Tickets a cash grab?

[tyfriend]

Apparently revenues from red light cameras are no longer profitable and future plans for installing new cameras will be stalled. The fact there are fewer tickets being given is evidence the program is working. So then why abandon expanding the program if there is a significant decrease in red light runners. :confused:


Plan to add red-light cameras on hold
Revenue from fines falls far short of projections

Paul Moloney
city hall bureau

Toronto is preparing to shelve plans to install more of its red-light cameras this year.

The problem is money. The program was supposed to pay for itself through fines. But it didn't collect nearly as much as projected last year because fewer tickets were issued than expected, and people are fighting the charges rather than just handing over $180.

Original plans called for boosting the number of cameras to 98 this year from 77, but staff are now recommending holding off until at least 2010. The postponement, outlined in the proposed operating budget for 2009, goes up for approval by city council during budget debate on March 31 and April 1.

Each camera, which takes a snapshot of the offending car's licence plate so a ticket can be mailed to its owner, costs about $100,000.

The technique has been criticized because there's no way to determine who was actually driving the car at the time of the offence, but no demerit points are charged for that reason.

Claims it would be a cash grab were mitigated by assurances that fines would be set only high enough to pay for the program.

"I'm disappointed," said Councillor Michael Thompson, who has championed expansion of the program and heavier penalties.

"We've had two women killed in my ward as a result of someone running a red light," said Thompson (Ward 37, Scarborough Centre). "For me, it's not about the money, it really is about public safety."

Thompson wants the set fine increased to $500 from $180.

"We can't compromise on public safety, but obviously we are compromising on it through this budget process."

Money is tight for the program in part because of delays in installing new cameras last year. Revenues in 2008 totalled $1.9 million, well short of the projected $5.2 million.

Instead of collecting revenues from 77 cameras all year long – at an average of three tickets per camera each day – the city had to wait until late in the year for all 77 to be installed. Delays were blamed on the need to hire and train four more officers to review the photos and issue charges.

A second factor is that while the set fine is $180, the average paid per offence is only about $95.

[careener]

Cash grab plain and simple. That's even how the companies market it. They don't work and several cities have been busted for shortening the length of yellow lights to increase revenue. The number of t-bones decrease but the number of rear end accidents spike as a result.
Are speed cameras next?

[dealmeone]

Cash grab plain and simple. That's even how the companies market it. They don't work and several cities have been busted for shortening the length of yellow lights to increase revenue. The number of t-bones decrease but the number of rear end accidents spike as a result.
Are speed cameras next?

Cash grab, plain and simple. It would be nice if they gave a rat's ass about safety but they don't. To hell with people's lives....money is the only thing that matters. I wish this was not the case but it IS and it has been proven to be.

Running red lights is one of the most dangerous forms of reckless driving (and there are many) as most accidents happen at intersections, but the motivation behind red light cameras is revenue generation rather than prevention. What is really needed are more patrols catching dangerous drivers in the act instead of just another moron hiding behind a tree with a radar gun.

[spf1971]

I wish this was not the case but it IS and it has been proven to be.



Please provide proof of this statement!

[stuntman]

Please provide proof of this statement!

He might be refering to conclusions that show, despite people stating red light cameras decrease accidents, that the cameras cause accidents:

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347197

[dealmeone]

He might be refering to conclusions that show, despite people stating red light cameras decrease accidents, that the cameras cause accidents:

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347197

And the fact that as soon as the cameras are installed, yellow light times were made shorter...an attempt ONLY get more money.

I am all for accident prevention, but the way municipalities approach it is more for collecting revenue after the alleged offence has been commited.
What's wrong with posting a sign, well in advance and perfectly visible that states that a red light camera is in operation? Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent an accident before it happens than go after the owner of the car who might not even be driving at the time? It would make more sense if you were more concerned about safety rather than money. But of course, that wouldn't generate nearly as much money for the city.

[spf1971]

He might be refering to conclusions that show, despite people stating red light cameras decrease accidents, that the cameras cause accidents:

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347197

""Before and after" studies of 38 red-light camera intersections in Toronto revealed collisions resulting in death or injury dropped 18.2 per cent. But property damage-only collisions rose 4 per cent."

The cameras don't cause accidents. The idiots following too closely cause accidents and there was still a net drop of 14.2%.

And the fact that as soon as the cameras are installed, yellow light times were made shorter...an attempt ONLY get more money.

