Red-light camera program back on the table
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 11:48 PM PST
By Amy M.E. Fischer
Printable version
E-mail this articleThe failure of a Tim Eyman-sponsored voter initiative has prompted the Longview City Council to revive its discussion about installing red-light cameras at the city’s most dangerous intersections.
At Thursday’s 7 p.m. meeting, the council will consider whether to allow the traffic safety cameras and ask city staff to proceed with a pilot project.
Voters in November killed I-985, which would have opened carpool lanes and required cities to synchronize traffic signals, among other things. If Eyman’s initiative had passed, cities would have been required to send red-light ticket revenues to Olympia for deposit into the state’s “Reduce Traffic Congestion Account.”
In September, Eyman told The Daily News his initiative’s funding source was intended to expose cities’ motive for using traffic-safety cameras. Cities install the cameras for profit, not to increase safety, he argued.
The Longview Council postponed consideration of a red-light camera program until after the election. The program would be unaffordable if the city couldn’t keep the traffic ticket money the cameras would generate, city officials said.
Councilmembers Mary Jane Melink and Dennis Weber have argued that the cameras would make streets safer and free up police to investigate more crimes.
“This is a very economical way to have enforcement 24/7,” City Manager Bob Gregory said Tuesday, adding that he didn’t have a cost estimate yet for the cameras. “From a traffic safety standpoint, it’s difficult to deploy officers with the amount of enforcement you need to deter red-light running.”
Some council members, concerned about violating citizens’ privacy, are unconvinced the cameras would be good for Longview and say they need more information. Two years ago, the council rejected a proposal for the cameras, but the council makeup and laws regulating the cameras have since changed.
Today, the cameras may not photograph the driver or passengers’ faces, just the front and back of the vehicle as it passes through a red light.
According to Longview police, between 2000 and 2006, there were 4,920 crashes in town, 13 of which were fatal. Of those wrecks, 29 percent were caused by red-light running or T-bone crashes. Red-light cameras could significantly reduce the number of violations and crashes in town, police say.
If the council decides to support launching a traffic safety camera pilot project, the city will solicit contract proposals from vendors, Gregory said.
Related articles:
Eyman's traffic measure rejected (Nov. 5)
Longview leaders, Eyman clash over red-light camera revenues (Sept. 11)
Council delays decision on red-light cameras (Aug. 15)
hawkster wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:09 AM:
" put em up. it'll make people pay more attention to driving rather than their food, cell phone, radio, etc. the more aware we are, the safer we are. "
chevguy wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:14 AM:
" Wow free up officers for other crimes? Sit at any intersection that connects to ocean beach any time of day and i guarantee you will see someone run a red light within 5 minutes. Hence I have never seen an officer watching any intersection ever, But the lights do have the pretty blue lights on the backside.Just remember when you get the green look both ways. "
fanky wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:14 AM:
" It may be just me, but what a crock... while I believe some officers may want to reduce crime,it is a little like the fox guarding the hen house.. look at it this way... the funds raised through traffic tickets, DUI's etc. help raise large amounts of funds to supplement the police and judge's salaries, not to mention all the other jobs associated with it. Now, if they really stopped concentrating on traffic enforcement and truly wanted to reduce ..hmmm.. lets say vandalism, vehicle prowls, murders, etc... they would loose a large part of their funding, thus forcing them to either lay off people or take a huge pay cut... and a quick question if anyone can answer... what crime took place around noon or one pm that required 4 police standing around next to the lake and Ocean Beach...? "
turkeyhunterman wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:57 AM:
" Just because I-985 didn't pass it doesn't mean that there weren't some good ideas in it. The lights in this city are broken. They need fixed. When lights stop 20+ cars to allow someone to make a right turn out of a parking lot, that's broken! Left turn arrows light up when no one is in the left turn lane, that's broken. When will this Longview City council get a clue? Fix what we have before spending money unnecessarily. "
skibum wrote on Dec 10, 2008 6:28 AM:
" I can't express enough how great of an idea I feel these lights would be. I have never seen people run red lights like they do in Longview. I am very apprehensive every time I enter an intersection when my light turns green. I honestly feel that my day (or one of my family members) is coming at the hands of a red light runner in Longview. It's just a matter of time. Put the cameras up all over town as far as I'm concerned, and double the current fines for running red lights. "
viper wrote on Dec 10, 2008 6:42 AM:
" so how is this red light traffic CAMERAS going to change the safety of the people .
