Oh really?

Try putting red light cameras to a voter referendum then.

This is probably just as valid as that Houston phone poll right before their general election last year that showed "strong support" for red light cameras there, and guess what, Houston voters chose to remove the cameras. Just shows that phone polls are pretty much useless and they only take the opinions of people that are home all day and lonely enough to want to talk to a survey taker.

This particular report ought to prove what a joke this "prominent highway safety group" is. Sixty-one percent of voters in Sykesville tossed out the cameras. Isn't that worth mentioning?

The camera companies are so desperate they are filing lawsuits in Washington to block residents from having a similar vote. Now, why would they do that if this study were true? And why is it that in places like Houston and Anchorage and Cincinnati have all banned cameras, but voters have never once approved their use?

COMMENT: Sykesville's voters threw out speed cameras, not red light cameras. Red light cameras have generally drawn more support than speed cameras.

I'd like to know the basis for the claim that red light cameras have more support. November's election results in Anaheim and Houston (both red light only) say otherwise.

Click on my name for the 15 actual ballot votes where cameras have lost -- some red light only, some speed only. You have no credible evidence Mr. Dresser. Votes are real, push polls by entities that stand to profit from camera use are nothing more than wishful thinking.

The Maryland State Legislature is discussing enacting a "pedestrian license" to allow you to walk on public streets. $120 fee every two years. Watch not crossing at intersections because you will be caught by the J-walking cameras and fined.

After all, these sidewalks require maintenance and will not repair themselves.

I sometimes wonder if any of our elected officials ever read Orwell's 1984?

It's creepy to police by camera. Our government overreaches constantly.

Who is to say in 20 years there aren't cameras placed in homes of anyone suspected of a crime. After all, we have to "protect the children".

Laugh if you want. I see it coming.

People vote out red light cameras? Hmm…makes sense.

Old folks vote more than young folks. Old folks, on average, are worse drivers than young folks (except, perhaps for those who are just learning). Old folks have an interest in covering their backsides when they plow through a red light because they're driving skills are deteriorating.

And, for the record, I'm middle-aged, headed for old, unless I get run over by some geezer at a corner.

The most important thing in the article is this: "24 percent reduction in fatal crashes".

Red light cameras do the job that they were designed for. Detecting red-light running is much simpler and more reliable than radar cameras.

Please remember, a driver's license is a privilege, not a right, therefore camera monitoring is no invasion of privacy. It doesn't even matter whether red-light cameras are popular or not since operating a motor vehicle on the roads is not a privilege that is earned or deserved by everyone.

Fast forward 20 years from now Frank.

"Please remember, owning a home is a privilege, not a right, therefore camera monitoring is no invasion of privacy. Besides, the bank that owns the mortgage actually owns the home and has every right to monitor what you are doing to their investment."

PR companies have this process down to a science how to get a large # of people who don't think about a topic very much to give the response to a poll which they want them to make. This particular poll is almost a how-to manual on the subject:

Question #1: Do you Believe drivers running red lights is a problem in city? (Goal: plant in subject's mind that red light running is a problem)

Question #2: Do you Believe drivers running red lights is a serious threat to personal safety? (Goal: bring to front of subject's mind that red light running is a safety issue)

Question #3: Do you believe it is acceptable for drivers to go through red lights even when it’s possible to stop
safely? (Goal: plant in subject's mind that red light running is deliberate and malicious as opposed to accidental)

Question #4:In past 30 days have driven through a light that had turned red? (Goal: plant in subject's mind that the cameras are about OTHER PEOPLE, not themselves, because they have not knowingly done this recently).

(Be sure to make no mention of due process issues, right to face an accuser, privacy issues, possibilities of errors, possibilities that violations could be accidental,possibility that yellow light times could be set too short, or possiblility that cameras could be used to enforce other types of violations besides deliberate red light running so those issues will NOT be in subject's mind)

Question #5:"Do You Favor or oppose red light cameras to enforce against red light running?"

==================
Photo enforcement has been placed to a direct public vote exactlu 15 times in the US. The People have voted AGAINST the cameras 15 times. Photo enforcement is NOT popular in the US.

There are several states which issue 'points' for photo tickets, and if insurance companies had there way there would be a lot more of them. Every time someone gets a photo ticket in one of the states that issues points with photo tickets the insurance companies can charge more in premiums without having to pay any additional money out. This "poll" was motivated by the fact that voters in Houston recently rejected red light cameras and because the police Association in Los Angeles voted to shut that city's red light camera program down. Loss of the LA program alone probable would probably cost the insurance companies a significant number of 'lost' ponts from accidental red light violations. It is a desperate attempt to convince the media that cameras are popular in the face of rising nationwide public opposition to the growing for-profit surveillance state.

I have been a victim of a person (uninsured) who ran a red light. I wish there had been a "red light" camera. I think those who are against red light cameras have never been hit by someone who ran a red light.

Since my accident, I've had another near miss from someone running a red light. The problem is worsening because people are now using the extra time (red in both directions) plus some they know they have to get through the intersection.

I say put up cameras at as many intersections as possible and increase the fine for running a red light to $500.

I agree with your point two third reason wants red light wants camera because of security purpose. Thanks for sharing such a nice article.

sydney charter bus

So this is what passes for "journalism" at The Sun - mindlessly regurgitating press releases?

I don't have an issue getting/giving tickets for red light violators. I do have an issue with how distracting the cameras are when they go off. I have been blinded by them when driving late at night. There should be better technology before installing these.