Photo Radar

Replying to: vcheng (Jan 30, 2009 11:18 am)

Replies to this message:
• vcheng (Jun 08, 2009 6:41 am)

Replying to: xrunner2 (Jun 08, 2009 6:22 am)

I respect your position in not being able to see the analogy about slippery slopes that I intended.
 
On with discussing photo radar and automatic enforcement only ......

Replying to: imidazol97 (Jun 05, 2009 10:55 am)

I was passing through a construction site today on my way to work. They had set up a radar device which clocked your speed and then displayed it under a "Your Speed Is". I was following several cars that were going the reduced limit of 55, as was I.
 
As each of the cars in front of me passed this device the sign read "Your Speed Is 64, Slow Down". Then as I passed at EXACTLY 55, the sign said that I too was doing 64.
 
This leads me to wonder about the accuracy of this type of technology. How many people are nailed by a malfunctioning photo radar and how would you prove that it was the device that's wrong.
 
Seems that a human operator would pick up that his radar was not working correctly very quickly. A wacky photo radar might ticket hundreds of cars before it was noticed.

Replies to this message:
• imidazol97 (Jun 08, 2009 10:48 am)

Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jun 08, 2009 9:01 am)

Maine is the 14th state to ban photo enforcement. The rest will follow in due course.
 
from: http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2009/June09/061509/061709-03.htm
 
Maine bans use of ticket cameras
 
Lawmakers in Maine say no thanks to revenue enhancements via ticket cameras. They are the 14th state to outlaw the enforcement tool.
 
Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed into law a bill to prevent the state, or communities within the state, from tapping the use of photo enforcement to nab drivers breaking traffic laws. The state joins Mississippi and Montana in banning the technology this year.
 
While traffic surveillance cameras are not in use in Maine, the new law was a proactive step taken to make sure they don’t start showing up around the state. The ban applies to red-light and speed cameras.
 
Previously LD1234, the new rule makes an exception for cameras on the Maine Turnpike to help ensure payment at toll booths.
 
The recent wave of states to prohibit the use of photo enforcement has been a blow to red-light and speed camera advocates who say the devices are about safety and using technology in a helpful way. Others say the devices free up police to address bigger issues.
 
Opponents, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, question the claim that cameras are solely intended to keep people safe. Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples, shared that concern.
 
“In many places around the country, these cameras have become nothing more than a moneymaker for municipalities,” he said in a written statement.
 
There also is a question about the effectiveness of such cameras. Opponents argue they have the potential to distract drivers and cause more fender-bender accidents. In fact, multiple studies have found that crashes actually increased in cities with red-light cameras.
 
“While on the surface these cameras may appear to increase public safety, recent studies have shown that they actually increase the occurrences of accidents at intersections where the public is aware that there is a camera,” Cebra said.
 
To view other legislative activities of interest for Maine in 2009, click here.
 
– By Keith Goble, state legislative editor

Replies to this message:
• euphonium (Jul 07, 2009 9:56 am)

Replies to this message:
• lilengineerboy (Jun 19, 2009 12:22 pm)
  • steve_ (Jun 19, 2009 2:08 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Jun 19, 2009 8:38 am)

Replies to this message:
• steve_ (Jun 19, 2009 2:08 pm)

Replying to: lilengineerboy (Jun 19, 2009 12:22 pm)

More data on the "money grab hiding as safety" aspect of scameras, only this time with some unintended consequences. It's all about the money.
 
from: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0206575395.shtml
 
Schaumburg Dumps Redlight Cameras After They Show No Safety Benefit
from the good-for-them dept
 
We've seen it in a few other places, but reader Don Gatza let's us know that Schaumburg, Illinois is the latest city to dump its redlight cameras. The city found that, despite promises to the contrary, the redlight cameras did not decrease accidents (not even the "t-bone" accidents that proponents of such cameras insist they help combat). The city claims that even though a single intersection generated 10,000 tickets and over a million in revenue in just a few months, it's going to drop the cameras, because "It was not our intent to use them as a revenue generator." If only other communities were so enlightened.
 
Of course, there was a second potential factor in the decision as well. Apparently pissed off ticket recipients had been complaining and promising to stop shopping at Schaumberg businesses -- leading local businesses to fear a loss in customers and revenue. Of course, this is the same thing that towns with notorious speed traps have found: people avoid going there, harming local businesses. Hopefully more local businesses start recognizing that giving out automated tickets that do nothing to improve safety also tend to harm local businesses as well. In the meantime, if officials want to improve safety in Schaumburg intersections, studies have shown that the best way to do so is rather simple: increase the timing of yellow lights, and then add a longer pause between one direction turning red, and the perpendicular traffic's lights turning green.

Replies to this message:
• vinnyny (Jul 01, 2009 8:07 pm)

Replying to: vcheng (Jul 01, 2009 8:10 am)