| Big Joe | 11-14-2002 01:56 AM |
[QUOTE]Another thing to consider. I don't know if there are multiple vendors of the systems now, but the original red light camera system was designed and manufactured by Lockheed. [/QUOTE] I just had to chime in. Get the facts straight if your going post. Lockheed did not make or develop a red light camera. They bought a company who made them. Lockheed is no longer in this business, they sold it.
[QUOTE]They didn't sell it to cities, they leased it and got a big cut of the ticket proceeds -- something like 40%[/QUOTE] Leasing is a better option for cities, they cannot afford to buy cameras. They don't get 40%, they only get paid IF the violator pays the fine, and only a small portion of it. Of thousands of pictures taken, not all of them processable, of the processable, not everyone pays.
The way I see it, yeah it makes money. Better to raise city revenue this way instead of raising taxes. Safety issue? I'd say yes, because it's a very heavy physiological factor for people who know that cameras are in the area. But ONLY for those that know where they are.
joe
[QUOTE]They didn't sell it to cities, they leased it and got a big cut of the ticket proceeds -- something like 40%[/QUOTE] Leasing is a better option for cities, they cannot afford to buy cameras. They don't get 40%, they only get paid IF the violator pays the fine, and only a small portion of it. Of thousands of pictures taken, not all of them processable, of the processable, not everyone pays.
The way I see it, yeah it makes money. Better to raise city revenue this way instead of raising taxes. Safety issue? I'd say yes, because it's a very heavy physiological factor for people who know that cameras are in the area. But ONLY for those that know where they are.
joe
| TeamASR | 11-14-2002 02:19 AM |
Most of this tickets are dropped at court or non moving violation
�
�
Hmm makes wanna wonder what they want from you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ok i'll give you a hint YOUR MONEY.
| pdximpreza | 11-14-2002 04:13 AM |
Ok fine I yield. I guess you cant teach old dogs new tricks. There has been no change that I can notice in any yellow lights I have have driven, anywhere, ever. But I guess my brain must be speeding up or something...............could happen.
And of all the lights, its always 1-3 seconds. I have seen it change depending on the intersection, and I have seen it change on traffic density. AS IT SHOULD. If you are going slower because of high traffic, there should be a shorter yellow, otherwise with how you Cali's drive, the intersection would be crammed with cars.
If you cant handle 1-3 seconds reaction time, get off the road you are a hazard. Deal with it.
Seems to me liek putting up a 4-5 second yellow is more dangerous since you have to guess how long the light has been on yellow when you get to it, if its not a straight shot.
And of all the lights, its always 1-3 seconds. I have seen it change depending on the intersection, and I have seen it change on traffic density. AS IT SHOULD. If you are going slower because of high traffic, there should be a shorter yellow, otherwise with how you Cali's drive, the intersection would be crammed with cars.
If you cant handle 1-3 seconds reaction time, get off the road you are a hazard. Deal with it.
Seems to me liek putting up a 4-5 second yellow is more dangerous since you have to guess how long the light has been on yellow when you get to it, if its not a straight shot.
| SlideWRX | 11-14-2002 12:44 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pdximpreza [/i]
[B]
If you cant handle 1-3 seconds reaction time, get off the road you are a hazard. Deal with it.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Heck, why have yellow in the first place? just gives reckless drivers a chance to drive faster. What EVIL people.
Or, the yellow gives people time to stop in a reasonable manner, instead of locking up thier brakes everytime they see a yellow. A yellow light gives people a reasonable amount of time to notice the yellow, even when checking thier mirrors, gauges, that car in front of you pulling into the gas station at the corner, and all the other things that it is smart to look at when driving.
1-3 seconds reaction is quite normal. another couple seconds to stop is ALSO normal. Total time? 3-5 seconds. Wow. Just like normal lights are timed. Minimum time for a yellow is around 3 seconds, with properly timed ones at 4-5 for 40 mph intersections.
Tom
[B]
If you cant handle 1-3 seconds reaction time, get off the road you are a hazard. Deal with it.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Heck, why have yellow in the first place? just gives reckless drivers a chance to drive faster. What EVIL people.
Or, the yellow gives people time to stop in a reasonable manner, instead of locking up thier brakes everytime they see a yellow. A yellow light gives people a reasonable amount of time to notice the yellow, even when checking thier mirrors, gauges, that car in front of you pulling into the gas station at the corner, and all the other things that it is smart to look at when driving.
1-3 seconds reaction is quite normal. another couple seconds to stop is ALSO normal. Total time? 3-5 seconds. Wow. Just like normal lights are timed. Minimum time for a yellow is around 3 seconds, with properly timed ones at 4-5 for 40 mph intersections.
Tom
| Frederf | 11-14-2002 02:20 PM |
I have no objection to red light cameras if:
1. Tickets are made from the cameras that would have been made by a police officer if he/she where there. (No false positives)
2. Is a passive measure only. Why did they feel it nessecary to change the active parts of stoplights (yellow timings) to add that passive enforcement?