I am all for accident prevention, but the way municipalities approach it is more for collecting revenue after the alleged offence has been commited.
What's wrong with posting a sign, well in advance and perfectly visible that states that a red light camera is in operation? Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent an accident before it happens than go after the owner of the car who might not even be driving at the time? It would make more sense if you were more concerned about safety rather than money. But of course, that wouldn't generate nearly as much money for the city.


Again please provide PROOF of your statements!!

Lets look at what we do have proof of.

""Before and after" studies of 38 red-light camera intersections in Toronto revealed collisions resulting in death or injury dropped 18.2 per cent."

"The Toronto experience showed a 26.2 per cent drop in "angle" or T-bone crashes, while rear-enders were up 10.1 per cent. Province-wide, angle crashes dropped 25.3 per cent"

These quotes are from the article you linked . It seems to me that the cameras have made the intersections safer. While it is true that rear end collisions have increased, that's as a result of people following too closely to the person in front of them.

[65505201]

""Before and after" studies of 38 red-light camera intersections in Toronto revealed collisions resulting in death or injury dropped 18.2 per cent. But property damage-only collisions rose 4 per cent."


I'd like to see where they got that 18.2% number from, and what it actually comes out to in deaths. If a 18.2% reduction means 5 less deaths, but a 4% increase in collisions means 50 more collisions...I wouldn't really say it's effective.

You really can manipulate stats to say whatever you want.

Also,
The new pedestrian countdown signals may be helping to reduce crashes at intersections, said Councillor Shelley Carroll, a member of the public works committee.

"Instead of seeing `Don't Walk' and speeding up, people are seeing the seconds tick down," Carroll said. "You're at the threshold when you can see the countdown begin, so it makes more sense to stop than to gun it."


Quite frankly, knowing how much time I have before the light turns yellow is a hell of a lot more useful that simply knowing there's a red light camera in place. If you have a combination of ped countdowns and red light cameras, how can you statistically say the reduction was due solely to the installation of cameras?

[spf1971]

I'd like to see where they got that 18.2% number from, and what it actually comes out to in deaths. If a 18.2% reduction means 5 less deaths, but a 4% increase in collisions means 50 more collisions...I wouldn't really say it's effective.

You really can manipulate stats to say whatever you want.



Tell that to the "5 people" who are still alive, I'm sure they would disagree.

A basic rule of the road is to follow at a safe distance. You have to follow at such a distance as to anticipate stopping quickly. The fact that people are rear-ending each other has one and only one cause, "following too closely".

[voodoo401]

They should raise the ticket to $500, there are too many idiots who run red and speed up for yellow or who run stops signs and have had many close calls due to these drivers.:mad:

If it saves one person it is well worth it (they should also bring back photo radar).

[stuntman]

Tell that to the "5 people" who are still alive, I'm sure they would disagree.

A basic rule of the road is to follow at a safe distance. You have to follow at such a distance as to anticipate stopping quickly. The fact that people are rear-ending each other has one and only one cause, "following too closely".


I am not taking a side here, but, when it comes to the rear enders:

1) People who slam on their brakes unexpectedly cause accidents. The cameras result in people slamming on their brakes.

2) People often complain about someone allowing too much room between them and the people ahead, "safe distance" is quite a distance. If everyone left the required safe distance the traffic would be even worse than it is today. Example: You know those chevrons on the highway....that is an official safe distance on the highway.

5 dead people.....yeah being dead sucks, but, society has always sacrificed a few for the sake of progress or money. How many lives would be saved if our asbestos stopped shipping to other countries (including the US)?

SM

[nalababe]

Quite frankly, knowing how much time I have before the light turns yellow is a hell of a lot more useful that simply knowing there's a red light camera in place. If you have a combination of ped countdowns and red light cameras, how can you statistically say the reduction was due solely to the installation of cameras?

Yellow means nothing at the intersections which are problematic. At Bayview and Eglinton, where I would like a Camera, there are 2-3 cars that start behind the intersection and cross through the intersection after red...this is from standstill....

...I wish we had more of these cameras and a much higher fine.

[stuntman]

They should raise the ticket to $500, there are too many idiots who run red and speed up for yellow or who run stops signs and have had many close calls due to these drivers.:mad:

If it saves one person it is well worth it (they should also bring back photo radar).

