Archive for Sunday, July 19, 2009

Revenue could drive talk of red-light cameras

Governor Mark Parkinson addresses the state legislature during a joint session of the house and senate in the house chamber of the capital building in this April 2009 file photo.

Governor Mark Parkinson addresses the state legislature during a joint session of the house and senate in the house chamber of the capital building in this April 2009 file photo.

July 19, 2009

Advertisement

Efforts to capture red-light runners on video have yet to get the green light in Kansas, but officials in Lawrence are wondering whether that day may soon arrive.

The city has supported past efforts to secure legal permission to hook up such systems in town, and now — with safety issues enduring, technology advancing and revenue needs mounting — talk of enabling legislation just may get another look this coming session in Topeka.

“That wouldn’t surprise me at all, especially when the economy is performing the way it is,” said state Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence and member of the House Transportation Committee. “I think cities will look at options they’ve never seriously considered before to generate new revenues.”

Such systems, which are becoming increasingly popular nationwide, typically allow a private company to install cameras at selected intersections, then use the systems to capture images and videos that lead to tickets for drivers running red lights.

Such files then are forwarded to the local police department for review, before a “notice to appear” in court is mailed to the vehicle’s owner.

A similar system took effect in January in Kansas City, Mo., and the city’s vendor already has 30 cameras operating at 18 intersections. The system has led to more than 8,400 citations, each calling upon the vehicle owner to pay a $100 fine or fight it in court.

The city isn’t sure how much money the system will generate for the city — the vendor, American Traffic Solutions, keeps a cut according to a formula included in a five-year contract — but officials figure that each camera needs to average about 1.5 citations per day to “break even,” said Dennis Gagnon, a spokesman for the Kansas City Public Works Department.

The city’s first intersection to get cameras initially had 150 citations in a week, he said. Now that’s down to an average of 7.5.

The system appears to be accomplishing its first goal, Gagnon said, which is to modify drivers’ behavior and convince them to reduce the number of times they run red lights. That equates to safer driving and fewer accidents.

Whether the program ends up making the city money while doing so remains to be seen.

“We have a program that has zero cost, but has potential revenue,” Gagnon said, noting that the vendor takes the chance of not making money if certain cameras don’t catch enough violators. “We just don’t know what that potential revenue might be.”

Any Kansas community seeking to give red-light cameras a try still has some work to do.

Running a red light is a moving violation, the kind that can assess points on a driver’s license. And while video systems can establish the basics of such a violation — when it occurs, which car is involved and, with additional assistance, who owns the vehicle — they cannot definitively prove who actually is driving the vehicle at the time.

Allowing the red-light moving violation to be considered much like a parking ticket — a citation that goes with the vehicle itself, not necessarily the driver — would require a shift in state statute.

“It’s been talked about, but there’s nothing we can do unless state law changes,” said David Woosley, the city of Lawrence’s traffic/transportation engineer.

Looking ahead

That’s why, in the past, the city of Lawrence has joined other Kansas communities in supporting “legislation at the state level that would specifically authorize municipalities to do red-light running camera citation systems,” said David Corliss, Lawrence city manager.

Improving traffic safety is a motivating factor behind the effort, and while revenue “can be an important aspect” for consideration, he said, officials need to understand that costs also would have to be weighed.

“I see value in that in the future, but it’s not something that we’ve actively supported,” Corliss said. “As the technology improves, and the need to have officers doing other things other than enforcing that (red-light running) ordinance gets more significant, you’ll see that issue coming up in the future.”

Ballard, for one, is waiting to be convinced of its need.

“I’m not sure people are really willing to just vote on it just to generate funds,” Ballard said. “Now, they might be willing to if information can prove that where they are using these cameras has saved lives or made things less dangerous. Then people may be willing to look at it, if it’s a safety issue vs. just money.

“But I think there needs to be a real need for it.”

Comments

LogicMan 5 years, 8 months ago

Far too Big Brother-like for this state's culture and heritage.

And just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Chris Ogle 5 years, 8 months ago

Maybe the City (Lawrence) should simply not buy so much stuff.

Hwy50 5 years, 8 months ago

Hopefully they'll look into the studies that show red light cameras cause more accidents than they save from people slamming on the brakes to make sure they don't run the light. Also, beware, cities have been known to shorten their yellow lights when revenues get low.

BigPrune 5 years, 8 months ago

The incentive for these traffic camera companies is to nail as many people as possible. Who do you complain to if they have their camera caliberations off and cite people who are innocent? Aren't they counting on people not taking them to court? Don't you think most people would just pay the fine? That's what they are counting on.

Also, in Lawrence, the traffic sensing cameras at a lot of the intersections do not work in bad weather and sometimes in good weather. What if your light doesn't change through 3 cycles and nobody is coming so you go through the red light? You get a ticket mailed to you. What else is someone to do? Sit there forever?

I see abuses with these sorts of systems.

Keith 5 years, 8 months ago

How about U turn cameras for Mass St?

Chris Ogle 5 years, 8 months ago

That’s why, in the past, the city of Lawrence has joined other Kansas communities in supporting legislation... said David Corliss,

“I see value in that in the future, but it’s not something that we’ve actively supported,” Corliss said


So which is it Dave?? Do you support it or not?

jaywalker 5 years, 8 months ago

Got some in Atlanta. I got nailed once because the person in front of me wasn't paying attention, turned too sharply so that she almost drove up on the median. She had to stop and back up with me waiting behind her and by that time the light had changed. The ticket was sent with the actual photos attached, just looked like me in the middle of the intersection, no proof with which to fight the ticket.
Grin and bear it, though. They wil be everywhere sooner or later. They actually have 'speeder cameras' on some stretches of interstate now.

KS 5 years, 8 months ago

Just make sure the yellow light timer is not changed. Hummmm! Gosh, it just turned yellow when I entered the intersection, officer. I think this is a waste of money.

davidsmom 5 years, 8 months ago

The technology will continually improve, as it does with everything else. Even now, the cameras probably have a higher percentage of providing accurate evidence than not. I am completely in favor of them. I go through an intersection several times a day where I routinely see people running the light. If the yellows are timed well, slamming on the breaks shouldn't be an issue if a driver is driving the speed limit attentively. And if the cameras reduce the number of red light runners, then the main goal is met. If you've ever heard of anyone who was killed by a red light runner, then you shouldn't have any reason not to want the cameras.

John Kyle 5 years, 8 months ago

I don't see how it is legal to ticket a car and not the driver. If my daughter runs a red light in my car, I get the ticket, not her.

KLATTU 5 years, 8 months ago

"Oh whoa is me! I am an innocent victim of technology and greedy government! I know that it looks like I ran that red light, but my circumstances were different!"

Law breakers from traffic offenders to hard core prisoners always have excuses as to why they shouldn't have to pay the fine/punishment when they get caught.

