Comments on: Washington Department Of Transportation Outsources Its Disingenuous Quotes To Ticket Camera Company

By: George

George — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:59:31 +0000

There is a reason they are called SCAMeras

Where in the world would you think of something like
‘Good government establishes prevention measures where there is potential for harm’
That sounds like a nanny-state.
With all those millions of cameras in the UK, you’d figure that there would be no crime. Wrong!

With rights come responsibility.

By: George

George — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:55:15 +0000

The NMA is for the correct speed limit, which means that the yellow light timing should be appropriately long.
This equates to safety, remember flow=safety.

Speed is not a the main cause of accidents. Inattention is the primary cause of accidents, and that is a side effect of people not giving driving the respect it deserves (people really should learn some basic physical science)

Adding a mutual red time interval to intersections can increase safety (if there isn’t already one) say for a total 0.5-1 second.

The money accrued by the city and operating company is usually a result of a conflict of interest(s). The current arrangement of most speed/intersection cameras discourage remediation to the underlying problem. The payment to the operating company should be based on the reduction of violations.

and let us not forget that little line in the US Constitution about due process of law.

By: Mr Bill

Mr Bill — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:40:25 +0000

If I understand your point correctly you are against the cameras because they generate money. Of course they only bring in any funds if people speed and break the law. So you are saying: the NMA condone dangerous driving – speeding and running red lights – putting people’s lives at risk. Good government establishes prevention measures where there is potential for harm – not wait for someone to be killed as in CO last year. With your philosophy why don’t they throw in the seat belt law, use of radar, and toss the speed limit laws. I mean if we are going back to “let the public be ware,” let’s do it up right. Now that I think about it, those cameras in banks and stores are taking pictures too, let’s add them to the list!

By: Real American

Real American — Mon, 11 May 2009 22:24:19 +0000

Mr Bill,
If you believe that red light cameras are for so called safety and the big brother concept is bogus,you my friend are a sheeple. A person who believes more goverment will keep them safe and take care of them and believe all the propaganda that is spewed on all the news outlets.

By: Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:14:28 +0000

If the NMA spent their time and energy convincing people to driver safer – slow down, don’t run red lights – it would be of greater value to the safe driving public. Look at the national statistics, speed and red light running are highest causes of roadway accidents. Don’t want to pay fine? Simple, driver safer – it is a voluntary fee! “Big brother” is a bogus issue – cameras are used to help identify law breakers everywhere you go; and as for the money issue, if there are some many violators that the city makes some money… bravo. It only proves the cameras were really needed.

By: Randall

Randall — Wed, 06 May 2009 02:00:47 +0000

Ticket Cameras make me so mad. I hope i never get hit by one. That quote sounds like something Martin O’Malley would say.