 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2007It's about the revenue... RLCs
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1627.asp http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=6152672&nav=3w6y "Leonard is calling a $1.5 million city council decision a mistake. That is the amount the council expected red light cameras to generate. But last week, the council voted to put those cameras on hold. That vote came after a NewsChannel 11 investigation into the timing of yellow lights in Lubbock. Now the city manager is citing the loss of that revenue as a reason for a new hiring freeze." <... hiring more cops ...> "Leonard says, "If we can give upper management big raises like we just did and I voted against that, if we can give TX-Dot an additional $81,000 so we can have red light cameras, then we can afford to pay these types of expenses. Why do we need to cut back on police and fire?"" <...> "Leonard says, "It is all about money. From the first week in office between the new mayor and myself discussions were initiated on how much revenue would red light cams bring. It wasn't until we tried to sell the idea to the public that we started talking about public safety."" <...> ------------- And there you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth AGAIN. It's not about safety UNTIL THEY GO TO SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC. And in another story: http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/16790878.htm http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1626.asp "Georgia: Revenue Concerns Kill Red Light Camera Proposal Macon, Georgia tables red light camera proposal over risk that it may not make any money. The city of Macon, Georgia decided Monday to hold off on installing red light cameras after legal analysis showed the program was not a sure-fire moneymaker. " <...> ---------- No profit, No cameras. If it were about safety, why is PROFIT such a concern? On Feb 28, 9:31 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: <brevity snip> > If it were about safety, why is PROFIT such a concern? Duh-uh. Have you somehow reached the conclusion that discouraging the running of red lights could be entirely unrelated to safety? Why should the revenue from traffic citations not be included in state and city budgets? If you haven't noticed, many people drive like idiots. People run red lights, presumably because they are inattentive, feel the light doesn't apply to them, or are just poor drivers. I don't understand why anyone not in those categories would give a sh.t about RLCs, other than to be happy they're there. I am, why aren't you...? ----- - gpsman > On Feb 28, 9:31 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Duh-uh. Have you somehow reached the conclusion that discouraging the > running of red lights could be entirely unrelated to safety? How do RLC's discourage the running of red lights? Studies have shown that proper light timing does more to reduce the incidence of RLRing more dramatically and more quickly than any RLC. > Why should the revenue from traffic citations not be included in state > and city budgets? If you haven't noticed, many people drive like > idiots. People run red lights, presumably because they are > inattentive, feel the light doesn't apply to them, or are just poor > drivers. Or the light timing is outside the norm, which is the most common cause. > I don't understand why anyone not in those categories would give a > sh.t about RLCs, other than to be happy they're there. I am, why > aren't you...? Because I don't like seeing the government profit from poor engineering or commissioning. I'd rather just see the problem fixed and then if they need more money, there are other avenues for that. nate > On Feb 28, 9:31 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - gpsman RLCs *could* be used to enhance safety. When used for revenue, the light timing is altered to produce more infractions, and this altered light timing also reduces safety. RLCs for revenue kill! (good a slogan as any) Dave > RLCs *could* be used to enhance safety. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (good a slogan as any) RLCs might have some safety benefit *AFTER* the intersection has been fixed, but the results of such a set up thus far have been a slow trickle of citations. Most likely the bulk of these citations are well deserved with the intersection as good as it can be. But there's a problem, this *costs* government money instead of making money and government loses interest in the devices. >> On Feb 28, 9:31 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Dave The fact that most RLC tickets do not carry license points is a clue to intended revenue generation. They don't care about getting dangerous drivers off the roads,they just want their money. REAL tickets assign license points,and other drivers SEE the violator getting ticketed and it does affect their driving behavior. The Police should DO THEIR JOB.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > On Feb 28, 9:31 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Duh-uh. Have you somehow reached the conclusion that discouraging the > running of red lights could be entirely unrelated to safety? Well that would be supported by . . . the FACTS > Why should the revenue from traffic citations not be included in state > and city budgets? I've got no problem with that, as long as safe traffic engineering guidelines are strictly followed. Of course, when yellow lights are timed correctly, there is no money to be made from RLCs, so the use of RLCs encourages timing of lights to DECREASE safety. In other words, if there IS money from RLCs to be included in state and city budgets, then there is a serious problem with the local intersection traffic signals that existed before the RLCs were installed, and probably got worse WHEN the RLCs were installed. Fix the problem, don't try to profit from it by making it worse! > If you haven't noticed, many people drive like > idiots. People run red lights, presumably because they are > inattentive, feel the light doesn't apply to them, or are just poor > drivers. And when yellow lights are timed correctly, all of that behavior is greatly reduced. Too bad that lights have to be timed IMproperly for RLCs to even pay for themselves, let alone enrich the local government coffers. > I don't understand why anyone not in those categories would give a > sh.t about RLCs, other than to be happy they're there. I am, why > aren't you...? I don't run red lights, because I do care about safety. That's also why I am strongly ANTI-RLCs. You should be too. Why aren't you? -Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.