Are you running for Mr. Popularity?
$500 is already a lot of money/sizable deterent....how about temporary license suspension?

[spf1971]

I am not taking a side here, but, when it comes to the rear enders:

1) People who slam on their brakes unexpectedly cause accidents. The cameras result in people slamming on their brakes.

2) People often complain about someone allowing too much room between them and the people ahead, "safe distance" is quite a distance. If everyone left the required safe distance the traffic would be even worse than it is today. Example: You know those chevrons on the highway....that is an official safe distance on the highway.

5 dead people.....yeah being dead sucks, but, society has always sacrificed a few for the sake of progress or money. How many lives would be saved if our asbestos stopped shipping to other countries (including the US)?

SM

I understand with what you are saying and agree to a point but:

1. People and animals running into the streets cause people to slam on brakes, inattention causes people to slam on brakes. You still have to follow at a safe enough distance to stop.

2. People will complain about a lot of things. You can only take care of yourself and others will do as they please.

3. I wouldn't say society has always sacrificed a few for the sake of progress or money but at times it has. I guess in this case, society has sacrificed superficial damage of vehicles for the sake of lives. Personally, I'll take vehicular damage over death any day of the week.

As for asbestos, it's still one of the best fireproof materials around. There wouldn't be a space program without it. The deaths that asbestos inhalation has caused is weighed against the benefits. The cost in lives has dramatically reduced its usage.

[dealmeone]

How does ticketing the owner of the car help to rehabilitate the driver if the owner wasn't the driver? Just like photo radar, IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CASH GRAB.

If the minicipality is the slightest bit serious about going after the driver, then they will instruct police patrols to go after the drivers, instead of just throwing up a few more cash grabbing cameras and assigning whatever police they have to hiding behind trees like moron with a radar gun?

Do you seriously believe that a ticket in the mail, to possibly somebody who wasn't even driving the car, weeks after an alleged offence occured will have any effect at correcting behavior? Just like photo radar, IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CASH GRAB.

The police are only doing what they are instructed to do. I am sure that they don't enjoy informing anybody that a family member has just been killed, so why don't the municipalities take measures to prevent "accidents" rather than just looking for money after they happen? Because those measure just wouldn't generate as much money.

[spf1971]

How does ticketing the owner of the car help to rehabilitate the driver if the owner wasn't the driver? IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CASH GRAB.



If I lend my car to someone and I end up with a ticket in the mail because of it; you can sure as hell bet I will "rehabilitate" them.

I see you never provided proof to the two statements you made earlier. Does that mean you admit the "proof" doesn't exist?

[spf1971]

If the municipality is the slightest bit serious about going after the driver, then they will instruct police patrols to go after the drivers, instead of just throwing up a few more cash grabbing cameras and assigning whatever police they have to hiding behind trees like moron with a radar gun?

Are you suggesting having police stationed at every intersection? They do go after the drivers who they witness breaking the law but they can't be everywhere. You want the police to monitor drivers but just not with radar guns? Exactly what do you want them to do?


The police are only doing what they are instructed to do. I am sure that they don't enjoy informing anybody that a family member has just been killed, so why don't the municipalities take measures to prevent "accidents" rather than just looking for money after they happen? Because those measure just wouldn't generate as much money.

How should they "prevent accidents"? You obviously don't believe monitoring speeding or traffic laws is a preventative action, so what in your mind is a preventative action?

[voodoo401]

Are you running for Mr. Popularity?
$500 is already a lot of money/sizable deterent....how about temporary license suspension?

Great idea $500 plus a temp. license suspension for running red light. Unfortunately how would they know who was driving? But if a cops stops you it would be a bigger deterrent then any red light cam, I see very few people driving +50 on the highways now due to the law.

[D-Roc]

But it didn't collect nearly as much as projected last year because fewer tickets were issued than expected, and people are fighting the charges rather than just handing over $180.

I suspect the collection was short of projection because many were fighting the tickets and either getting off due to delays (or something else) or the charge was dropped to a much lower offense.

The ones who say that this is a cash grab, as well as photo radar, are the ones who get caught. If you followed the rules and not run red lights, then you will not be fined. Simple.

[phht]

I understand with what you are saying and agree to a point but:

1. People and animals running into the streets cause people to slam on brakes, inattention causes people to slam on brakes. You still have to follow at a safe enough distance to stop.

.

