Comments on: Red Light cameras on the way

By: RP

RP — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:21:10 +0000

Ha! No more “night rules” driving of running red lights at vacant intersections. There’s more than a handful of times I pulled up to a red light in the middle of the night that had no traffic and an ungodly wait.

Normally, I have no trouble sitting and waiting, but when there’s a lot of street urchins milling about, I get a little uneasy when they start eyeballing my car. So I take off. I don’t have the luxury of driving in the nice JoCo streets. I have to drive through the ghetto to get to work. So at 2 am, I’m a little keen on keeping things moving. Apparently, so is everyone else.

When I moved to KC, I was shocked that you could treat red lights like stop signs. People said, “oh, that’s night rules KC driving.” That doesn’t seem safe, I said. “Wait till you watch a bunch of hooldums spill into the streets and start fighting. They do every summer, and you learn real quick not to hang around, red light or not.”

Sure enough, I was not disappointed.

By: AeroSquid

AeroSquid — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:14:57 +0000

i did provide stats but the admin decided to delete my post.

thanks admin, good lookin out there.

By: hajkar

hajkar — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:33:24 +0000

John, surely other solutions are available and nothing precludes these same alternatives from being employed. Can you be specific as to which alternatives you feel are being ignored because of the city’s experiment with red-light cameras?

Your sources are interesting, however, the Washington Post article does not seem to be a terribly definitive condemnation of red-light cameras and suggest solutions and changes to the red-light camera program to address the issues of concern without abandoning the project.

As for the photoblacker link… hmmm… I bet there are laws precluding you from altering your liscense plate especially with regard to an attempt to avoid the consequences of your actions in the violation of the law.

I remain unconvinced by the arguements against the use of red-light cameras.

By: John

John — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:23:43 +0000

The point of the artcles I posted was that red light cameras are not an effective law enforcement tool. The are proven prone to malfunction, they are prone to abuse by the government seeking greater streams of revenue, and they don’t actually imporve safety (which I would guess is the whole point anyway). I have no problem with people being prosecuted for running red lights, and if the cameras were shown to work correctly and were proven to reduce accidents, then I would be in favor of them, but better solutions are available.

By: hajkar

hajkar — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:33:57 +0000

Can you provide statistics to back up your assumptions, Squiddly? Not too mention how you’re all ready to condemn someone for an unrealized increase in your insurance rates. As for asking an insurance salesman… ha! The sales guys don’t know nothing and don’t set the rates. (But I don’t want to get started on insurance agents, I dealt with them for 20 years as an insurance executive.) People will have to remember that the yellow light means to stop, not to hurry up so you won’t get caught by the red light. All lights and intersections should be approched with caution. I suspect that any increase of rear-enders at red-light camera intersections will be a relatively temporary situation that will decrease as people learn and adapt to the conditions.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:26:19 +0000

If you get rearended for slamming on the brakes, then it is the fault of the person who hit you for driving too fast, following too closely, or both. Or are you saying its OK to run red lights? The cameras don’t get a salary like a live person, they are simply there to augment enforcement of the law more cheaply. I see nothing wrong with that.

By: AeroSquid

AeroSquid — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:47:00 +0000

Get ready for an insurance premium jump. If you really want to know the truth about red light cameras, ask an insurance salesman. He will tell you that intersections with red light cameras experience a 40% increase in accidents. Mainly from panicky drivers slamming on the brakes to avoid the ticket. They get rear-ended and all our insurance rates go up. I would like to know who is responsible for bringing this abomination to the streets of KC. The city council approved it but someone came up with the idea and i want that guys balls on a falg pole.

By: hajkar

hajkar — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:34:13 +0000

oh boo hoo… If the city can make money off of law breakers, more power to them.

You can screw them over by not running red lights or driving drunk. *shrugs* Is that so hard to do?

By: Hippstar

Hippstar — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:12:58 +0000

John and Scooter J are right on. Like drunk driver checkpoints, red-light cameras are just an easy money-maker for city government. No one thinks running red lights is a problem in KC, but the police, city hall, and the red light camera company want to make some easy dough.

It cracks me up that lefties who love to rail against the government when someone like Blunt is governor nonetheless think nothing of faceless government surveilliance of the citizens. I guess someone needs to pay those consulting fees for that sewer project.

By: ScooterJ

ScooterJ — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:36:47 +0000

Just about anyone breaks a law daily. Ever accidently turn the wrong way down a one way street and then catch yourself? Park too far from the curb or too close to a stop sign? Let a meter expire? Write a check the day before payday? Not list that money you won at the Ameristar on your 1040? Drive 1 mph over the speed limit? Urinate off the side of a trail while hiking in the woods? Give a friend or relative a tablet of a prescription painkiller? Pass on the right? Not get in the left lane when someone is changing a tire?

Every single one of these things is illegal and many of them could get someone killed. But we have a free society because of the fact that there isn’t some automated system in place dispensing citations at each and every violation.