Cameras on Mass St between 12th & 6th would be worth thousands of dollars a day. Although I'd like to get revenue from cyclists who run red lights/stop signs, and jaywalkers too. Why single out car drivers when it's obvious few people of whatever transportation mode are interested in obeying the law.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 8 months ago

Why spend money on cameras? and maintaining the cameras?

Triple the fines at the Tuesday night commission meeting = make more money and save money at the same time.

The cameras will probably cost a fortune so put much bigger teeth in the fine instead. Perhaps the recent increase is not near enough.

The bigger teeth fines should bring accident rates down.

Perhaps driving too fast explains so many red light violations = put even bigger teeth in speeding fines.

Make use of the motorcycles taxpayers rarely see. Instead of spending on high dollar cameras put more people to work.

Fugu 5 years, 8 months ago

“I think cities will look at options they’ve never seriously considered before to generate new revenues.”

"The system appears to be accomplishing its first goal, Gagnon said, which is to modify drivers’ behavior and convince them to reduce the number of times they run red lights."

If the city wants to generate revenue from these things, do they really want drivers to become safer and follow traffic laws? They would at least want us to disobey the law just enough to cover the costs. That is kind of shady isn't it?

thinkagain 5 years, 8 months ago

I think Keith is brilliant and name calling is juvenile.

classclown 5 years, 8 months ago

"Allowing the red-light moving violation to be considered much like a parking ticket — a citation that goes with the vehicle itself, not necessarily the driver — would require a shift in state statute."

================================

Would that mean a 2 dollar - soon to be 3 dollar fine?

Dan Eyler 5 years, 8 months ago

This has nothing to do with driving modification. This is simply about growing government. More money for government is less money for the private free market. The economy has dropped and government panics. The ability of the middle class in America to save money for their own benefit and then spend it as they want is being stripped away in the name of a better and more caring government. We have ever increasing government spending at the federal level, the state spending has increased 3 times in 10 years. We have schools demanding a 6.5% increase this year and already taking over half of the entire state budget. Then there is the local government who has inflated residential property values by over 100% in just ten years. This was done intentionally so that property taxes would increase. This increased the size of local government and school spending and eventually played a big part of the housing market collapse and another crushing blow to the middle class. Now the cameras. Not for stopping someone from running a red light but to increase government spending with the revenue it can squeeze from the tax payer. The ability to create and expand the middle class is quickly vanishing and will be replaced by the new working class who will have very little to show for their efforts.

nut_case 5 years, 8 months ago

Please no cameras here. If you do any research at all you will find the system is full of fraud.

You start by bringing in a private company to run/maintain the cameras. Of course the more tickets issued, the more money the company makes. So even though the photo is unclear or questionable, send the ticket out - it's just more money in their pocket.

Then the city learns by making the yellow light shorter catches more 'violators'...more violators = more money, so shorten the yellow as much as possible...maybe even more than the federal standard, then the money will really roll in and you're really just catching 'law breakers' right?!?

Next, anyone with a computer and printer can get in the fun. Someone you don't like or want revenge on? Just print out a 'copy' of their license plate, tape it over yours and go camera 'pimping'. The ticket will be mailed to the address of what ever plate you print out! Fun, Fun!

Lastly, more often than not, when the cameras are implemented, a number of the people caught are city employees, police, council members. Of course these violations are often 'dismissed' under the table, so it's really a case of "do what I say, not what I do"

Do any research at all - In short, you're creating a 'tax' system where there is a huge reward for fraud and big money to be made by everyone involved on the 'enforcement' side.

Camera pimping: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2632.asp

Cameras increase crash rate http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36435/113/

Camera mfr using uncertified radar makes 'payment to taxpayers of $22,000' (If this was an actual 'fine' all tickets issued may have been subject to dismissal - so the FCC cautiously skirted the issue to keep all tickets 'legal') http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2644.asp

Caught shortening yellow light for profit: http://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

These links could go on for days...do your research and say "NO" to a system full of abuse and fraud.

Dan Eyler 5 years, 8 months ago

Great additional info. Another reason why a person should ask themselves how much government control they want over their lives. Even traffic cameras.

mom_of_three 5 years, 8 months ago

Several lights in this city have countdown-to-yellow-light installed, so I know when I am several hundred feet from the intersection and the number is at 4 or lower than I should slow down to stop. BUT it never fails to amaze me at the number of drivers who speed up when they should be stopping (they enter the light during the yellow (clearly after the yellow)) because they are in a "hurry" to be somewhere a few moments sooner. My husband and youngest was almost hit a couple of years ago by a driver who ran a red light, so I am really cautious now. As much as I hate these cameras, it could help in some intersections.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 years, 8 months ago

I have been driving for over 40 of my 65 years, I have never gotten a ticket for speeding or running a red light or any traffic violation. I have never caused an accident.

I go to work every day and in my trips to work and home, I see more than one or two drivers, not just slip through the yellow, but blatantly run a red light with the associated screeching of tires of other vehicles on the cross street. This never happened much in the past. But now, we have a culture of "laws are made for others not MEEEEEE! I am SO special!!" Some will blame younger drivers, but I see people who are well past 30 doing the same stupid things in a car. Sometimes the driver is busy yammering on one of those toy plastic phones or eating a Big Mac or some other distracting activity and all of a sudden the yelow that has been yellow for 30 seconds turns RED!.

The problem is not just running red lights, it is people who disregard common sense, try to multi-task all daily tasks, feel it so damned important to call Missy and report the latest soap opera, or the radio talk show to express their worthless opinions. Instead of paying attention to preventing killing another human being.

Red light cameras? I don't know much about how these will help other than some more revenue for the city, who has been pleading poverty for some time now. I do know that due to the lack of civility in our society, this and much more disagreable behavior will plague the society. Take all the photos you want, and rake in the dough. Not much will change.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 8 months ago

or we could just give everyone in town a handgun and we can go about killing every idiot we see burn through a red light.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 8 months ago

ridgerunner, i believe those are traffic control devices. they sense the strobes on the front of emergency vehicles and change the lights to red. even if there are actual video cameras in place, they aren't there to take you and your license plates' picture.

Keith 5 years, 8 months ago

"flux (Anonymous) says…

Keith, you're an idiot. "

Flux you, will see who is the idiot next time you pay >100 for a U turn.

compmd 5 years, 8 months ago

I hate the idea of red-light cameras, they seem far too Orwellian for me and in my opinion violate the spirit of the Constitution. That having been said, Lawrence is a cesspool of terrible drivers who don't care about blowing red lights. Every single day, I see at least one grossly negligent person blow through a red light. Personally, I'd prefer that 2.75" rockets were cheaper and easier to obtain on the civilian market. A more practical solution though:

1) The police have access to unmarked cars. Heck, I'm sure they have access to non-Crown Vics. Put a police officer with a camera and instant-on radar in a parking lot near a traffic light with a known problem. For example, by Sheridan's at 23rd and Iowa.

2) Have the officer wait for someone to go through a red light (most likely when speeding). Take a picture, get the speed from the radar.

3) Radio the vehicle information of the offender to another officer down the road who then pulls over the jerk.

They could make a ton of money off the turn lanes going from southbound Iowa to eastbound 23rd in the morning using this approach and hopefully knock some sense into the idiots driving.

mom_of_three 5 years, 8 months ago

we keep blaming multi-tasking, i.e. cellphones, cigarettes, for dumb drivers, but there are drivers out there who do not have any excuses - they just don't want to stop and they drive reckless.

BigPrune 5 years, 8 months ago

Those cameras presently in place sense cars and which lanes they are in so the light will change accordingly. They are cheaper than burying the sensors under the asphalt.

sinkorswim 5 years, 8 months ago

I'd love to see this at some intersections...such as 23rd and Iowa. I don't know why so many drivers insist on barreling through red lights in this town!! It seems the traffic lights are considered to be suggestions, rather than law. Is getting wherever you're going a few seconds sooner really worth the risk?

somebodynew 5 years, 8 months ago

After the Mrs. just received one of those tickets for speeding on a recent trip, I am not very fond of those cameras. And the tickets cost a bundle !!!! Definatly think there is a "rip-off" and money to be made. And how much would it cost to fly back to Ariz to try to fight it?? A lot more than the ticket, but the cost is just outragous.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

As a few others have mentioned, these devices do nothing to increase safety - how does one modify their behavior when they don't even know they got caught until they get a ticket in the mail days (or weeks) later?

The only purpose of these cameras is to generate revenue. Kansas City has these, yes - they actually bought some many years ago, but the local judges made a decision before they went into use that they wouldn't enforce the tickets, and for that very reason - that the purpose of law enforcement is not to generate revenue. (I'm not sure when or why that changed.) You end up with the same kind of situation as a co-dependency - the city ends up having a vested interest in people continuing to run red lights.


davidsmom (Anonymous) says…

"Even now, the cameras probably have a higher percentage of providing accurate evidence than not."

Gee, that's great. Let's impose criminal fines because there was a slightly better than 50-50 chance they were deserved. (And that doesn't even take into consideration that the cameras can not identify the driver, only the car.) Here's an idea - if it could be demonstrated that more than 50% of drivers break a particular law (seatbelts, speed limit, whatever), let's just send everyone a ticket, since apparently the odds of it being more accurate than not is all that's required.

dweezil222 5 years, 8 months ago

Wonder how well they'd survive a serious legal challenge. The state of Montana declared them unconstitutional this year.

somebodynew 5 years, 8 months ago

For all you who say they only identify the car - unfortuately the one we had experience with clearly shows it was the Mrs. driving and tag on the rental car she was using. There is also a section on the letter where you can dispute that you were not the driver - Just tell them who was. Do I like it, no - but it clearly shows who was driving. I am not postive of the technology involved in the radar aspect, but don't have the $$$ to fly out and challenge it. Which is what they expect. So the State of Arizona will have a lot more of our money than we planned on.

Confrontation 5 years, 8 months ago

They should be ticketing the idiot semi drivers who always run the lights at 23rd and Iowa. Many of them don't even enter the intersection until the light turns red.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 8 months ago

what happens when the offender cant pay ? they gona put him in Jail and create a larger burden for the Tax payers ??

cut pay for city administrators and leaders.............

red light systems cost a lot of money to install and a percentage of the ticket revenue goes to the camera company that setup the system.

If its gona be done it needs to be the same level as a parking ticket.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 8 months ago

I am in favor of the cameras. I also think they should be used for the walkers and the bikers. I want to yell scofflaw when I see a jaywalker. I see quite a few people ignore the light at the park. All you have to do is push the button and wait for the light to turn green. I don't see anyway to stop people from doing this. Ah, pedestrian roadkill, lying squashed in the street with steaming guts being pulled by dogs. "Don't eat that!" someone yells. "That was a homeless person and they don't eat organic!" I love this town.

GardenMomma 5 years, 8 months ago

What happens when someone can't pay for a ticket that an officer writes? It's no different. If you can't do the time (or pay the fine), don't do the crime.

BrentS 5 years, 8 months ago

One of the most horrid ideas for revenue generation ever. The government should not be monetizing moving violations; the profit incentive is too strong, especially for the private contractors that actually install and operate the cameras. These sorts of schemes take laws intended to protect drivers and make them have the opposite effect. You don't have to look far to see stories of rubber-stamped photo tickets fining the wrong person, shortened yellows to increase revenue at the expense of motorist safety, and there is plenty of evidence that the cameras cause accidents. Moving violations should be a question of public safety, not income!

If the city really needs to make money off of drivers, parking tickets are ridiculously cheap in this town. I'm sure five dollars instead of two three for letting the meter run out downtown isn't going to kill anybody. An unsafely shortened yellow just might.

nut_case 5 years, 8 months ago

dweezil222 (Anonymous) says… "Wonder how well they'd survive a serious legal challenge. The state of Montana declared them unconstitutional this year."

If the past is any guide, government will skirt most any issue to keep the lines of revenue flowing. The FCC vs Redflex (google it) case I posted was carefully crafted and worded. The camera manufacturer was basically using uncertified / uncalibrated radar to rake in 'violations'. If you or I went out and started shooting radar, let alone an uncertified unit, or even blabbing on certain 'licensed' radio channels, the FCC would drag you in with a huge fine and make you confess guilt to everyone including your mother and the pope. But if the FCC found Redflex 'guilty' all tickets generated would have to be dismissed due to lack of evidence. The FCC carefully skirted the issue by demanding a 'payment' not a 'fine' from Redflex and by not finding them 'guilty'.

Ticket cameras are bad enough when installed on the auspices of "safety" They are outright terrible when installed for 'revenue'.

dweezil222 5 years, 8 months ago

Here's a great link to information everyone should be aware of and why these things cannot be trusted.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/

===================================

Interesting about the increase in rear-end accidents. I always suspected that would be the result of these cameras.

jayhawks71 5 years, 8 months ago

"The system appears to be accomplishing its first goal, Gagnon said, which is to modify drivers’ behavior and convince them to reduce the number of times they run red lights. That equates to safer driving and fewer accidents."

Where are these data to which Gagnon is referring? Sure people are modifying their behavior when they slam on their brakes. One way that I don't typically see used to address the accidents related to red-light running is implementing a delay between red going one way and green going the other way. People should of course be stopping at red lights, but implementing a short delay (corrected for speed on the road... i.e., a 45 mph road has a longer delay than a 35 mph road) might be the solution. I don't think government likes this idea because it doesn't generate $$$. If it is about safety, the revenue shouldn't matter. Give it a try.

del888 5 years, 8 months ago

caption under front page picture says something about a 'view from Florida Street'. Yet the street sign in the picture clearly shows 'Michigan Street'!

