911Dave

$630 million sure sounds like a lot, but what percentage of the TOTAL state revenue does that represent?

heinrich

Yep ... you're 100% right .... 630 mil is truly a drop in the bucket .... I threw 630 mil out with my pocket lint just yesterday. I know that the state just wants my safety. They ae totally not interested in my money.

AO

Randy-
In the future, you might want to wear license plate shades. http://www.phantomplate.com/reflector.html

FlyingDog

I could say the same about the people who think it's really about safety drive 7000lb SUVs so that they can crush other vehicles in an accident, but I'll stick with the possibility that some of us have permanent nerve damage thanks to dumbasses stopping short because they saw a camera on top of a traffic light poll in a town that had approved red light cameras.

James-man

Just saw this thread. Sorry to be late on it.

These cars were not designed to run red lights.

They were designed to break speed limit laws (or recommendations as some see them).

Ya gotta git yer misdermeaners straight - or felonies if you are particularly ambitious.

Imo000

I agree with you. Third of the red light locations in our pilot project didn't even had a camera. There were 9 locations and only 6 cameras. They got rotated on a scheduled basis. If the techology is applied correctly this can be extremly effective. It's too bad that some people just can't see past the revenue it generates. The primary reson for them in Ontario is to reduce red light runners. We don't see a dime of the revenue that they collect and yet, still have to use our funds to maintain the entire project.

If anyone has a problem with a camera location, they should contact the proper authorities or state representative and have them correct the deficiencies. Insted of coming up with wild conspiracy theories one shoule put the same effort into doing something about it.

The suggestion of using lisence plate coverings is not leagal. You can get a ticket for obstructing the view of the plate. I have 10 years ago. Check you highway traffic act before coming up with a suggestion like this.

Ron_H

IMO said:
"We don't see a dime of the revenue that they collect and yet, still have to use our funds to maintain the entire project. "


So the revenue is collected by the private operators of the cameras? Doesn't that prove the case that the private operation of them should be or is illegal, for obvious conflict of interest reasons? Sheesh!!!!

Dave said:
"I'm not going to participate in "opinion" threads like this anymore ...." Isn't it funny how when statistics, statutes or factual material has been presented, the opinionated posters run away? Factual government statistics have been posted numerous times to support assertions as opposed to emotional "opinions", and the facts are often ignored by the opinionated parrots of conventional wisdom, who then run away and pout. Facts supporting the truth that lowering the speed limit increases accident and death rates, and red light cameras increase accident and death rates, but the opinionated parrots ignore those facts and echo vested interest authoritarian sources of falsehoods.

FlyingDog

The primary reason should be to reduce accidents and injuries. Statistics show that the cameras have the opposite effect. Politicians when presented with this information insist on installing the cameras. This is because of the revenue they generate.

I agree that running red lights is bad and should not be done. However, a camera system that takes still pictures and cannot consider circumstances is not the answer. It is a whole new problem of its own that causes more accidents and injuries than the original problem.

Imo000

[QUOTE=Ron_H]IMO said:
"We don't see a dime of the revenue that they collect and yet, still have to use our funds to maintain the entire project. "


So the revenue is collected by the private operators of the cameras? Doesn't that prove the case that the private operation of them should be or is illegal, for obvious conflict of interest reasons? Sheesh!!!!



Come on Ron...... I never said that, did I? Where did I ever say that it was a private operation? The revenue goes to the federal goverment, I guess into a large slush fund. The manufacturer of the cameras only sells the product and has nothing to do with it afterwards.

Imo000

Sorry I used the wrong choice of words. I meant to say that by reducing red light runner it eliminates a lot of the collisions that result from it.

Red light cameras do not cause more accidents. Even if it did, they will change from high speed right angle to low speed rear enders. You can’t just say that one accident is the same as another and has the same weight to it! You see, this is something that the article fails to mention. They just bluntly throw out that the number off accident has risen. I’m not even sure if even that is true. Newspapers get their facts wrong all the time. You would need to talk to the people that are involved in these project first hand, in order to make an accurate assessment.

Red UFO

I suggest Randy take the Animal House approach and get even.

You can buy a cheap paint ball gun and paint the camera Red. That way you can run Red lights all day long but they can't take your picture. The cameras don't have wiper blades on them.

The other method deployed by counter big brother groups are using lasers to jam or destroy the device. A green laser with enuff power can burn out parts of the camera and wreck it.

If the public got sick of them and started deinstallation of them randomly, that would send a message back to greedy ones. These cameras don't save lives, they just take your money and send it to hospitals to pay the illegal aliens free health care.

Like I said before just throw the ticket in the garbage. The state has no proof you were served the ticket at all. It costs more money for them to find you and serve you. Make it hard for them. You were basically charged by a traffic camera mercinaries, fight the power.

Red UFO

I've dealt with this scum that work in this area. Military contractors are who recieve the contracts and 1/2 the money. Now they made a deal with the city that every intersection will get 10 tickets per day. They get about $70 per ticket.

Then people slowed down running red lights. When daily tickets went to 7 per day. The military contractor then sued the city for default on the contract. They said not enuff people are running red lights as promised and they are losing out on pay. They wanted pay for 10 per day regardless.

Well that showed the blood thirsty savages they are. They weren't concerned about safetly, just money and wanted more red light runners for profit. Even the damn Ferengi had scrupples man.

Randy V

The rear plate photo is from the right, about 20 degrees from perpendicular, at bumper level. A 'screen' may or may not have obscured the last digit or so.

Steve - thanks again, but it sounds like it may well be a losing battle - I just paid the damn thing.

Gretch

ImoOOO, Listen up......Are you listening? We don't like the idea of Gubment' supervision, PERIOD. All your socialist rationalization is not going to change that opinion.......(which you are free to express, but it has no resonance here).

It does not matter how morally correct you think you are (NOGAF).......you don't live here, you live in Socialist Canada where the Sheeple have no choice but to put up with a government who self righteously believe they have to treat their citizenry like children. My advice to the people of Canada? :GROW A PAIR, THEN.......Go fix your own society before you try pitching your socialist treackle (sugar pie) down here.

heinrich

MMMOOOHAHAHAHA!! I'm gonna make BILLIONS I tell ya, BILLIONS .... OK Red, better delete this patent-infringing post, I just patented "Revenue Collection Photo Device Lens Wipers" aka RCPDLW .... BILLIONS!!! HAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAA!!!!