Researches showed that people react differently when approaching red light cam intersection thus rearend accidents increased. Other reason is that the yellow timing is tweeaked longer or shorter than a regular time. Specifically the yellow light at Finch and Donmills came up much too late after the pedestrian counter already reached 0 caused me to step on my brake early and almost got rearended. Luckily the guy following me was a good driver and he did not follow me too close at all, it was me who overreacted because i was aware of the red light cam there as i live nearby.

[dealmeone]

Are you suggesting having police stationed at every intersection? They do go after the drivers who they witness breaking the law but they can't be everywhere. You want the police to monitor drivers but just not with radar guns? Exactly what do you want them to do?



How should they "prevent accidents"? You obviously don't believe monitoring speeding or traffic laws is a preventative action, so what in your mind is a preventative action?

By having a visible police presence, as is the case in many states, the driving public would get used to the fact that their driving does not go unnoticed. If you have done any driving in the states, you will notice a marked difference in driver behavior. NO, you do not need police at every intersection (I guess I need to explain everything to your simple mind), but some visible patrols, rather than the cash grab cameras would be a step in the right direction.

Police are far more capable than simply hiding behind a tree with a radar gun, trying to catch speeders like a fisherman with a net. When dangerous driving is an issue, then some focus should be put on that, rather than simple revenue generating, which is all that photo radar and red light cameras are intended to do (neither of which addresses the actual driver of the vehicle).

I have made my point, simply enough for everybody else to understand. If you want to suck up to municipalities, then you are either very misguided or in a severe state of denial. Get a life.

[dealmeone]

If I lend my car to someone and I end up with a ticket in the mail because of it; you can sure as hell bet I will "rehabilitate" them.

I see you never provided proof to the two statements you made earlier. Does that mean you admit the "proof" doesn't exist?

It is not the job of a citizen who was not even at the scene of the alleged offence to police the driving public. The police are quite capable of that, at the time and place that the offence occured...just like cameras are capable of generating revenue.....Einstein!

[Whitedart]

Running red lights is one of the most dangerous forms of reckless driving (and there are many) as most accidents happen at intersections,

Yes it is. And how many drivers from RFD alone get caught going through red lights (including the right turn rolling stops), and then come back on here trying to receive help to get out of their ticket because their insurance may go increase?


but the motivation behind red light cameras is revenue generation rather than prevention.

Partly, but it has also worked as a deterrent to running a red at the intersections where cameras have been installed.

What is really needed are more patrols catching dangerous drivers in the act

Yes, there should be...


instead of just another moron hiding behind a tree with a radar gun.

...but then you would say the same moron is sitting watching the intersection waiting for some driver to run a red.

[Whitedart]

And the fact that as soon as the cameras are installed, yellow light times were made shorter...an attempt ONLY get more money.

If you believed the yellow light times were reduced where you got a ticket, then do an FOI request and obtain the traffic engineer's report on when and why the yellow light times were adjusted to less than normal for court.

[spf1971]

Researches showed that people react differently when approaching red light cam intersection thus rearend accidents increased. Other reason is that the yellow timing is tweeaked longer or shorter than a regular time. Specifically the yellow light at Finch and Donmills came up much too late after the pedestrian counter already reached 0 caused me to step on my brake early and almost got rearended. Luckily the guy following me was a good driver and he did not follow me too close at all, it was me who overreacted because i was aware of the red light cam there as i live nearby.

You're not the first person to claim that the Amber light has been reduced at intersections with red light cameras. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to provide any sort of proof to back up this claim.

[spf1971]

By having a visible police presence, as is the case in many states, the driving public would get used to the fact that their driving does not go unnoticed. If you have done any driving in the states, you will notice a marked difference in driver behavior. NO, you do not need police at every intersection (I guess I need to explain everything to your simple mind), but some visible patrols, rather than the cash grab cameras would be a step in the right direction.

Police are far more capable than simply hiding behind a tree with a radar gun, trying to catch speeders like a fisherman with a net. When dangerous driving is an issue, then some focus should be put on that, rather than simple revenue generating, which is all that photo radar and red light cameras are intended to do (neither of which addresses the actual driver of the vehicle).

I have made my point, simply enough for everybody else to understand. If you want to suck up to municipalities, then you are either very misguided or in a severe state of denial. Get a life.

