7 ms·

You are not supposed to know. You are supposed to be an income source for American Traffic Solutions, Redflex Traffic Systems, and the city in question. It isn

You are not supposed to know. You are supposed to be an income source for American Traffic Solutions, Redflex Traffic Systems, and the city in question. It isn't about safety anymore. It is about money. Cities are known across the country to make yellow timing extra short to increase the money. https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...

droopyEyelids 7y ago
The most damning evidence for your perspective is how the cameras are basically hidden, painted black, made inconspicuous. If red light cameras were about safety, the addition of warning signs "Red Light Camera Intersection" ahead of the lights would drastically reduce the amount of dangerous behavior. That isn't how the incentives work, though. Instead they hide them, throwing away the powerful deterrent they've created, in an attempt to make money from the unwary.
- kayfox 7y ago
  To clarify, the one the guy in the article is complaining about is not hidden, has been there for something like 15 years, and has plenty of signage warning about it. It was also an intersection that had tons of accidents from people running the light before the camera was installed.
  - olyjohn 7y ago
    You wanna know what reduces red-light related accidents more than cameras? Increasing the duration of the yellow light. https://saferstreetsla.org/679/case-studies-longer-yellow-light-times-improve-safety/ https://saferstreetsla.org/679/case-studies-longer-yellow-li... Also increasing yellow light duration is significantly cheaper than contracting out a network of cameras to a vendor who takes over half the revenue from each ticket.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > increasing yellow light duration is significantly cheaper than contracting out a network of cameras to a vendor who takes over half the revenue from each ticket. It's cheaper for society, yes. It's much more expensive if you're the government notionally "paying" for that contract. It's paid out of revenues you didn't have before.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      Ever time I've ever heard of these being implemented, the company selling them provides the cameras and installation at no cost. That's how they justify collecting a cut. It's free money for the city.
- tux1968 7y ago
  As a potential counterargument, if you fear Red Light Cameras but don't know where they are, you'll drive more safely at all intersections, not just the ones where they're actually installed.
  - gowld 7y ago
    That requires evidence that people drive more safely in their ticket-avoidance driving, vs accelerating through greens to beat the yellow, or slamming brakes on yellow to cause rear-end collisions.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    This doesn’t seem to be the case. People drive more recklessly trying to avoid triggering a ticket. Cities know this and don’t care as long as they increase revenue. Bad people often run big cities.
- jonshariat 7y ago
  Playing devils advocate here: I think the reasoning behind it could be argued that if people dont know which intersections have red light cameras, they are more likely to not run reds at any intersection just in case. Similar to the idea behind [Panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon). If the cameras were clearly labeled people might run reds in unlabeled intersections.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- megablast 7y ago
  This is a complete lie. The idea is to stop people running red lights everywhere, not just at red light locations. If you run red lights, you should be banned from driving just like if you speed. The roads are unsafe enough as it is.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Punishing people for the light turning red when their back tires haven’t fully made it out of the box has nothing to do with safety. If it was about safety, it would only hit people when the crossing traffic light turned green.
thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
And if a city needs more money for infrastructure/schools/parks/whatever the citizens value, then that is what taxes are for. At least with taxes you aren't fleeced by private corporation along with way.
- inetknght 7y ago
  > At least with taxes you aren't fleeced by private corporation along with way. Care to tell that to Amazon or Wal-Mart?
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    Being upset they reinvested their own money into the company shouldn't be a downside.
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
    I'm sorry. I don't think I understand this comment. Can you clarify?
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      It's just a potshot at amazon and walmart. Their misdeeds are totally tangential to whether or not a city does the upstanding thing (raises taxes with approval or tightens its belt if it can't get approval) or the unethical thing (extracting more money from residents and people who pass through in the form of fees for services and fines for petty violations of civil law).
    - davengh 7y ago
      I think they're referring to the reported costs of social programs used by WalMart and Amazon workers because they average pay is so low. https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-... https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thanks-taxpayer-dollars https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thank...

droopyEyelids 7y ago

The most damning evidence for your perspective is how the cameras are basically hidden, painted black, made inconspicuous. If red light cameras were about safety, the addition of warning signs "Red Light Camera Intersection" ahead of the lights would drastically reduce the amount of dangerous behavior. That isn't how the incentives work, though. Instead they hide them, throwing away the powerful deterrent they've created, in an attempt to make money from the unwary.

kayfox 7y ago
To clarify, the one the guy in the article is complaining about is not hidden, has been there for something like 15 years, and has plenty of signage warning about it. It was also an intersection that had tons of accidents from people running the light before the camera was installed.
- olyjohn 7y ago
  You wanna know what reduces red-light related accidents more than cameras? Increasing the duration of the yellow light. https://saferstreetsla.org/679/case-studies-longer-yellow-light-times-improve-safety/ https://saferstreetsla.org/679/case-studies-longer-yellow-li... Also increasing yellow light duration is significantly cheaper than contracting out a network of cameras to a vendor who takes over half the revenue from each ticket.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > increasing yellow light duration is significantly cheaper than contracting out a network of cameras to a vendor who takes over half the revenue from each ticket. It's cheaper for society, yes. It's much more expensive if you're the government notionally "paying" for that contract. It's paid out of revenues you didn't have before.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Ever time I've ever heard of these being implemented, the company selling them provides the cameras and installation at no cost. That's how they justify collecting a cut. It's free money for the city.
tux1968 7y ago
As a potential counterargument, if you fear Red Light Cameras but don't know where they are, you'll drive more safely at all intersections, not just the ones where they're actually installed.
- gowld 7y ago
  That requires evidence that people drive more safely in their ticket-avoidance driving, vs accelerating through greens to beat the yellow, or slamming brakes on yellow to cause rear-end collisions.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  This doesn’t seem to be the case. People drive more recklessly trying to avoid triggering a ticket. Cities know this and don’t care as long as they increase revenue. Bad people often run big cities.
jonshariat 7y ago
Playing devils advocate here: I think the reasoning behind it could be argued that if people dont know which intersections have red light cameras, they are more likely to not run reds at any intersection just in case. Similar to the idea behind [Panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon). If the cameras were clearly labeled people might run reds in unlabeled intersections.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
megablast 7y ago
This is a complete lie. The idea is to stop people running red lights everywhere, not just at red light locations. If you run red lights, you should be banned from driving just like if you speed. The roads are unsafe enough as it is.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Punishing people for the light turning red when their back tires haven’t fully made it out of the box has nothing to do with safety. If it was about safety, it would only hit people when the crossing traffic light turned green.

thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago

And if a city needs more money for infrastructure/schools/parks/whatever the citizens value, then that is what taxes are for. At least with taxes you aren't fleeced by private corporation along with way.

inetknght 7y ago
> At least with taxes you aren't fleeced by private corporation along with way. Care to tell that to Amazon or Wal-Mart?
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  Being upset they reinvested their own money into the company shouldn't be a downside.
- thrwn_frthr_awy 7y ago
  I'm sorry. I don't think I understand this comment. Can you clarify?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    It's just a potshot at amazon and walmart. Their misdeeds are totally tangential to whether or not a city does the upstanding thing (raises taxes with approval or tightens its belt if it can't get approval) or the unethical thing (extracting more money from residents and people who pass through in the form of fees for services and fines for petty violations of civil law).
  - davengh 7y ago
    I think they're referring to the reported costs of social programs used by WalMart and Amazon workers because they average pay is so low. https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-... https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thanks-taxpayer-dollars https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thank...