In article <telecom24.29.4@telecom-digest.org>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
says:
> abbygale wrote:
>> If you research the issue, you'll find that locales fond of the
>> 'red-light cameras' have nearly all decreased the "yellow" times to
>> make the systems more *profitable*. It's about revenue, not safety and
>> it's just another tax.
> You don't need red light cameras to create a short-yellow situation.
> Actually, you need nothing at all when it gets down to it if the
> municipality is that bent on illegal revenue.
> Anyway, one major city is intalling these cameras at some bad
> intersections and I be assured from both personal experience and
> national writeups that they are needed. The motorists like to run the
> lights. The intersections are rated among the top ten worst
> _nationally_. The TV sitcom "Quints" had a piece using red-light
> cameras.
They tested red light cameras in Providence and found that while the
pickings were easy, the uproar over them just wasn't worth it. People
still blow through red lights like nobodies business in this city. I see
instances of it nearly every day.
Instead the city plans to roll out something like 2,000 new parking
meters. The stated reason is to free up parking so people don't hog
spots but the reality is that it represents something like $5 million
in revenue for the city, not to mention the tickets for overtime at
those meters.
It's all about money, nothing more. If they were really concerned with
safety they'd come up with a little device that cuts the car motors
and slams on the brakes if someone looks like they're going to blow
through an intersection at a red light. I actually favor a more
draconian solution -- an 18" thick steel wall that quickly shoots up
out of the ground to stop traffic. If you're going too fast you'll
just splat against it.
Tony P. (kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net)