Seeing as how you like simple explanations, here's on for you. Speeding tickets and red light tickets MEAN that your driving does not go unnoticed. You claim that police presence will change peoples driving habits. I've got news for you, the police can't be everywhere. As soon as people are out of police sight, they will go back to their old habits. The fact that people still speed and run red lights proves this. The only way to have people change their habits for good, is to make them act as if they are constantly under police supervision. You do this by making them unaware when they are and aren't under supervision.

[spf1971]

It is not the job of a citizen who was not even at the scene of the alleged offence to police the driving public. The police are quite capable of that, at the time and place that the offence occured...just like cameras are capable of generating revenue.....Einstein!

If you don't care how people drive your car, then pay the ticket. If I know someone is driving recklessly, they won't be using my car again.

[dealmeone]

If you don't care how people drive your car, then pay the ticket. If I know someone is driving recklessly, they won't be using my car again.

Fair enough, but sending out tickets, weeks after the alleged offence takes place is not nearly effective as having a police presence to address the problem when and where it occurs.

What position do you think you would be in to make a judgement on the circumstances of the offence if you were not even there? Perhaps there was some reason that the driver could not stop in time. There is no substitute for being witness to the offence when it comes to making a judgement based on the actual circumstances.

NO, there cannot be police presence at every intersection all of the time. I never suggested that. SOME presence would be an improvement though. As it is, there is very little. If the driving public was at least the slightest bit cognicent that there could be a police presence, then perhaps some would think twice about running red lights or commiting any other form of dangerous driving. Do cameras catch the drivers who weave in and out of traffic, cutting other drivers off? Leaving it all up to cameras does not do that. All it does is generate revenue...really the only motivation behind them.

I also made the point of recommending signage to inform drivers that red light cameras and photo radar is in operation ahead. Perhaps the driver might reconsider running the light or speeding. If as you say, the police cannot be everywhere, then let the public know that driving is being monitored. Would you not rather that the offence was prevented, or would that cut down on revenue generation too much? To me, saving lives is more important than the city filling up it coffers.

[spf1971]

By having a visible police presence...

Police are far more capable than simply hiding behind a tree with a radar gun, trying to catch speeders like a fisherman with a net. \.



SOME presence would be an improvement though.

Please provide a picture to show us that these police are hiding behind trees as opposed to providing the police presence that you are requesting! You're arguing that there should be more police to monitor driving but at the same time complaining that when they do monitor peoples driving, they are "hiding". Pick one argument and stick with it, please.

[spf1971]

I also made the point of recommending signage to inform drivers that red light cameras and photo radar is in operation ahead. Perhaps the driver might reconsider running the light or speeding. If as you say, the police cannot be everywhere, then let the public know that driving is being monitored. Would you not rather that the offence was prevented, or would that cut down on revenue generation too much? To me, saving lives is more important than the city filling up it coffers.

I don't know about Toronto but;

"Are the intersections with red light cameras signed to warn motorists?

Yes, all locations equipped with red light cameras are signed"

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/onthemove/driving/road_safety/motorists/red_light_cameras_en.html

"Municipalities will also be required to post signs warning motorists that the cameras are watching, in the hope that they'll think twice before racing through an intersection in an effort to beat the signal."

http://www.autonet.ca/autos/news/2004/08/10/4815043.html

[dealmeone]

Please provide a picture to show us that these police are hiding behind trees as opposed to providing the police presence that you are requesting! You're arguing that there should be more police to monitor driving but at the same time complaining that when they do monitor peoples driving, they are "hiding". Pick one argument and stick with it, please.

Please provide proof that they are not.

My point (if you were capable enough to read and figure it out) is that police should be pulled off of mindless speed trap duties and put back into patrols to monitor dangerous driving. You appear to only be interested in whatever supports revenue generation.

Why don't you try defending ANY of your arguments?

I presented multiple arguments in the hope that you might comprehend at least one.

It appears that you are nothing more than desperate to suck up to municipalities. Perhaps you somehow benefit from the revenue that is generated and you depend on it. I on the other hand would prefer that lives were saved.

[spf1971]

Please provide proof that they are not.

My point (if you were capable enough to read and figure it out) is that police should be pulled off of mindless speed trap duties and put back into patrols to monitor dangerous driving. You appear to only be interested in whatever supports revenue generation.

Why don't you try defending ANY of your arguments?

I presented multiple arguments in the hope that you might comprehend at least one.

