They work quite well in Houston.  So well, they are thinking about removing them because they no longer generate enough income to cover their operating expenses. 

That was part of my reason behind the value/effectiveness comment.  There have been several news stories of late about cities where the cameras are not generating enough revenue to cover their operating expenses and even a few stories of cities having to shorten the yellow light to dangerous levels in order to induce more violators and meet their budget. 

The ding-dongs on the news report red light cameras on 31st and Southwest Trafficway are imminent.

Probably the city's plan the whole time once the budget got shitty enough.

it's at 39th street, i believe. i personally support this, regardless of whether the intent is for additional revenue or public safety. people shouldn't run red lights, for obvious reasons.

It's at W. 39th and Southwest Trafficway.  Goes live today, although tickets won't be issued for 30 days.

Traffic enforcement in this city is a joke.  That's why citizen surveys show speeding is a higher concern than murder or burglary.

Red light cameras have been proven to reduce deadly t-bone crashes.  If you have a problem with being ticketed for breaking the law, then don't break the law!

i have inadvertently run many red lights at this intersection going west on 39th.  it is very easy to go through the first light when it's yellow and not realize you're going through a red light 15 feet later.

according to the city, they've addressed all DOT requirements for improving signalization and safety before installing the red light cameras. keep in mind the speed limit is technically 35 mph here, which no one follows.

Yes, 39th St, whatever...




Three cheers for the nanny state! The whole concept of facing your accuser was for the birds anyway.

Toss, I'd say the term nanny state should be reserved for those things that are made to protect us from ourselves.  Red Light cameras do serve a purpose, they protect us from the poor judgement of others. 

Just because the municipal morons and the dingbats at the news stations say that doesn't make it true.

Are you saying that running red lights should not be illegal?

Or, are you saying that someone caught on surveillance video robbing a place shouldn't be charged because a real person didn't see them?

I have no problem with the government doing a better job enforcing laws. It pisses me off when people run red lights - like their time is somehow more important than everyone elses.

Maybe these cameras will free up the police so they can ignore red light runners in other parts of town.

It pisses me off because it is an extremely dangerous thing to do.  I had a good friend seriously injured last year by someone running a red light under much the same circumstances the red light cameras are designed to curtail.  Unfortunately, it's extremely commonplace and the result is frequently an otherwise easily avoided tragedy.

I'm saying if there's a red light running problem, maybe we should use actual traffic cops to enforce the existing laws. Pretty common sense isn't that? Instead we get these bullshit cameras to dole out tickets so the lazy ass city and the lazy ass cops can neglect taking care of the job themselves. How many times have we seen of other municipalities putting these damn things in, then shortening the yellow light times, then issuing tickets for the revenue. If you people trust your government this much... well, hahhaa.



Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying - how very astute of you. Running red lights, robbery, rape, murder, and pillaging should all be legal. Exactly what I'm saying.  :roll:

You're the one who went straight to the "nanny state" and "facing your accuser" argument - which was crap. I apologize if I was somehow supposed to translate that bullshit into what was said here.

edited for spelling

Source?

Let me guess, it was funded by the IIHS...

Exactly - how many "deadly t-bone crashes" even occur on urban surface streets unless one of the participants is involved in some high speed chase or other over-the-top excessive behavior? 

Right. Virtually nobody plows through a busy intersection on purpose. The vast majority of "violators" are people who caught the end of a yellow and are no threat to anyone's safety. The dangerous folks are people who are distracted, drunk, or whatever, and are going to run the light whether there's a camera there or not.

It's a money making scheme. Nothing more. It is safety theater.

Please elucidate then on why we need not face our accusers, and why my argument was crap. What with the ironclad logic (strawman) you bandied about earlier this should be interesting.

And why would studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety be particularly suspect?  Their motive would be to reduce costs to insurers which would give them the motivation for achieving the correct conclusion to any study they conducted.  They are interested in advancing insurance company profit and not the ability of cities to raise revenues.