are not for
>> safety they are all about revenue. I have donated enough money to the
>> local police department. They are not going to get me again for driving
>> 5 miles over the speed limit.
> The automatic devices for slight speed violations are revenue devices
> for the most part. But, the devices that catch red light runners
> serve a genuine safety purposes. In Southern California there just
> aren't enough traffic cops. And, side collisions at intersections
> because one car ran the red light is about the leading cause of
> traffic deaths in the region these days.
But then you get those communities that play with the yellow light
timing in order to crank up the counts of red light runners.
If communities played fair I wouldn't have a problem with red light
cameras and in fact would welcome them. But until they do, I don't want
to see them in my city which by the way they already are but not in the
places where they would do the most good.
In article <telecom23.590.12@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
says:
> Ron Chapman wrote:
>> Ah. So maybe you can explain to me why cities that employ these
>> devices:
>> (a) pay nothing for them, and receive commissions from the PRIVATE
>> OPERATORS who place them; and
> That is not true. The cost of the machines is deducted from the net
> revenue of the fines received.
> Everybody supposedly thinks its good when govt "privitizes", and here
> is an example of govt doing just that.
>> (b) change the timing of the lights with such devices, in order to
>> DRAMATICALLY shorten the time of the yellow light, a change which
>> drastically increases the likelihood of your getting caught by the
>> device?
> I find that very hard to believe.
> As as the claim of "revenue enhancement", allow me to note:
> 1) One city is installing the cameras at intersections with a
> seriously high accident rate. I'm familiar with these intersections,
> and motorists routinely keep going even after the yellow goes to red.
> In other words, these aren't questionable instances, but rather the
> motorists entered the intersection clearly after their light went to
> red. The sloppy driving of motorists brought this enforcement onto
> themselves.
> 2) My own town set up a speed trap and I watched it work. The speed
> limit was 25 mph on a narrow residential street and prominently
> posted. They set the flag cutoff at 40 mph. Despite it being 40,
> they still cited many drivers flying through.
I live next door to a parking lot and watch the police setup their
speed and violation traps in there. I was talking to one of them a few
nights ago and told him he's in the wrong spot, that if they moved the
trap about 3 blocks away they'd bag a lot more speeders. So now there
are two of them and sure enough, they're tagging left and right.
But my city is becoming car hostile what with the addition of 1,900
more parking meters, and finally enforcement of the no parking within
20' of an intersection rule.
Tony P (kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net)