It appears that you are nothing more than desperate to suck up to municipalities. Perhaps you somehow benefit from the revenue that is generated and you depend on it. I on the other hand would prefer that lives were saved.

You are the one making the claim that they are hiding, not me. You are aware about what they say about proving non-truths? It's your accusation, you are the one who has to prove it.

You want more police presence. What should these police do? You obviously don't want them handing out tickets (as they are simply cash grabs), so what do you want them to do? If they see someone speeding or driving dangerously, what should they do?

Right now police can seize cars of anyone driving 50km/h over the speed limit. "That's just a cash grab."

Right now police can issue tickets. "That's just a cash grab."

What do you want them to do beside simply drive around and be seen?

[spf1971]

Why don't you try defending ANY of your arguments?



You mean my argument that the cameras reduce fatal accidents and are therefore worthwhile?

Ok


""Before and after" studies of 38 red-light camera intersections in Toronto revealed collisions resulting in death or injury dropped 18.2 per cent."

"The Toronto experience showed a 26.2 per cent drop in "angle" or T-bone crashes, while rear-enders were up 10.1 per cent. Province-wide, angle crashes dropped 25.3 per cent"

These quotes are from the article you linked . It seems to me that the cameras have made the intersections safer. While it is true that rear end collisions have increased, that's as a result of people following too closely to the person in front of them.

Anything else you missed in my previous posts?

[dealmeone]

You are the one making the claim that they are hiding, not me. You are aware about what they say about proving non-truths? It's your accusation, you are the one who has to prove it.

You want more police presence. What should these police do? You obviously don't want them handing out tickets (as they are simply cash grabs), so what do you want them to do? If they see someone speeding or driving dangerously, what should they do?

Right now police can seize cars of anyone driving 50km/h over the speed limit. "That's just a cash grab."

Right now police can issue tickets. "That's just a cash grab."

What do you want them to do beside simply drive around and be seen?

They should catch offenders in the act. Give tickets where they are due, but don't rely simply on cameras to send tickets to car owners without giving any consideration of the circumstance. Give the tickets to the drivers, NOT just mailed to the owners.

I honestly do not think that you are interested in the truth. It appears that you simply want everybody to accept your claims. You would make a great politician.

[spf1971]

They should catch offenders in the act. Give tickets where they are due, but don't rely simply on cameras to send tickets to car owners without giving any consideration of the circumstance. Give the tickets to the drivers, NOT just mailed to the owners.

I honestly do not think that you are interested in the truth. It appears that you simply want everybody to accept your claims. You would make a great politician.

You already said that when they hand out tickets they are simply hiding behind trees and are only interested in a cash grab.


Police are far more capable than simply hiding behind a tree with a radar gun, trying to catch speeders like a fisherman with a net.

.

Now you're claiming that some ticket are justified? Let me guess; when you get a ticket it's a cash grab. When someone you don't like gets a ticket, it's justified.

[IntegrationByParts]

Yes, yes, yes.

Several cases of short amber lights (shorter than they should be) at red-light camera intersections have been documented in the States (so I wouldn't be surprised if it happened here).

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

A recent article in Car and Driver discusses the increase in ticket issuing to increase revenue in the state of Michigan.

[dealmeone]

You already said that when they hand out tickets they are simply hiding behind trees and are only interested in a cash grab.



Now you're claiming that some ticket are justified? Let me guess; when you get a ticket it's a cash grab. When someone you don't like gets a ticket, it's justified.

You can "guess" all you want and embelish all you want. Like a normal, sane person, read (if you can) the threads and don't just simply make up your own twisted interpretation of them to suit your own particular slanted view of them.

All I was stating (if you can comprehend this complicated notion) was that red light cameras and photo radar are nothing more than cash grabs. Unfortunately, I am unable to make this point simple enough for someone such as you to understand (DUHHH!!!).

[spf1971]

You can "guess" all you want and embelish all you want. Like a normal, sane person, read (if you can) the threads and don't just simply make up your own twisted interpretation of them to suit your own particular slanted view of them.

All I was stating (if you can comprehend this complicated notion) was that red light cameras and photo radar are nothing more than cash grabs. Unfortunately, I am unable to make this point simple enough for someone such as you to understand (DUHHH!!!).

Actually you commented on much more than just redlight cameras and photo radar. You now want to pretend like you were only talking about the cameras. Sorry but the quotes prove otherwise.

What is really needed are more patrols catching dangerous drivers in the act instead of just another moron hiding behind a tree with a radar gun.


If the minicipality is the slightest bit serious about going after the driver, then they will instruct police patrols to go after the drivers, instead of just throwing up a few more cash grabbing cameras and assigning whatever police they have to hiding behind trees like moron with a radar gun?


Police are far more capable than simply hiding behind a tree with a radar gun, trying to catch speeders like a fisherman with a net. When dangerous driving is an issue, then some focus should be put on that, rather than simple revenue generating, which is all that photo radar and red light cameras are intended to do (neither of which addresses the actual driver of the vehicle).

.

[spf1971]

Yes, yes, yes.

Several cases of short amber lights (shorter than they should be) at red-light camera intersections have been documented in the States (so I wouldn't be surprised if it happened here).

http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

A recent article in Car and Driver discusses the increase in ticket issuing to increase revenue in the state of Michigan.

And in the UK people drive on the left side of the road. Unfortunately we are neither in the UK nor in the US, so what happens there really means nothing.

[camber]

I don't agree with redlight tickets because they don't go after the actual driver of the car. Therefore, there is no assignment of demerit points that could potentially remove an unfit driver from our streets.

Anyways, if the government were truly concerned about intersection safety, they would switch to traffic circles a long time ago. You can find decades worth of studies showing that traffic circles are safer and more cost effective then our light controlled intersections.

I think that there have been enough recent stories from Canada, to prove that traffic ticket quotas exist and that cities/provinces use trafffic tickets as a revenue stream.

[phht]

Make traffic violation a criminal offence for the safety of our kids or the system is simply a cash grab. Plain and simple.

[camber]

Make traffic violation a criminal offence for the safety of our kids or the system is simply a cash grab. Plain and simple.

:lol:

Well, if the goal is to save lives then their are much more pressing issues then traffic safety. It's no where near top, as far as preventable deaths are concerned.

[Nikita]

""Before and after" studies of 38 red-light camera intersections in Toronto revealed collisions resulting in death or injury dropped 18.2 per cent. But property damage-only collisions rose 4 per cent."

The cameras don't cause accidents. The idiots following too closely cause accidents and there was still a net drop of 14.2%.

To use your own very repetitive quote:


please provide PROOF of your statements!!



...if you can't, I guess we can assume, as you do:


Does that mean you admit the "proof" doesn't exist?



I'd like to see where they got that 18.2% number from, and what it actually comes out to in deaths. If a 18.2% reduction means 5 less deaths, but a 4% increase in collisions means 50 more collisions...I wouldn't really say it's effective.

You really can manipulate stats to say whatever you want.

Yep, you know the old saying 'there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics'.

[spf1971]

To use your own very repetitive quote:




.

Are you claiming that the cameras cause people to follow too closely and therefore rear-end someone? Please explain how in the hell a camera can cause an accident? I would love to hear that defense! "It was the camera your honor, it made me follow too closely"!

As for the proof that it's the people following too closely that cause they accidents, I'll have to refer you to this
http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf and you can read about "Rules for Automobiles Travelling in the Same Direction and Lane"

[bembol]

Cash grab, plain and simple. It would be nice if they gave a rat's ass about safety but they don't. To hell with people's lives....money is the only thing that matters. I wish this was not the case but it IS and it has been proven to be.

Running red lights is one of the most dangerous forms of reckless driving (and there are many) as most accidents happen at intersections, but the motivation behind red light cameras is revenue generation rather than prevention. What is really needed are more patrols catching dangerous drivers in the act instead of just another moron hiding behind a tree with a radar gun.

+1

Bovaird and Bramalea, just before the light.

[dealmeone]

And the concensus is.............C A S H G R A B.

[akira1971]

And the concensus is.............C A S H G R A B.

Do drivers modify their behaviour if they know red light cameras are present? If it makes them think twice about running the red, then it's done it's job in improving overall safety.

By the way, they should've had one at Yonge & Wellington this morning at 8:45 - idiot minivan blasts northbound through a full red while pedestrians were about to cross westbound (some people were looking away to the right to make eye contact with drivers turning left on the green.)

[akira1971]

And the concensus is.............C A S H G R A B.