1. Tickets are made from the cameras that would have been made by a police officer if he/she where there. (No false positives)
2. Is a passive measure only. Why did they feel it nessecary to change the active parts of stoplights (yellow timings) to add that passive enforcement?
| Chuck H | 11-14-2002 07:32 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Big Joe [/i]
[B] I just had to chime in. Get the facts straight if your going post. Lockheed did not make or develop a red light camera. They bought a company who made them. Lockheed is no longer in this business, they sold it.
Leasing is a better option for cities, they cannot afford to buy cameras. They don't get 40%, they only get paid IF the violator pays the fine, and only a small portion of it. Of thousands of pictures taken, not all of them processable, of the processable, not everyone pays.
The way I see it, yeah it makes money. Better to raise city revenue this way instead of raising taxes. Safety issue? I'd say yes, because it's a very heavy physiological factor for people who know that cameras are in the area. But ONLY for those that know where they are.
joe [/B][/QUOTE]
Whether Lockheed originally developed the system or bought out the company that developed it is a pretty meaningless distinction. They were leasing the systems to communities and getting a percentage of the take from red light tickets. Unfortunately, I can't find the original article from Car and Driver that I was basing my information on, but I found a similar enough one that they probably based that story on. Check the link if you're interested. It turns out that the 40% was a low estimate. Lockheed was getting $32.5 0 out of every $75 ticket, which works out to 43%. Also check out the part on page 5 where Lockheed was caught moving the magnetic sensors in the intersection so that they would trigger the camera early in order to ticket innocent people.
[URL=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp[/URL]
Or check out this article on how profitable the red-light camera business was for Lockheed before they sold that division:
[URL=http://www.spectatoronline.com/2001-02-21/perspectives_media.html]http://www.spectatoronline.com/2001-02-21/perspectives_media.html[/URL]
I still maintain that red light cameras are just a money-making proposition for both the manufacturers and the communities that install them. They haven't been proven to reduce the accidents in intersections, and have actually been shown to increase the number of rear-end collisions from people stopping short trying to avoid the possibility of getting ticketed when it would be safer to drive through on the yellow.
And it has been pretty well proven that communities are either shortening the yellow lights to increase revenue from the cameras, or only installing them in the intersections that already have the shortest yellow lights. As usual, they're more concerned with lining their pockets than with protecting the public, which is the excuse they use for installing the cameras in the first place.
If you don't believe me, do an internet search for red light camera aritcles or for Lockheed and red light camera. It makes for some pretty interesting reading.
[B] I just had to chime in. Get the facts straight if your going post. Lockheed did not make or develop a red light camera. They bought a company who made them. Lockheed is no longer in this business, they sold it.
Leasing is a better option for cities, they cannot afford to buy cameras. They don't get 40%, they only get paid IF the violator pays the fine, and only a small portion of it. Of thousands of pictures taken, not all of them processable, of the processable, not everyone pays.
The way I see it, yeah it makes money. Better to raise city revenue this way instead of raising taxes. Safety issue? I'd say yes, because it's a very heavy physiological factor for people who know that cameras are in the area. But ONLY for those that know where they are.
joe [/B][/QUOTE]
Whether Lockheed originally developed the system or bought out the company that developed it is a pretty meaningless distinction. They were leasing the systems to communities and getting a percentage of the take from red light tickets. Unfortunately, I can't find the original article from Car and Driver that I was basing my information on, but I found a similar enough one that they probably based that story on. Check the link if you're interested. It turns out that the 40% was a low estimate. Lockheed was getting $32.5 0 out of every $75 ticket, which works out to 43%. Also check out the part on page 5 where Lockheed was caught moving the magnetic sensors in the intersection so that they would trigger the camera early in order to ticket innocent people.
[URL=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp[/URL]
Or check out this article on how profitable the red-light camera business was for Lockheed before they sold that division:
[URL=http://www.spectatoronline.com/2001-02-21/perspectives_media.html]http://www.spectatoronline.com/2001-02-21/perspectives_media.html[/URL]
I still maintain that red light cameras are just a money-making proposition for both the manufacturers and the communities that install them. They haven't been proven to reduce the accidents in intersections, and have actually been shown to increase the number of rear-end collisions from people stopping short trying to avoid the possibility of getting ticketed when it would be safer to drive through on the yellow.
And it has been pretty well proven that communities are either shortening the yellow lights to increase revenue from the cameras, or only installing them in the intersections that already have the shortest yellow lights. As usual, they're more concerned with lining their pockets than with protecting the public, which is the excuse they use for installing the cameras in the first place.
If you don't believe me, do an internet search for red light camera aritcles or for Lockheed and red light camera. It makes for some pretty interesting reading.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét