Red Light Cameras
April 26th, 2007I had two constituent emails overnight disagreeing with my vote against red-light cameras this week.
Less than a third of the members voted in favor. Arguments against included:
- studies showing a decrease in accidents were conducted by the companies that sell red light cameras or people who profit from them.
- studies by people who don’t sell red light cameras showing that they increase rear-end collisions.
- no noticeable drop in insurance rates in places that have implemented them.
- the easy availability of devices that defeat red light cameras for people who know they run red lights (those are the ones we’re trying to catch).
Loading ...
May 11th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I fought this about ten years ago or so, when the City of Reno wanted to have them installed. As I can recall, the “red light companies” or the money grabbing government entities in other states started setting the yellow lights to only a few seconds. This brought in lots of revenue (at the behest of the citizenry) but that also created more rear-end collisions (some of the people were very hesitant to drive through lights that changed so suddenly or they would slam on their brakes because they did not want a ticket.)
I also believe there was a court or several courts (in other states) that found these infractions illegal because it did not give people an opportunity to have an eye witness present evidence against them.
This is not a good idea.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
The argument that red light cameras cause more rear-end collisions is only repeating the reason we NEED red light cameras. To say that we don’t want to put in cameras because it will cause other drivers who are trying to “beat the light” to run into those who are trying to obey the law and drive safely is to throw up our hands and walk away from safe driving entirely.
I’m typically all for less government, less rules, and more personal responsibility, but living and driving in Las Vegas has proven that drivers aren’t capable of the responsibility of driving safely. In three years of living here, I have yet to make through a single day without seeing someone run a red light. Often, multiple cars run the same red light. Sometimes (more often than I’m comfortable with) drivers will even run the opposite green light. Once, I even saw a city bus run a red light and clip the car behind me as we passed through the intersection.
Since people won’t drive safely without good reason, it’s time we give people a reason. Make them fear the ticket and fine for running the red light. People WILL stop. And if the car behind the one that stops first doesn’t stop, at least the damage will be a LOT less than what is caused in the middle of the intersection.
Back east, we had a joke: “If you’re sitting at a red light in Brooklyn, and the light turns green, what do you do?” “No, you don’t go, you sit and wait for the guy to blow the red light, THEN you go”
In Las Vegas, that’s not a joke anymore. I use it as a warning to friends and family that come into town. And it’s a rule I follow every day.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
why not try a small pilot program and only ticket drivers entering the intersection *after* their light turns red. That is clearly a dangerous situation but does occur with some frequency (usually the driver is dialing a cell phone or texting).
September 4th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Senator Beers, you might find these articles illuminating.
http://veilguy.blogspot.com/2007/08/automated-red-light-speed-camera-photo.html
http://veilguy.blogspot.com/2007/08/automated-enforcement-cancer.html
Could you have a staff member post the voting records of your colleagues at the following?
http://www.speedtraphunter.net/economics-politics/42-representatives-judges-who-have-voted-their-support-automated-photo-enforcement.html
Thank you for opposition to these systems.
Cheers,
STH