Voters ban red light cameras; city councils sue voters to bring them back

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

There's nothing like the local government telling you how they can take your money. Red light cameras are just the perfect way to legally make you fair game.

'In November, voters in St. Charles County, Missouri, banned red light cameras with a 73 percent majority -- but city council members of several towns within the county are now suing to bring them back. "They're suing their own residents," said St. Charles County Councilman Joe Brazil, who supports the ban.

Critics like Brazil have alleged that the lawsuit is a transparent attempt to increase city revenues, while the lawsuit claims that there's no authority for voters at the county level to ban cameras within city limits. The lawsuit could take as long as several years to resolve.' - - Bonnie Kristian

http://theweek.com/article/index/274182/speedreads-voters-ban-red-light-cameras-city-councils-sue-voters-to-bring-them-back

***

Some say you don't have to worry about paying. Well, that makes the debate highly irrelevant. They have the right to set up the red light cameras, you have the right not to pay.


-------------------------------------------------------------

"The jungle has never been this much fun!"

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

D'UH!! Just obey the road rules and stop at the red light and you
won't
have to pay anything anyway. :-\
It's only selfish morons that have problems with theses cameras.

Not the only issue. Many times those cameras cause more wrecks than
they are suppose to decrease. IE: some people will throw on the
brakes and slam to an abrupt halt even if they are on the safe
side of yellow. Which causes the people behind them to slam into
them if they are not paying close attention.

Then those people behind are...
A. too close,
and / or B. not paying proper attention,
Either way they're breaking driving laws and probably shouldn't have a
licence.
There is no "safe side of yellow". Yellow also means stop, unless
you're too close to the intersection to do so safely, and the red light
cameras are set to avoid that. It takes one photo as the lights turn
red and another a second or so later - any car inside the intersection
in both photos has broken the law.

Red light cameras do not promote safer driving which makes your
issue a non issue.

They aren't meant to "promote" anything. They're there to punish the
selfish morons who insit on breaking the law by driving through red
lights - it saves needing ot have a policeman simply standing there
watching to catch the morons.
Drive properly and they won't affect you. It's exactly the same with
speed cameras.

Not the same. Speed cameras tame traffic, red light cameras just make a
profit. Anyway $160 is way too much. Make it $50 and people will learn the
lesson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish. $160 is not enough--make it a percentage of your total income on
your last year's tax return. THAT way, the wealthy would have an equal
incentive to obey the law. It's been done that way, for years, in some
Scandinavian countries.

"How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges, and paying the same for red light cameras."

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

D'UH!! Just obey the road rules and stop at the red light and you won't
have to pay anything anyway. :-\
It's only selfish morons that have problems with theses cameras.

Not the only issue. Many times those cameras cause more wrecks than
they are suppose to decrease. IE: some people will throw on the
brakes and slam to an abrupt halt even if they are on the safe
side of yellow. Which causes the people behind them to slam into
them if they are not paying close attention.

Then those people behind are...
A. too close,
and / or B. not paying proper attention,

and in the case of B.) they are too close.
Having said that, Red Light cameras are a crock of shit. A complete crock of
shit.
If they were interested in curing accidents at an intersection, they would
ticket drivers from every direction in that intersection, but they only get
drivers from one, maybe two, directions at any intersection where there is a
camera.
And, the STATED GOAL of Red Light cameras is safety, not punishment.

They hit you too hard for something minor like "failing to make a full stop when turning right." We sometimes roll along because we see no traffic or pedestrians, and voila!

The person actually running a red light pays the same!!!

[Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises]

There is no "safe side of yellow". Yellow also means stop, unless
you're too close to the intersection to do so safely,

That is the safe side of yellow. If I'm going through a light and
it turns yellow a second before I go through it, I do not slam on
the brakes and stop.
It's dangerous, and I'd likely come to a screeching halt halfway through
the intersection. The red light cams provoke the paranoia needed for
some to slam on the brakes even when it's safer and more prudent to continue.

I like that word... PARANOIA. I haven't got a single ticket yet but I live in paranoia.

Studies show they have no significant effect in reducing accidents...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/

Mind you, in Chicago they only hit you with 100 bucks, compared to $160 here. They get their revenue without even trying to fix the system.

[Free Spirit, Chief of Quixotic Enterprises]

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher

Well, move or ride a bike. Two miles is kind of little to ride a bike.

Not if those two miles are up a vertical cliff ... although coming back
would be easy. ;-)

Bicycles are NOT a universal solution. It fits a large number of people
but
those people are TERRORIZED to ride one.
Look at the streets of India and China and you'll see how popular they
are,
though they are being squeezed by the car. And that's a recipe for
disaster.

But in India NOBODY obeys any of the road rules - not cyclists, not
drivers (car, bus, or truck), not pedestrians ... it's a choatic mess
of brainless idiots.

A chaotic mess may create smarter people. Bring everybody together on the
roads --including the cows-- and you'll have a safer road where the cars
won't rule supreme.
You guessed it, only the cows are sacred. ;)

If I remember rightly, India has one of (if not the) highest road death
rates in the world, and that's because the roads are a choatic mess.

Wrong! You'll be surprised that USA is #1 and NZ is #8:

http://patch.com/california/carlsbad/bp--10-countries-with-most-car-accidents

Accidents are a big industry here. Lawyers openly advertise their services as "call 1-800 FOR-PAIN." Many drivers race through city streets, or casually chat or text on the phone, particularly scary when they zigzag around cars in their SUVs.

Then they come and hit you with those red light cameras and if they cared. I don't doubt India has a poor record but that's to be expected for any poor nation. Sweden takes prevention very seriously, as it should be. We could start by banning cell phones and making passing on the left mandatory. And I'm supposed to share the lane with drivers on the phone, speeding on the right lane.

That's kind of a cruel joke.

[t***@gmail.com]

Laws/politicians aren't going to change squat! As with the current spate of racism in the United States, changing the cell-phones-while-driving requires a change of ATTITUDES.

[Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Post by t***@gmail.com
Laws/politicians aren't going to change squat! As with the current spate of racism in the United States, changing the cell-phones-while-driving requires a change of ATTITUDES.

I guess they won't but we can make enough noise to become a nagging mosquito. We all know traffic in America is both anarchic and predatory. Enforcement --rare as it is-- is meant to eat you, not save lives. They want more accidents, more DUIs, more idiots on the phone, so the revenues keep flowing.

[t***@gmail.com]

TibetanMonkey wrote: "I guess they won't but we can make enough noise to become a nagging mosquito. We all know traffic in America is both anarchic and predatory. Enforcement --rare as it is-- is meant to eat you, not save lives. They want more accidents, more DUIs, more idiots on the phone, so the revenues keep flowing. "


+1!