Dallas, TX, Red Traffic Light Cameras

[SMHarman]

Shut down as they were too effective and reducing the revenue raised.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/?GT1=43001
At least in the US they admit they are a revenue raising tool.

[Graham M]

I've always said it wouldn't be put up with in the US

[Xaccers]

I love the suggestion that the cameras are the cause of more rear end shunts.
Surely the cause is distracted drivers being too close to the car in front?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Shut down as they were too effective and reducing the revenue raised.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/?GT1=43001
At least in the US they admit they are a revenue raising tool.

I have always said they are there to raise money. That report makes sense because as the over taxed drivers fight back by using tom tom and other GPS aides to warn them where the so called black spots are, There are less getting taxed. I have been using a Tom tom for 2 years now and it has done me proud, Well worth the money and its paid for it self in the amount of tax cameras it has warned me about

[punky]

I think one factor is that in 99.99% of junctions in the US you can turn right on a red light (equivalent of us turning left) which helps speed traffic through junctions and I think make less people impatient enough to not wait. Its something i'd like to see here.

Funny how no one mentions this part of the article
"Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.
But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections"

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Funny how no one mentions this part of the article
"Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.
But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections"

Ah it's easier to think that they're just there to raise money (as many speed cameras are) rather than prevent accidents.

While it could be argued that a speed camera on a straight bit of two lane dual carriagway with a speed limit for 40mph (while anywhere else it would be 70) is set up as a cash cow, after all, a car doing 60mph along said road isn't necessarily any more dangerous than a car doing 40mph, I fail to see how the same can be said about red light cameras or even specs speed cameras during road works, when there obviously is a danger in activities which set the cameras off, such as jumping a red light or speeding through road works.

The story here is not that the cameras aren't bringing in enough money for the city to spend on other things, it's that they're not bringing in enough money to fund the maintenance of the cameras themselves.

[BBKing]

Eh? People use GPS devices to find traffic signalled intersections where they can break the law in a highly dangerous and irresponsible manner with less risk of being caught, and this is a *good* thing?

I've no problem with traffic light cameras at all, and I'd be interested in why people seem to.

[Womble]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Funny how no one mentions this part of the article
"Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.
But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections"

I think every junction should have red light cameras. Too many motorcyclists die/injured because of people jumping the lights! Problem being is cameras are being placed to raise cash and not to reduce accidents. In certain places they have worked in reducing accidents, but in the places they have not they are never removed.
As for the Specs down the M3 and M4 its fine if someone is working but i travel up there fairly regular and theres never anyone working just miles of crawling traffic!!!

Hey, but lets be honest, the ruling minority want us peasants off the road, so they can swan about in there Bentleys etc without any traffic in the way. Us mere plebes should only be allowed to use public transport. Shortly only the likes of MP's and the Roman Abramovich's will be able to drive in London anyway

---------- Post added at 09:48 ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 ----------

Originally Posted by BBKing

Eh? People use GPS devices to find traffic signalled intersections where they can break the law in a highly dangerous and irresponsible manner with less risk of being caught, and this is a *good* thing?

So unlike you to be sarcastic

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Funny how no one mentions this part of the article
"Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.
But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections"

I thought I had by implication. They are switching cameras off and removing them at junctions where violations have fallen by 29% and accidents have fallen. Why so they can ticket those 29% of drivers the original way and get revenues back up again.
So the article proves both sides of the arguement. 1. Cameras reduce accidents. 2. Cameras go hand in hand with revenue raising and if they reduce revenue then they are considered a hinderance not a benefit so the installation is more an automated way of raising revenue, not a life saving decision.