Dale Stringer 5 years, 8 months ago

Every corner needs on of the cameras. For all you that think they are an invasion of privacy, then get off the public streets or stop breaking the law.

jayhawks71 5 years, 8 months ago

"Gee, that's great. Let's impose criminal fines because there was a slightly better than 50-50 chance they were deserved"

Isn't that how the civil courts work, by a preponderance of the evidence? Not saying I agree with it, but there are million dollar judgments made based up just this standard, ask OJ how he could be found "not guilty" of murder in criminal court and be found "guilty" of wrongful death in a civil court. Any lawyers out there who could give more accurate, more informed information?

jayhawks71 5 years, 8 months ago

Buddhadude, people have objections other than privacy or freedom to break the law stances. Where is the evidence that these reduce accidents? Let's examine when people are more likely to run red lights. I am willing to be that they are within 3-5 seconds of the light going from yellow to red, not 25 seconds into a red. There are other solutions that don't involve revenue enhancement. As someone stated above, getting feedback immediately is more likely to change behavior. In addition, it at least allows the driver a fair chance to collect evidence to support one's case. Whether people do this or not, they should be afforded the opportunity to collect evidence if they plan to fight. A photo coming in the mail makes for an insurmountable case.

jayhawks71 5 years, 8 months ago

Del, Florida St. is one block to the west of Michigan. As it says (and you cited) the view is FROM Florida St. not OF Florida St. Are you familiar with the concept of a zoom lens? And, it is just a block (even less if you are standing on the east side of Florida).

kusp8 5 years, 8 months ago

How are privately run redlight camera-based traffic tickets/fines any different from allowing Mil-Spec to give out speeding tickets? The principle is the same, the city is outsourcing its law enforcement to a private company. How the h-e-double matchstick is that legal!?

doc1 5 years, 8 months ago

I wouldn't put too much trust in it yet. My neighbor received a ticket in the mail for his Honda Accord. The picture showed a Honda Accord and a similar license plate, however the problem is that his accord had been parked in his garage for over a year needing a new clutch. Same color of car even but the tag was only similar. I don't know if someone didn't do a thorough job or what but seems pretty scary.

jayhawks71 5 years, 8 months ago

doc1, how did your friend fight it? Did he need to provide a fair amount of evidence of his car being in his garage? Was his fight successful? I am not sure how one would fight this. How do you prove it was in your own garage to an extent that a judge would believe you? What if you drop your car off at a shop to get fixed and they run a red light while (test) driving your car? Of course you get the ticket, right?

Kujay1966 5 years, 8 months ago

Our city officials are spending money on this crap, yet the city is cutting funding in our school system with Buses, etc. I saw a person get pulled over on a bicycle, and written a ticket. The city must need money. I think we do not have the money for these purchases.

puddleglum 5 years, 8 months ago

"Here's a great link to information everyone should be aware of and why these things cannot be trusted."

thankyou GSXR600

"Has the City of Lawrence, Kansas found a way to fix the potholes?

thanyou Marion

stop lights CAUSE more accidents than they prevent. we have too many in this town-the last thing we need is cameras taking pictures of supposed 'law-breakers'.

won't be able to catch me.

puddleglum 5 years, 8 months ago

oh yeah:

The picture is muddier than you might think. According to a comprehensive, 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, red-light cameras indeed reduced total "T-bone" crashes by 25%. But because drivers at camera-equipped intersections seem to slam on the brakes so they won't get a ticket, total rear-end crashes increased 15%, and injury rear-end crashes jumped 24%. -email me if you need the source. :)

Fugu 5 years, 8 months ago

We shouldn't get ahead of ourselves here.. Some people are quick to get upset with city officials over the matter, however, the article is HIGHLY speculative and really does nothing to indicate Lawrence is going to do this anytime soon.

kansasmutt 5 years, 8 months ago

Potholes and the worst Fn streets in Kansas (lawrence) I took a bike ride ( motorcycle) today and due to road work we were forced to go through lawrence.Bigest dan@ mistake of my life. We came into lawrence on K-10 and went west down Clinton parkway.The street was buckeled up so bad it just about tossed me over my bars and jared my back all to hell. One hole was so fn bad i now have a fork tube leaking and may be bent.I will be contacting a lawyer to sue the city. The lack of upkeep is dangerous and could have killed me and my wife.This is total disregaurd for safety on the city of lawrences part and i think they are in a deep pile of poop.They need to post signs at every entry street to lawrence waring of Rough Road ahead and to tell bikes to turn around it is not safe.I have never in my lifetime seen such a crap city street upkeep program.They fix stuff that is stupid like cracked curbs i saw and leave holes 14" deep and dont warn drivers of unsafe road conditions.I will say this . I will NOT ride in that city again. I will tell every one of the thousands of bikers i know to stay out.Bikers spend millions in lawrence and the city is crap.lots of other towns keep streets up nice, so bikers, go someplace else. be safe >>>>>

JHawkInLA 5 years, 8 months ago

These cameras are all over Southern California. They take a picture of the driver and front license plate as the car enters the intersection on a red light. Kansas does not have front license plates, does it?

A large LA paper did a study that showed, yellow lights were one half second to one and a half seconds shorter after the installation of the cameras. Finally, cars making a right turn on red, which is legal, were being ticketed at some intersections. Say cheese!

kansasmutt 5 years, 8 months ago

I think the cam thing is cool, put em up. Thumbs up to them. I wount be going back to the crap City of Lawrence. I dont care, ticket everyone. Ya run a red light, you deserve what you get. Stupid drivers wont learn, so take their cash and use it to plug all the fn potholes.

Rex Russell 5 years, 8 months ago

Been living in Lawrence for close to 20 years. One of the things my wife and I noticed was uniquely Lawrence was/is that everyone blows through yellow lights. Even the majority of officers in town. I swear. The Rules of Driving in Lawrence - Green: Go Red: Stop Yellow: Go Really Fast

mdrndgtl 5 years, 8 months ago

Can't stop me, my '84 Dodge Omni is ticket-proof y'all.

gogoplata 5 years, 8 months ago

Lets start getting rid of stupid crap instead of adding more.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

somebodynew (Anonymous) says…

"For all you who say they only identify the car ..."

'Those' of us would include the article itself: "— they cannot definitively prove who actually is driving the vehicle at the time."

The camera that led to your ticket was able to discern between you and your wife (let's hope), but was it detailed enough to tell between, say, my wife and her sister, or even myself and my brother-in-law? Also, are the camera systems being proposed for Lawrence even capable of seeing the driver? Since Kansas has no front plates, the system would have to be set up with two cameras in each direction, one to see the driver and one to see the license plate. Would that increase the 'break-even' point where the cameras are paid for?

"There is also a section on the letter where you can dispute that you were not the driver - Just tell them who was."

The problem with this is that it puts the accused in the position of having to prove their innocence, rather than the state having to prove their guilt.

kusp8 5 years, 8 months ago

Marion...I can't wait to hear your ideas to get back at The Man.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 8 months ago

IF cameras go up plastic trash bags will be placed over them. period.........

BrianR 5 years, 8 months ago

I'm sure a small guage shotgun would fix a camera.

HW 5 years, 8 months ago

Where I used to live, we used to just throw these tickets away. We never heard another thing about them. The deal there was, if the ticket was not mailed certified ro hand delivered, the city could never prove that you received the ticket. I threw two away in a span of about six years, and never heard another thing.

As for Marion's train of thought, dry ice and a two liter bottle are great for things such as these.

headdoctor 5 years, 8 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

In fact, I'll put up a very special website, dedicated to describing methods to screw up the Looneyville traffic cameras.

Yeppers; I sure will.


Typical. If you can't dazzle with brilliance you baffle with BS.

While some elements of tag disguise are legal, some are not. How long do you think it will be before any attempts to circumvent the law will be illegal? Then again, what does that say about character?

If the cameras will cut down on me risking the side of my car to make sure someone stops at an intersection, then I am all for it. Banging up my car is not the type of public service I am interested in participating with.

gogoplata 5 years, 8 months ago

Are we really going to let our state government push this crap on us? It is time to grow a spine people and tell them no. Call your represenatives and senators and tell them no.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

headdoctor (Anonymous) says…

"If the cameras will cut down on me risking the side of my car to make sure someone stops at an intersection, then I am all for it. Banging up my car is not the type of public service I am interested in participating with."

An understandable sentiment. Now, could you take a whack at explaining exactly how the cameras are going to reduce that risk? Without cheating? Or is it just because the government says it will, so it must be true ...

sinkorswim 5 years, 8 months ago

Bring on the cameras! This morning I was sitting at 31st and Neider Road waiting to turn left onto 31st Street. AFTER the left turn arrow was green, a car on 31st headed towards Iowa cruised right on through their red light. Cameras might be a way of increasing revenue, but if it manages to stop some of these people along the way that's just fine with me! HIt them in their pocketbooks!!

Katara 5 years, 8 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says… Marion writes:

OK, then you would indeed be all about a study which clearly shows that the cameras “CAUSE” more accidents than they prevent, right? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From your quotes from your link.. "Summary of Empirical Bayes Method (Level 4 Analysis)

[Editor's note: only Fairfax County data reflects the most rigorous analysis….These results suggest the following:

The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%.

The cameras are correlated with an increase in rear-end crashes related to the presence of a red light; the increase ranges between 50% and 71%.

The cameras are correlated with a decrease in crashes attributable to red light running, and the decrease is between 24% and 33%.

The cameras are correlated with a decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, with the decrease being between 20% and 33%.

The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes, with the increase being between 7% and 24%.”

Has anyone ever told you that correlation ≠ causation? Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point.

headdoctor 5 years, 8 months ago

Marion, if you are considering a career switch to becoming a Spin Doctor I wouldn't give up my day job. No, wait, what day job?


notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… An understandable sentiment. Now, could you take a whack at explaining exactly how the cameras are going to reduce that risk? Without cheating? Or is it just because the government says it will, so it must be true …


You must be trying to clump me in with what you might call the LJW lefties. Why in the world does everything have to have a political slant or slur to the comment? You may as well have went off blaming Obama for the traffic cameras.

As far as the government goes, I do not believe anything they say except occasionally after it has been categorically denied and unbiased news paper articles are as fictitious as the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause.

I know that traffic tickets do not eliminate traffic violations but if the cameras stop even one red light runner from hitting me it is worth it.(especially if a private company is going to foot the bill for the cameras and not the Government) I find it absolutely ridiculous that millions are spent every year for road up grades and traffic lights to make the roads safer just because we are to stupid to know how to drive.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 8 months ago

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10288352-71.html?tag=mncol;posts

Oh, what lack of 'appiness have the iPhone app-ers caused now?

Well, the police chief of Washington, D.C., Cathy Lanier, is rather upset that wicked, venal humans have been downloading an iPhone app that enjoys the peculiar talent of telling you where speed cameras are.

She told the Washington Examiner that this was a "cowardly tactic."

"It's designed to circumvent law enforcement--law enforcement that is designed specifically to save lives," she said.

Could anyone possibly argue? Well, perhaps.

Speed cameras can be a source of some frustration. (Credit: CC 91RS/Flickr)

Morality is a slope with many slips these days. Technology is moving at a pace far beyond most people's speed limits, so that we're all a little confused as to what is right and what slightly less right.

Oddly, D.C. has embraced technology rather more lovingly than many parts of the U.S.

The Examiner report cites a database called POI Factory, whose estimate is that 10 percent of all red-light and speed cameras in the U.S. are in the D.C. area. That's 290 of them, in case you were thinking of driving there.

And they seem to be something of a revenue-earner as well as a lifesaver. In 2009, the expectation is that Montgomery County (Maryland) will earn $29 million from its cameras.

Some might see a certain irony in the idea that, while these cameras are used to enforce the law, the police chief believes it would not be able to enforce the law to ban the iPhone apps.

"With the Internet and all the new technology, it's almost impossible to stop the flow of information," she said.

And so we enter a new era of technological hide-and-seek between heroes and villains. The snoopers are snooped upon. The police is policed.

Well, it is the land of the free, right?

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 8 months ago

do it put one at every intersection, everyone will start riding their bikes and bikes have no plates........

salad 5 years, 8 months ago

Bring on the cameras! Red light runners deserve a special place in....the hot place.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

Katara (Anonymous) says…

"Has anyone ever told you that correlation ≠ causation? "

True enough, although this was closer to an experimental statistic (either the same intersections before and after cameras or intersections with vs. those without).

Does that apply to the 'correlation' between cameras and a reduction in red-light running, katara? Since that correlation can't prove causation, we don't have any reason to believe there's a legitimate purpose to installing them, do we?


headdoctor (Anonymous) says…

"You must be trying to clump me in with what you might call the LJW lefties."

Wanna' point out where I said any such thing? I was referring to your faith (the definition of which is belief without evidence) that the cameras will somehow reduce your chances of being hit at an intersection. Do you have anything else to support that belief besides the government saying it's so?

"I know that traffic tickets do not eliminate traffic violations but if the cameras stop even one red light runner from hitting me it is worth it."

Fine. Once again an understandable sentiment. And once again - what reason do you have to believe that the cameras will accomplish any such thing?

As many have pointed out, the chances of being hit actually increase, not from red-light runners, but by would-be runners - those behind you. The people who actually follow the law and stop for the light will be the ones who get rear-ended more because of the cameras. Thank that will make you feel better? Ever been rear-ended at a light, doc?

Katara 5 years, 8 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… Katara (Anonymous) says…

“Has anyone ever told you that correlation ≠ causation? ”

True enough, although this was closer to an experimental statistic (either the same intersections before and after cameras or intersections with vs. those without).