Also, how the hell is it a C A S H G R A B if it only affects maybe 1 out of every 10,000 drivers on the road?!? A real cashgrab is when they increase the license fee that affects everyone - giving redlight runners a ticket is more of a deterent than anything else.

Driving through a red is ILLEGAL. Unless it's an emergency maneuver, there's no excuse for it. In my opinion, they should raise the fine to $1,000 - that'll really eliminate the problem.

[Nikita]

Are you claiming that the cameras cause people to follow too closely and therefore rear-end someone? Please explain how in the hell a camera can cause an accident? I would love to hear that defense! "It was the camera your honor, it made me follow too closely"!

As for the proof that it's the people following too closely that cause they accidents, I'll have to refer you to this
http://www.ibc.ca/en/car_insurance/documents/brochure/on-fault-determination-rules.pdf and you can read about "Rules for Automobiles Travelling in the Same Direction and Lane"

Is that how you answer a question, with a bunch of other questions?

I'm not claiming anything at all, re-read my post, it was simply a question, the same question you ask everybody who makes a statement of fact, which you did. I'm only asking you for proof of your statement that "Cameras don't cause accidents. The idiots following too closely cause accidents and there was still a net drop of 14.2%."

The link you provided me only cites legislation and fault determination rules, of which I'm already familiar. Not proof or evidence that following two closely is the primary cause of accidents in this regard, and I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as proof of any of the many things you've asked for proof for.

[spf1971]

Is that how you answer a question, with a bunch of other questions?

I'm not claiming anything at all, re-read my post, it was simply a question, the same question you ask everybody who makes a statement of fact, which you did. I'm only asking you for proof of your statement that "Cameras don't cause accidents. The idiots following too closely cause accidents and there was still a net drop of 14.2%."

The link you provided me only cites legislation and fault determination rules, of which I'm already familiar. Not proof or evidence that following two closely is the primary cause of accidents in this regard, and I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as proof of any of the many things you've asked for proof for.


The insurance bureau has stated that in a rear end collision, the second vehicle is to blame. I read the booklet and it has no allowance for red light cameras or other reasons as to why the second vehicle would not be responsible for the accident. It very clearly stated that the second vehicle is 100% to blame, if that is not enough proof for you, then I obviously cannot prove it to your satisfaction.

[Nikita]

The insurance bureau has stated that in a rear end collision, the second vehicle is to blame. I read the booklet and it has no allowance for red light cameras or other reasons as to why the second vehicle would not be responsible for the accident. It very clearly stated that the second vehicle is 100% to blame, if that is not enough proof for you, then I obviously cannot prove it to your satisfaction.

Insurance cocmpanies fault determination rules aren't just there to prevent accidents, it's there to make their own determination of who pays what easier. It doesn't prove more accidents are caused by people following too closely than by cameras. It's nothing but a deeming provision, not a fact that supports your contention. Anytime a company with a financial interest gives a reason for what they do and how they apportion blame, I have to be skeptical.

And actually, you can prove your point to my satisfaction. Post some stats or studies, preferrably from a third, un-interested party. There has to be some legitimate studies out their if that statement is true. If there's none to be found, then I have to be even more skeptical.

[dealmeone]

Do drivers modify their behaviour if they know red light cameras are present? If it makes them think twice about running the red, then it's done it's job in improving overall safety.

By the way, they should've had one at Yonge & Wellington this morning at 8:45 - idiot minivan blasts northbound through a full red while pedestrians were about to cross westbound (some people were looking away to the right to make eye contact with drivers turning left on the green.)

A red light camera in no way prevents a driver from running a red light. It merely sends a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle, weeks after the alleged offence occured. If a driver is made aware that cameras are in effect, perhaps they would consider the consequences of their actions BEFORE running the light. Ideally, drivers should also feel that they might get caught if they run a light. Police cannot be everywhere, but a much stronger presence might make such drivers cognicent of the possibility that they could be caught. As it is now, there is not much actual police presence on our roads, which is probably why some drivers are taking more chances. Yes, it costs money, but it could help to save lives.

As I have already stated, running a red light is very dangerous and increadibly stupid. Driving today is not like it was even 5 years ago. Many drivers are just plain selfish and put themselves and others in danger by being distracted by cell phones, mega-watt stereos, and any other electronic device they can stick in their face while driving. Some just don't care. Offending drivers need to be dealt with in person, at the time of the offence, for it to hit home with them.