all it does it collect revenue it's just a portable cop with a ticket book it's not going to make anyone drive better and pay more attention while they are still talking on there cell phones which is illegal it's just a revenue generator
so call it by it's real name and quit blowing smoke up our butts those cameras are there already has it made a difference yet NO! so what is the projected revenue that you are looking for that your not saying ? it's not going to make the intersections any safer as if they don't see a cop around they do it anyway. quit trying to make us look like a bunch of dumb sheep WE KNOW what your motive is it's MONEY not safety How is someone siting in a closed room across town watching a camera who is more then likely flirting with one of the employees going to make us safer this is just yet another attempt to get into our wallets if the money goes into the state fund you don't want it but if you can funnel it into your city account you are all for it. just more Government thievery this not going to help reduce accidents "
all it does it collect revenue it's just a portable cop with a ticket book it's not going to make anyone drive better and pay more attention while they are still talking on there cell phones which is illegal it's just a revenue generator
so call it by it's real name and quit blowing smoke up our butts those cameras are there already has it made a difference yet NO! so what is the projected revenue that you are looking for that your not saying ? it's not going to make the intersections any safer as if they don't see a cop around they do it anyway. quit trying to make us look like a bunch of dumb sheep WE KNOW what your motive is it's MONEY not safety How is someone siting in a closed room across town watching a camera who is more then likely flirting with one of the employees going to make us safer this is just yet another attempt to get into our wallets if the money goes into the state fund you don't want it but if you can funnel it into your city account you are all for it. just more Government thievery this not going to help reduce accidents "
viper wrote on Dec 10, 2008 7:04 AM:
" the problems with red light cameras are they are not going to catch the people causing the accidents the people on there cell phones the women putting on there makeup while driving. the business people reading reports while driving the people text messaging while driving. I see these things every day when I'm running around town and a stationary camera is not going to catch these people . there for the accidents will continue and the city will get more money and don't have to even leave the office all the cops can stay at the office and do paper work with no visibility on the streets which is what deters crime get your lazy butts out of the office or coffee shops and do your jobs. what you are paid to do if not get someone in there that wants to work I'm sure right now there is a LARGE pool of unemployed people to chose from and would be glad to have a job. you don't investigate crimes you just take reports and hope they will turn them selfs in maybe we should look for people that want to work or hire a private police force . a red light camera is not going to deter crime visibility is what does it not sitting in an office I would like to see a camera chase a criminal "
lurkertom wrote on Dec 10, 2008 7:10 AM:
" RLC's will generate revenue for the city and the company they buy them from. The effect will be to deter red light runners at the camera locations only. Safety would increase only marginally and then only if the yellow time is lengthened adequately. Given the city cannot even synchronize their traffic lights I am not too sure how the RLC's would help. The city and police already know where the worst intersections are. Get out and enforce the law periodically to remind drivers that it's not cool to run lights. I think this is a bad idea. "
No rose glasses wrote on Dec 10, 2008 7:36 AM:
" Who are they trying to BS?? Traffic department too lazy to redesign a traffic flow pattern, that really works. Stop light synchronization, fixing deporable steet surfaces or ??, they need to get out of the office, city hall, or coffee shop, to fix,redesign, correct problems, within city. Besides all that, the same drivers, with no license,or insurance, will still be T_Boning at the same intersections no matter what system is implemented. Yes Red Light camera's wiil increase the city's revenue, and increase our tax load to support same.All of those I previously mentioned will be sent to jail,and we'll support them there, for their lack of paying fines. But of course, it'll create more jobs at the county level, to maintain the added jailbeds. Of course, you know where that money comes from, TaxPayers again!! Why maybe we'd better build a bigger better jail, funded by the Red Light Camera's? It goes On and On, by people in our city and county goverment!! "
American First wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:24 AM:
" I understand the concept, but think it's a bad idea. "
Truthiness wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:35 AM:
" It's clear the city wants this for extra revenue and not for the safety of the people. Nothing is stopping them from pledging all revenue from the tickets to go towards improving traffic flow and intersection light timing. Have they made that pledge? NO. The money will go into their general fund and vanish on something else. How sad. "
Mrs. Pellwerds wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:37 AM:
" Look at it this way: we can raise everyones taxes to continue to fund city operations OR we could use a technology that creates a safer place while penalizing those who are unsafe, which just happens to increase revenue to where we would not need to increase everyones taxes. "
concerned wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:40 AM:
" Yep thats just what we need traffic cameras put up so the police dont have to do one more thing they are already paid to do. Sure it will free the police up so they can take longer doughnut breaks..at least thats how I see it. You very rarely see street police doing investigative work becuse from what I understand thats left to higher ranking investigators....... I think the only reason they want these cameras up is for extra revenue for the city!! "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:41 AM:
" While I agree that our traffic light system could be better coordinated and even with the cameras that the police should do a better job of showing their visibility in problem areas, I disagree with the sentiment that this is a bad idea because it is a revenue collector. What the heck does that have to do with improving safety. I have witnessed three horiffic t-bone collisions caused by red light runners. One of those resulted in multiple fatalities. Now I know that these cameras won't stop anyone from running a red light if they decide that's what they are going to do, but maybe it will make people think a little and use better judgment. I know why my kids were driving, I always worried if they were driving correctly and not endangering others. I had no way of knowing, of course. This will be a good tool for parents. Get one of these tickets and you will know you have teaching to do. Sorry for the cost but it's a lot cheaper than paying for a wreck. Use some common sense people, if this prevents one bad accident at an intersection a year, it is worth it. Quit your bitching and drive safely, for your health and the health of others. "
Truthiness wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:41 AM:
" Also, photographing somebody as they run a red light DOES NOT prevent the act from happening. It only enables the ticked afterwords. My intuition tells me that most traffic accidents due to somebody through the middle of a red light are due to the driver not noticing the red light and not because the driver deliberately drove through the light because there probably wouldn't be a ticket. "
Beau Khaki wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:42 AM:
" Its not too tough to figure out that a majority of the lights in Longview not only do not work properly, but are not even neccesary. Geez, Bob does it really matter if someone runs a red light at 4 in the morning because it wont TURN green for them? Real economical to sit at a red light when there is no cross traffic!! And Mr. Gregory, if you want to "deter" red light runners, you can start by making them work first. "
The Commissioner wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:57 AM:
" A little known, but oh so true, fact is that the City gets barely any revenue from these red light violations. The company providing the equipment, installation and maintenance gets the lion's share. The City I came from got around $5.00 per ticket.
And I don't know about you, but why should there be any expectation for privacy when someone leaves their house, office or where ever and gets into a vehicle completely surrounded by clear glass? Shades of "the King's clothes" perhaps? "
And I don't know about you, but why should there be any expectation for privacy when someone leaves their house, office or where ever and gets into a vehicle completely surrounded by clear glass? Shades of "the King's clothes" perhaps? "
Louie wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:13 AM:
" Personally I am all for any project that will stop the 'red light running!' It is getting out of control. Where you have a pedestrian light and they count down with a large number, 7, 6, 5, etc., you know when you have to slow down because the light will turn to yellow. They have used these count down signals in New Mexico for years and we have a few, too few, here in Longview. They are great...install some more of those too.
Since I obey the laws of the road, I have no problem with cameras at intersections.
Perhaps the funds generated from ticketing using cameras should go into a fund to build a multi-level parking lot for downtown?...something we have needed for years and years. "
Since I obey the laws of the road, I have no problem with cameras at intersections.
Perhaps the funds generated from ticketing using cameras should go into a fund to build a multi-level parking lot for downtown?...something we have needed for years and years. "
The Zipster wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:29 AM:
" Call it a "user fee" when you get busted for running a red light. One sure way to tell if you are a native Longviewite - when you are only the third car through the intersection after the light turns red! Bring them on as the deterrent factor alone will mean fewer violators but phase them in with warnings only for the first week or a required court appearance to get the fine and charge dropped.A little inconvenience would be another good deterrent. The traffic flow and timing of the lights on OBH do need some attention but it is not an excuse for running a red light. A few dummy blue lights and strobes would add that extra layer of caution as who runs a red light in front of a "portable cop"? Is it real or is it a blind decoy? The light at Lowe's is particularly onerous as sitting through the change of the light with no one exiting the Lowes' parking lot is rather frustrating. "
jensdad wrote on Dec 10, 2008 10:05 AM:
" Fanky.. I watched as they pulled it over. It was a white van with a ladder on top. Two blocked the nice new intersection so the van would turn onto Nichols bvld and two tucked in behind. Of course the light wasn't working so it probable stalled out at the light. But still it took 4 to get it around the corner. Lights a blaring....