Does that apply to the 'correlation' between cameras and a reduction in red-light running, katara? Since that correlation can't prove causation, we don't have any reason to believe there's a legitimate purpose to installing them, do we? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sigh. The study neither proves nor disproves the effectiveness of the cameras. The study itself points out that the big flaw with it is that there is no actual enforcement to back up the cameras.

Get back to me when you find a study that says one way or another that actual has some teeth to its enforcement so people can make a fully educated decision on this.

As for now, I have no issue with them. They would be punitive only, not preventative, because of the fines runners of red lights would have to pay.

I would like to think that habitual violators would be deterred but if it doesn't and just hits them in their pocketbook, I am completely cool with that.

Katara 5 years, 8 months ago

And this argument that they increase accidents because people are stopping and the person behind them hits them is just plain stupid, stupid, stupid.

You might as well argue against anyone driving at all because car accidents overall increase when people get behind the wheel. Why not eliminate all car accidents and ban cars altogether? (ginormous eyeroll).

headdoctor 5 years, 8 months ago

Notajayhawk, I think Beobachter and Katara said it about as good as any.

If I really had to make a choice I will take a rear end hit where the driver may be slamming on their brakes to avoid an accident and also where there is little doubt who will get the ticket as well as the bill for medical coverage and car repair(That of course is assuming they have car insurance). While I may still be providing a public service making sure the car behind me stops at the intersection, I at least wont get T-boned in the intersection by some fool driving at or above the speed limit nor will I be in a position for the accident to be turned against me by a bystander or a cop that arrives after the fact.

As far as your other question/comment. I didn't fall out of the cabbage patch school for the stupid yesterday. There was nothing in your comment about faith. I am perfectly capable of understanding English and phrases as well as have a good concept of where they come from. You wanted to make a point. You didn't even need the remark.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

"That has got to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard of for not stopping at a red light."

Well, you are one of the LJW's foremost experts on dumb ideas.

Um - beo - I know reading is a bit of a problem for you, but perhaps you'd like to point out anywhere I said anything about that being a reason not to stop for a red light?

By the way, when are you going to be old enough to drive, little one?


Katara (Anonymous) says…

"The study neither proves nor disproves the effectiveness of the cameras."

No kiddin'. Ya' think?

That didn't stop the article from claiming that "Improving traffic safety is a motivating factor behind the effort," did it?

"The study itself points out that the big flaw with it is that there is no actual enforcement to back up the cameras."

Um - what?

Which study are you referring to? And, um, getting a ticket in the mail or written by an officer at the scene is still 'enforcement,' katara. See, when someone gets a citation, has to pay a fine, and gets points assessed on their license, that's called 'enforcement.' If anything, enforcement increases with the cameras, since theoretically everyone running the light gets the penalty, as opposed to just the ones who get caught by a passing police officer.


headdoctor (Anonymous) says…

"Notajayhawk, I think Beobachter and Katara said it about as good as any."

Gee, great spokesmen you picked, doc.

And great strawman argument, too. If you can't answer the question, just change it, right?

My question (which you've evaded - twice now) was what are you basing your belief that the cameras will reduce your chances of being hit by another car at an intersection with cameras installed? Not whether the person will be punished or have to pay for the damages, not whether the same person will do it again, but how will it reduce your chances of being hit?

Yeah, great, they get sued, they get fined, they lose their license, heck, maybe you'll even be lucky enough that they'll get killed. That'll teach them, right, doc?

The other question of mine you evaded was whether you've ever been struck from behind - spent months going to doctors and chiropractors, missed work, lived in pain, all to have the other person's insurance company offer you way less than your out-of-pocket expenses or face years of litigation just to collect a dime? And that's assuming the person you get hit by even has insurance, or anything you can take if you win a lawsuit. Or that he even stops.

Silly idea, maybe, but somehow it seems to make more sense to actually cut down on accidents rather than finding a way to create more and punish those at fault.

puddleglum 5 years, 8 months ago

ha ha ha. marioni is right on with his posts. you can waste money on silly cameras-but they won't do anything with shaving cream all over their lenses. can we please fix these horrid roads? potholes killed bob fredrick. crappy chip and seal all over dg rd 458 causes 2 bad accidents. Stoplights cause hundreds of wrecks a year. please get rid of them.

Katara 5 years, 8 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… Katara (Anonymous) says…

“The study neither proves nor disproves the effectiveness of the cameras.”

No kiddin'. Ya' think?

That didn't stop the article from claiming that “Improving traffic safety is a motivating factor behind the effort,” did it?

“The study itself points out that the big flaw with it is that there is no actual enforcement to back up the cameras.”

Um - what?

Which study are you referring to? And, um, getting a ticket in the mail or written by an officer at the scene is still 'enforcement,' katara. See, when someone gets a citation, has to pay a fine, and gets points assessed on their license, that's called 'enforcement.' If anything, enforcement increases with the cameras, since theoretically everyone running the light gets the penalty, as opposed to just the ones who get caught by a passing police officer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Apparently your reading comprehension is about as strong as Marion's and that is not a compliment.

Marion posted a study that he claimed showed that red light cameras caused more accidents. That is the study I have referred to. It is the only one I have referred to in my posts here. Perhaps you don't understand what it means when another person quotes someone and addresses that quote?

Now, may I direct your attention to Marion's post with his quote from the study from the state of VA (Is that a specific enough reference to which study I am referring to?)...

"The report also notes a fatal flaw in the Virginia's camera law — motorists can ignore any ticket received in the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same thing happened in Arizona)."

Further, KS law tickets the car, not the driver. This was addressed in the article above as being an issue with the enforcement of the ticket. One cannot assess points to a driver's license (and thus ding their auto insurance) if one does not have proof of who was actually driving the car. You only have proof of who owns the car.

So that blows your theory away that any ticket issued is effective, correct?

headdoctor 5 years, 8 months ago

Nota jayhawk, where do I even begin with you? In the first place, beobachter and Katara are not my spokesperson. What i said was they said it as good as any.

As far as a straw man argument, perhaps you should know what words you are using mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You must be PUI or PWS because this question you never ask. The other question of mine you evaded was whether you've ever been struck from behind - spent months going to doctors and chiropractors, missed work, lived in pain, all to have the other person's insurance company offer you way less than your out-of-pocket expenses or face years of litigation just to collect a dime? And that's assuming the person you get hit by even has insurance, or anything you can take if you win a lawsuit. Or that he even stops.

As far as your original question. I said that I know traffic tickets do not eliminate violations. To keep pushing for an answer on a subject that you know there is no answer for other than hoping that tickets will cut down on violations, is nothing more than an ignorant trolls approach to irritate other posters. If there is nothing more than a camera at the intersection, what do you think will cut down the number of offenders? The camera is not going to somehow reach out and grab the offending car by the tail pipe and jerk it back into line.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

Katara (Anonymous) says…

"Marion posted a study that he claimed showed that red light cameras caused more accidents. That is the study I have referred to."

Oh, I see. I'm supposed to know what "the" study referred to because Marion posted one. Um, right. I responded to one statement you made - that correlation does not equal causation - maybe if you weren't so full of yourself you might not have assumed I was hanging on every word you posted to the thread.

"Further, KS law tickets the car, not the driver. This was addressed in the article above as being an issue with the enforcement of the ticket."

Speaking of poor reading comprehension skills, dearie, perhaps you should scroll up and try again? What the article addressed is that, at the current time, red light tickets are moving violations that must be assessed against a person, not the vehicle. It would require a change in KS law to assess the violation against the vehicle:

From the article:

"Allowing the red-light moving violation to be considered much like a parking ticket — a citation that goes with the vehicle itself, not necessarily the driver — would require a shift in state statute."

If you read the whole article, it outlines the process as used in other states. The violation is assessed against the owner of the vehicle (unless, as mentioned by at least one poster above, the owner can prove someone else was driving the car). That's still enforcement. (Even a parking ticket has to be paid by a person, not a vehicle - maybe you give your vehicle a discretionary spending account, but most people probably don't.)

By the way, perhaps you weren't aware of this, but we don't live in Virginia, and this article was talking about installing the cameras in Lawrence.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

headdoctor (Anonymous) says…

"this question you never ask"

Or maybe you just can't read:

20 July 2009 at 6:38 p.m. notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

"Ever been rear-ended at a light, doc?"

"As far as your original question. I said that I know traffic tickets do not eliminate violations. To keep pushing for an answer on a subject that you know there is no answer for other than hoping that tickets will cut down on violations, is nothing more than an ignorant trolls approach to irritate other posters."

Nice try, no cookie. Once more for the (apparently very) slow folks - my 'original question' was "Now, could you take a whack at explaining exactly how the cameras are going to reduce that risk?" That was in response to your saying "If the cameras will cut down on me risking the side of my car to make sure someone stops at an intersection, then I am all for it." It was a simple question that you don't seem to be able to answer. And that you've tried to make it sound as if I'd asked an entirely different question. If you're shopping for trolls, doc, perhaps your bathroom mirror might come in handy?

I won't call you ignorant, though, doc. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge - it can be cured. Sadly, it appears your obstinence is deliberate, and quite revealing.

headdoctor 5 years, 8 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Radar detectors mean anything to anyone?

Same old song and dance about those.


Yup. It means a lot of people thought they could outsmart the radar and got popped anyway. They got to pay for the high dollar equipment, the tin foil and the ticket as well.

Reuben Turner 5 years, 8 months ago

if y'all would just slow down, wouldn't be no problem. I personally don't run red lights. i slow down when i see a yellow light. i don't be getting in no hurry around town, i found out that must buildings don't move; it will be there when i get there. i think it will be a good thing at the end of the day. maybe if and when you get tired of paying, you will start paying more attention to driving better. that's all i got to say.

Katara 5 years, 8 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… Katara (Anonymous) says…

“Marion posted a study that he claimed showed that red light cameras caused more accidents. That is the study I have referred to.”

Oh, I see. I'm supposed to know what “the” study referred to because Marion posted one. Um, right. I responded to one statement you made - that correlation does not equal causation - maybe if you weren't so full of yourself you might not have assumed I was hanging on every word you posted to the thread. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Considering that was the study I was responding to and quoted Marion, yes. Perhaps you should re-read my posts. I'm sure it will become crystal clear to you what was going on. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ notajayhawk (Anonymous) says… Speaking of poor reading comprehension skills, dearie, perhaps you should scroll up and try again? What the article addressed is that, at the current time, red light tickets are moving violations that must be assessed against a person, not the vehicle. It would require a change in KS law to assess the violation against the vehicle: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are correct. I did misread that part. Current KS law can only assess the ticket against the driver since it is a moving violation and it would take a change in the law to assess it against the car (like other states do), however that does not assist enforcement of the law as you claim it does.

First, if you cannot prove who the driver is, you assess points against a driver's license. You so patiently explained to me how enforcement of a ticket works with, of course, points being assessed & increasing one's insurance rates or risking losing their license. So explain to me again, how exactly if one cannot assess points to a particular license because one cannot determine who the actual driver is, how that is effective enforcement?

Second, even if state law is changed and tickets can be assessed to the car like a parking ticket, how would that be effective enforcement if it is not changing the behavior of the actual driver?

Third, I'm sure you weren't aware of this since you obviously did not read any of Marion's posts (not that I blame you for that), all his info was from a VA study that he used to claim that red light cameras cause increased accidents, and since I was addressing Marion's study back then when I responded to Marion about his claim, that is why you see reference to VA. See how that works?

Perhaps if you hadn't jumped to the conclusion that I am completely for having red light cameras installed or that I believe they prevent accidents as you did when you responded to my post to Marion, you'd be a little more clear on that.

headdoctor 5 years, 8 months ago

Notajayhawk, my reading comprehension is just fine. I saw the post you are referring to. It was part of a ramble of which I thought you were trying to make a point with but there was none. This, while similar,"Ever been rear-ended at a light, doc? " and part of your ramble isn't quite the same as this,"The other question of mine you evaded was whether you've ever been struck from behind - spent months going to doctors and chiropractors, missed work, lived in pain, all to have the other person's insurance company offer you way less than your out-of-pocket expenses or face years of litigation just to collect a dime? And that's assuming the person you get hit by even has insurance, or anything you can take if you win a lawsuit. Or that he even stops."

What my experience is, has nothing to do with the cameras but then what I say or think really doesn't matter to you anyway. It is obvious you do not want the cameras. We get that. You are just here to argue for arguments sake.

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

headdoctor;

Perhaps you should seek the assistance of one of your namesakes.

”Ever been rear-ended at a light, doc?" & "ever been struck from behind" - yeah, those are two completely different questions. Well, maybe on whatever planet you live on.

Now, let's see - you said "If the cameras will cut down on me risking the side of my car to make sure someone stops at an intersection, then I am all for it.” Then you said "I said that I know traffic tickets do not eliminate violations." Or, in other words, you are all in favor of the cameras IF something you know wouldn't happen happens. So you've been arguing about - let's see - nothing. Keep typing, doc, it's making the letters of the nametag on that picture of the troll in the dictionary a little clearer ... h ... e ... a ...

By the way, doc, can't help but notice you once again couldn't come up with an answer to the question of how the cameras are going to make you safer at an intersection. The question as to whether you've ever been rear-ended was directed at that baseless belief - since the number of injury accidents actually increases when those types of accidents are factored in, you are actually more at risk of being struck and injured at an intersection with cameras. But hey, since it's only the side of your car you're worried about ...

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

Katara (Anonymous) says…

"Perhaps you should re-read my posts. I'm sure it will become crystal clear to you what was going on."

I did not respond to anything of Marion's you quoted or to any comment from you that applied specifically to 'the' study. I responded to your comment that correlation does not equal causation, which has nothing to do with the specifics of the Va study. There were allegations made in the article this message board is attached to that cameras make some intersections safer, and I asked you whether that correlation≠causation applied to those claims as well, and you already acknowledged that it does.

"Second, even if state law is changed and tickets can be assessed to the car like a parking ticket, how would that be effective enforcement if it is not changing the behavior of the actual driver?"

Since when does enforcement of the law depend on modifying the behavior of the offender? If you lock someone up for a crime, and the day they get out they commit the same crime, get locked up again, and perpetrate again, etc., is the law not being enforced?

And weren't you the one who said "I would like to think that habitual violators would be deterred but if it doesn't and just hits them in their pocketbook, I am completely cool with that?"

"if you cannot prove who the driver is, you assess points against a driver's license. You so patiently explained to me how enforcement of a ticket works with, of course, points being assessed & increasing one's insurance rates or risking losing their license. So explain to me again, how exactly if one cannot assess points to a particular license because one cannot determine who the actual driver is, how that is effective enforcement?"

If a car is parked illegally, the meter maid has no idea who parked it there, and it doesn't matter - the citation is issued and paid, the law is enforced. Or maybe the fine isn't paid, and a few more pile up, and the car ends up with a boot on it until the owner pays up. That's not enforcement?

Or maybe, if you own a vehicle and your daughter gets a ticket for parking or running a light or whatever, you're just going to chuckle, say 'Why, that little dickens,' pay the fine for her, and forget about it?

Up until about 30 years ago, the law in the state where I was born said that the owner of a vehicle was responsible for any damages from an accident, regardless. After a friend of mine fell asleep after a party at his house, an acquaintance of his hot-wired his car and cut down a telephone pole. My friend lost his license until the pole was paid for. Right or wrong, the law was enforced.

"Perhaps if you hadn't jumped to the conclusion that I am completely for having red light cameras installed or that I believe they prevent accidents as you did when you responded to my post to Marion, you'd be a little more clear on that."

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I assumed any such thing?

Katara 5 years, 8 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says...

I did not respond to anything of Marion's you quoted or to any comment from you that applied specifically to 'the' study. I responded to your comment that correlation does not equal causation, which has nothing to do with the specifics of the Va study. There were allegations made in the article this message board is attached to that cameras make some intersections safer, and I asked you whether that correlation≠causation applied to those claims as well, and you already acknowledged that it does. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, you did respond to my response to Marion's study. I quoted him directly and remarked that correlation does not equal causation. That is where you jumped in with your first attitude filled comment. See the post on 7/20 @ 12:12pm and then scroll up to view Marion's comment.

I further explained that I was not convinced that red light cameras were preventative but that they are punitive and that I am cool with them being so. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…Since when does enforcement of the law depend on modifying the behavior of the offender? If you lock someone up for a crime, and the day they get out they commit the same crime, get locked up again, and perpetrate again, etc., is the law not being enforced?

And weren't you the one who said “I would like to think that habitual violators would be deterred but if it doesn't and just hits them in their pocketbook, I am completely cool with that?” ~~~~~~~~~~~ There are 2 levels when dealing with the goal of enforcement of the law. First, punishing the offender and second, rehabilitating the offender. Prison is not only just designed to be a punishment but to also rehabilitate the criminal (conversation about the actual effectiveness of that is not being initiated here). And if enforcement of the law was only punishment, then why bother with arguments about tickets deterring people from breaking the law?

As to my comment, I don't think you get it. I would like to believe that it would deter but there is no evidence to show that it does, so as far as red light cameras are concerned, I am cool with them being punitive.They would simply be a substitute for an actual cop sitting at the intersection. Does that make it any clearer than that?

Katara 5 years, 8 months ago

cont'd

notajayhawk says.... If a car is parked illegally, the meter maid has no idea who parked it there, and it doesn't matter - the citation is issued and paid, the law is enforced. Or maybe the fine isn't paid, and a few more pile up, and the car ends up with a boot on it until the owner pays up. That's not enforcement?

Or maybe, if you own a vehicle and your daughter gets a ticket for parking or running a light or whatever, you're just going to chuckle, say 'Why, that little dickens,' pay the fine for her, and forget about it?

Up until about 30 years ago, the law in the state where I was born said that the owner of a vehicle was responsible for any damages from an accident, regardless. After a friend of mine fell asleep after a party at his house, an acquaintance of his hot-wired his car and cut down a telephone pole. My friend lost his license until the pole was paid for. Right or wrong, the law was enforced. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nope. The law is not enforced if you are punishing a person who didn't commit the crime. Would you use that line of argument for someone convicted of a crime in error that involves the death penalty?

Gee, gosh, I know we executed the wrong person and we have proof that the person was not the one who actually committed the crime but by golly, we enforced the law! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ notajayhawk says.... Perhaps you'd like to point out where I assumed any such thing? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That would be the part where you copped the attitude in the very first post you made addressing me about correlation not equally causation. You assumed that just because I said that to Marion in regards to red light cameras causing more accident, that I was arguing that they decreased accidents. You wouldn't have asked otherwise unless you were looking to "trap" a person on that.

Anyhow, I am done engaging with you on this thread. It is obvious that you too enamored with your own bad self and too busy copping an attitude to make it worth pursuing further conversation with you.

Good day, sir.

headdoctor 5 years, 8 months ago

Notajayhawk. I have stated at least twice that I know traffic tickets do not eliminate violations. You insist on wanting an answer to how I think cameras will cut down on violations and I have answered at least twice that you are requesting an answer for something that there isn't an answer for.

You really are not interested in any form of intelligent debate. Throwing in a question as part of a rhetorical ramble usually will not get you a response. Insisting on answers to gain anecdotal evidence that has no bearing on the subject does not help or contribute. Debating someone and then during the debate change the parameters as you go will not serve any purpose. Accusing the the other poster of doing what you are doing(straw man argument for example) and then issuing a denial or ignoring that you are doing so gains you nothing. Using a condescending tone or verbal abuse will almost always get something started because most posters will gladly throw it back at you. If you do not want to be treated with that type of behavior then don't do it. Believe it or not, it is possible to give another poster a good smack down for saying something really stupid or debate back and forth with passion without being condescending or verbally abusive.

So, I am back to my original conclusion. You are here for the sake of argument and argument only and I am real certain I just wasted my time posting this because you will choose not to get it. Either way I am done with you on this thread.

Alexander Neighbors 5 years, 8 months ago

make parking tickets $290.00 a ticket this will solve your budget problems because 2,3 ,4 dollar tickets are not enough $15.00

gphawk89 5 years, 8 months ago

And wear a ski mask while driving so you're unrecognizable.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.