Red light cameras being removed.
Thread started by
Nadia_is_Russian at 07.25.11 - 11:16 pm
Just came across this article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-red-light-cameras-20110727,0,6729565.story?track=rss
How do you guys feel about this?
reply
Sounds like the city will be losing a lot of money? Or if "the cameras paid for themselves", then it doesn't really matter. Are you worried more cars will be running reds now?
gado_gado07.25.11 - 11:23 pm
reply
Yes. Perhaps I should have said "how do you guys feel about this in terms of cyclists' safety?"
Nadia_is_Russian07.25.11 - 11:26 pm
reply
I feel like I want to light myself up reflectively better at night. Thanks for helping me to feel even more paranoid than usual! G'night.
gado_gado responding to a
comment by Nadia_is_Russian
07.26.11 - 12:30 am
reply
My personal distain for them on a privacy level has softened over the years. But they still creep me out a bit.
The fact they they have been "losing money" points to the fact that whatever private company runs those things has been bilking us the tax payers.
I've never felt safer because of those things. I think the RLCs can be a distraction when people are trying to make last minute decisions about stopping, going, an turning.
I'd rather see our money spent on infrastructure changes that quietly encourages everybody to drive safer, rather than a surveillance/ punishment program at .2% of all the traffic lights in LA.
trickmilla07.26.11 - 6:57 am
reply
It's all about the NiteRider son! http://www.niterider.com/rechargeable-new/
nthkl responding to a
comment by gado_gado
07.26.11 - 4:53 pm
reply
I told you I already got one of those, dad!
gado_gado responding to a
comment by nthkl
07.26.11 - 5:35 pm
reply
no. they have not been "losing" money.
the cost per intersection is $90kish for 24hr/365 enforcement of red lights. compare that to having a motorcycle cop including equipment, maintenance, salary pension and etc. on duty at the same intersection..
The city was saving money. But the public doesnt like to be cautious around intersections. The public likes to be blazé about speeding through intersections and therefore the politicians and the citizen police commission went along and took them out.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by trickmilla
07.26.11 - 7:52 pm
reply
There are exactly zero peer reviewed studies that show that red light cameras improve safety.
The vast majority of tickets were for slow rolling right turns on red, not blowing through the intersection.
Red light cameras are astonishingly economically inefficient - not only is money being sucked out of the economy (from drivers), but the politically connected company that administers the cameras charges such high fees that the City loses money.
The bullshit comparison that the company uses (the city loses less than what it would cost to have an officer there 24/7) fails to account for the fact that an officer can do so much more than snap pictures of cars rolling right on red.
bobdotorg responding to a
comment by Roadblock
07.26.11 - 10:32 pm
reply
SWITRS data shows in fact that collisions due to red light runs decreased by 62%. Dont believe the hype.
Rolling right turns are illegal and in fact a danger and menace to pededtrians and cyclists.
Safety costs money. Im not arguing that red light cameras shouldnt be run by the city. I'd rather see them run and managed by the city.
The real problem was that the courts were not pursuing the fines and collecting money because the word "may" was used in the law text rather than "shall" (collect fines)
Had the courts collected the fines the program could have paid for itself and a couple cops to make the rounds.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by bobdotorg
07.27.11 - 8:31 am
reply
More reason to look out for motorists before crossing an intersection even if the light is green
Gav07.27.11 - 4:23 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