So i do have a question though.. If the lights that have these cameras are not working, will it still take pictures of vehicles running them? In the past couple months i have seen a few major intersections that have been down all weekend. Does that mean we can only make right turns to not go thru them? "
So i do have a question though.. If the lights that have these cameras are not working, will it still take pictures of vehicles running them? In the past couple months i have seen a few major intersections that have been down all weekend. Does that mean we can only make right turns to not go thru them? "
rs5 wrote on Dec 10, 2008 10:33 AM:
" viper you are right it is only about the money. Commissioner quit drinking Kool-Aid. The first month that the city of Puyallup used these cameras they issued over $268,000.00 in tickets, out of that they put close to $200,000.00 in their citys coffers. "
Cheney119 wrote on Dec 10, 2008 10:36 AM:
" Right on Turkey! When lights stop 20+ cars to allow someone to make a right turn out of a parking lot, that's broken! Especially when 20+ cars are being caused to wait for 1 car and sit there for 45 seconds after the 1 car has passed. The revenue is the key issue, if these cameras were really a good idea they would have been a good idea inspite of the outcome of 985. This is the first article out of 5 articles, that actually quotes a meaningful statistic. The Longview Police say 29 percent of accidents were caused by red-light running or T-bone crashes. Ok given that "fact" do you people think that a red light camera would really change these drivers behavior when the potential of wreck didn't change their behaivior? I say no and if you really think about it you might agree. "
pangborn wrote on Dec 10, 2008 10:37 AM:
" Put a red light on domestic spying. Once the camereas go up there will be more cameras and more and the focus will go beyond traffic violations.
It's anti-American. "
It's anti-American. "
TDN Bad Boy wrote on Dec 10, 2008 11:16 AM:
" Big Brother can watch me all he wants. I have nothing to hide. And Cheney no it is not going to change the behavior anymore than the DUI laws change the behavior of the habitual alcoholic. But the DUI laws do change the behavior of some people and this will change the behavior of some people. If you are paranoid about it, you must be guilty. Get ready to pay those tickets because this system does work in that regard. I hope anyone who chooses to run the light gets nailed everytime. Slow down, take a few minutes more and make everyone safer. "
mole wrote on Dec 10, 2008 11:18 AM:
" DON'T BREAK THE LAW,the camera survelience[sp]has put numerous muggers in jail,it is going to happen!!!BIG BROTHER HAS ALLWAYS WATCHED, AND HAS DONE SO ,SINCE THE FIRST MONKEY WENT IN SPACE,that was a cover for satelites,to be put in space. "
Atrucker wrote on Dec 10, 2008 11:48 AM:
" Did you hear the Kachink of the cash box ? And the funny part is the city will have to rent this stuff , AND YOU PAID FOR IT ! And they say they are in the hole already , so make money off of tickets . The light runners will do the same thing camera or not , and the city is betting on just this fact , less crashes , Bull S!@#$. It is a cash machine , and will not stop wrecks . "
Kalama Dude wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:36 PM:
" Looks like the Bad Boy has time to post here but on the Port thread he is going to act like nothing ever happened. We are all waiting Bad Boy for your response to the other issue, otherwise we have to assume you have gotten and we all know that this can't be the case.....can it? Waiting BB Tick Tock "
Saturos wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:52 PM:
" Atrucker. The bottom line is somebody is breaking the freaking law. Who cares about WHY the cameras were set up? Who cares if it's a cash machine? Nothing bad could come out of it. Longview makes money and we help keep the streets safe. And how, exactly would this NOT stop people from running red lights? The promise of getting caught for doing something wrong is enough to get people to cut the crap. Would you shoplift right in front of a camera? Of course not. Would you run a red light if you were going to get a ticket? Of course not. Unless you are a complete pillock. Drive safely. The lights are there for a reason. "
Outside Observer wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:56 PM:
" Up for a little research on the topic? Care to read what was filed by the Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives? In the document titled The Red Light Running Crisis you will get an eyeful. Try here: http://www.highwayrobbery.net. "
Pat83t wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:15 PM:
" Watch for the statistics of T-bone accidents at red lights to drop slightly and for rear end collisions to go up dramatically due to people locking up their brakes at the first sign the light is going to change. "
crowsfeet wrote on Dec 10, 2008 1:55 PM:
" Probably should put cameras on all the stop signs also. I have had two accidents caused by people pulling out from a stop sign in front of me even after looking right at me. One woman actually told the attending officer "I stopped at that stop sign" and I said yes, but then why did you pull out in front of me. So. Put the eye on everything, a great deal of what we see depends on what we are looking for. "
Motherof2 wrote on Dec 10, 2008 2:33 PM:
" Putting Camaras up to catch people running red lights is an excellent idea, and the people that think it is not an excellent idea are probably the ones that are RUNNING THE RED LIGHTS! What's the big deal if you are driving safely, you won't have to worry about the cammars! My girlfriend was killed by someone running a red light in Florida; a car T-boned her, and she was killed instantly. Now intersections scare me, and I am very cautious while entering a intersection. My only wish is that the police, sheriff and others would obey the same laws that everyone else does....and Maybe the camaras will cathch them doing unlawful things as well! I see Police and Sheriff cars running stop signs, running lights, and speeding through school zones all the time! The law states if they need to speed they need to have their lights on, or they have to obey every law we do, but they dont, so maybe the camaras will catch them breaking the law too! Although, I am sure a ticket will not be sent to them, or to their boss! My point is... if Camaras are put up the camaras need to "POLICE" EVERYONE, NOT JUST THE CITIZENS OF LONGVIEW / KELSO. "
Flamingo wrote on Dec 10, 2008 2:39 PM:
" So Eyman said "Cities install the camera for profit, not for increasing safety". That's a stupid argument. So what's wrong with the City making money? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Plus it obviously increases safety. Anybody with a brain could figure that out. Now, Longview, let's get the cameras before someone gets killed. "
otto-matic wrote on Dec 10, 2008 3:13 PM:
" Here is some data from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:
8 | Isn't longer yellow signal timing more effective than using red light cameras to reduce red light running?
While the provision of adequate yellow signal timing is important and can reduce red light running, longer yellow timing alone does not eliminate the need or potential benefits of red light cameras. Studies have shown that increasing yellow timing to values associated with guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers13 can significantly decrease the frequency of red light violations.14,15,16 In addition, a 2002 Institute study of modified yellow and all-red traffic signal timing at urban intersections reported that injury crashes were reduced by 12 percent at experimental sites relative to comparison sites.17
An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, evaluated incremental effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing, followed by introduction of red light camera enforcement.8 Yellow signal timing was increased by about one second at two intersections where red light cameras were installed. Results show that while increased yellow signal timing reduced red light violations by 36 percent, the addition of red light camera enforcement further reduced red light violations at these sites by 96 percent beyond levels achieved by the longer yellow signal timing. "
8 | Isn't longer yellow signal timing more effective than using red light cameras to reduce red light running?
While the provision of adequate yellow signal timing is important and can reduce red light running, longer yellow timing alone does not eliminate the need or potential benefits of red light cameras. Studies have shown that increasing yellow timing to values associated with guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers13 can significantly decrease the frequency of red light violations.14,15,16 In addition, a 2002 Institute study of modified yellow and all-red traffic signal timing at urban intersections reported that injury crashes were reduced by 12 percent at experimental sites relative to comparison sites.17
An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, evaluated incremental effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing, followed by introduction of red light camera enforcement.8 Yellow signal timing was increased by about one second at two intersections where red light cameras were installed. Results show that while increased yellow signal timing reduced red light violations by 36 percent, the addition of red light camera enforcement further reduced red light violations at these sites by 96 percent beyond levels achieved by the longer yellow signal timing. "
Amazed By Ignorance wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:22 PM:
" Since I don't buy into the whole "only the plate will be focused upon" mantra. One question. When the cameras freeze the moment, and catch the offending speeder, light runner, etc. What happens if the camera catches them using a cell phone ay the same time? Since that law passed, and deemed it a secondary offense? Will two tickets be sent to the offender? One, for the primary, and one for the cell phone use? "
otto-matic wrote on Dec 10, 2008 4:37 PM:
" The red light camera does not take a picture of the driver, only the plate. The ticket is similar to a parking ticket. It does not go on a person's driving record.
Therefore, your example is invalid. "
Therefore, your example is invalid. "
Atrucker wrote on Dec 10, 2008 5:48 PM:
" All of you whinners , that like big brother running your life just do not get it . The more freedom you give away the more they will take until you have little or none left. Just wave your hand high when the bill comes to run these cameras, TAX ME PLEASE ! I LOVE TAXES !
The cell phone users, makeup, and all sorts of other distractions will still have the same result dum, drivers running lights. Let a person be late to work . and see a complete change in atitude , so who are you people kidding ? Not me I assure you.
Lonview Council = $$$$ for tickets . Safety ? LOL "
The cell phone users, makeup, and all sorts of other distractions will still have the same result dum, drivers running lights. Let a person be late to work . and see a complete change in atitude , so who are you people kidding ? Not me I assure you.
Lonview Council = $$$$ for tickets . Safety ? LOL "
Thought wrote on Dec 10, 2008 7:18 PM:
" Syncronize the damn lights and most of the problems would go away !!!!!!! "
northender wrote on Dec 10, 2008 7:42 PM:
" It is time for Webber to go ahead and change parties.Webber supports higher gas taxes and supports big brother at every turn. Go ahead Dennis, make Sid Snyder happy! Red light cameras??? just another source of revenue for tax and spend crazy politicians! "
US CITIZEN wrote on Dec 10, 2008 8:36 PM:
" go ahead and put them up and give me a ticket ,i will drag it out in court for months.i will bring in every traffic study to date and we will talk about how the city has failed in syncronizing the lights,why do they fail to work half the time,traffic flow,safety issues,etc. "
bucketball wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:02 PM:
" I don't need Big Brother to watch me. It's not about whether you have something to hide or not. Constitution guarantees privacy. I guarantee you all have nothing to hide about as much as you would be willing to post your real name, address, and phone number in these comment sections. Dallas, TX took down over 25 percent of their RLC because they are not profitable enough to them. I can't actually believe they admitted that but they did. I would think it would be cheaper for us tax payers to hire a couple more officers to watch problem intersections and generate revenue that way if that is what they want plus it employs a couple more people. Beside's don't you have the right to face your accuser? Is this camera going to show up in court and testify that I ran a poorly programmed Longview red light? Has anyone ever actually took it the distance to see how unconstitutional this might even be? It's all about the money. Want proof read this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970 "
worriedone wrote on Dec 10, 2008 9:58 PM:
" Save your money. These will NOT work. Once someone gets a notice in the mail of a ticket, they will head to court fight it and win. Hence, monies spent will be monies lost. Seen it in other cities and read about them in several different papers where they tried to implement it as well and failed. I think the money spent on the camera's would be better off being used to upgrade turn lanes, and to synchronize the lights. If things worked as they should I'd bet you people would pay closer attention. You wouldn't be in a hurry to get through a light you know it should still be green in order to keep the flow, flowing. "
woah-woah-woah wrote on Dec 10, 2008 11:09 PM:
" Bob Gregory is being evasive at best here. From a traffic safety standpoint, its difficult to deploy officers with the amount of enforcement you need to deter red-light running. That's a true statement as it stands-- he avoids a bald-faced lie. But notice that he confines himself to whether or not it's easy to deter the bahavior, while letting the reader of the story (incorrectly) assume he actually wants to accomplish this difficult task, which he certainly does not. Gregory and others like him want people to run red lights. When the cameras actually reduce lawbreaking to the point where they won't pay for themselves, cities remove them. See http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/03/cities-removing.html. The idea that Gregory and his ilk want to eliminate red-light running is a polite fiction. They want you to run the light and pay a fine, not be deterred and stop running the light altogether. "
Resident wrote on Dec 11, 2008 7:43 AM:
" If the city would make sure the lights worked properly in this town it would help a great deal. I have never been in a city that has such a terrible traffic lighting system. "
crowsfeet wrote on Dec 11, 2008 2:57 PM:
" Cameras should monitor the doorways on all businesses. Enforce the 20 foot limit from entrys for smoking snags, I am sure cops drive by many places that are not obeying the law. Last I heard cig smoke kills more people than cars per year. Wheres my iron lung, hack hack. "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories