Interesting article from the daily herald

**Bob** · 08-27-2007, 09:36 PM

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=25598

**pkquat** · 08-27-2007, 09:51 PM

The only way I support such revenue generating devices is if they use the money for 1. MUCH better driver education, 2. reducing accidents in true high accident areas. They can help pay for the giant sign that says high accident area, red light camera in use. That is safety.

Many of these devices "failed" in MN. The courts shut most of them down

I think one of the bases was that they needed to generate X number of tickets to pay for themselves. Have to see how they do in IL.

**KnightHawk** · 08-28-2007, 07:47 AM

I like the way he made himself stealthy by working as a surveyor for the department of highways.

**Paperlantern** · 08-28-2007, 02:33 PM

There are a number of red light cameras here. I have SEEN people get nabbed by them too. Someone blows through a light and you see em flash taking the pictures they need.

What I still dont understand is why people still want devices that forwarn of such things to be illegal. Isnt the whole point of all of this to keep roads safe? Install red light camera at intersection, someone spots it, puts it on xxx.com for owner of xxx 3000 GPS unit to download. Owner downloads file and updates his xxx 3000. While in conversation with a buddy hes not paying attention to the road, half a block from an intersection with a red light, the unit beeps and alerts to the location of red light camera, his attention is then brought back to the road, avoiding running the red light, completely avoiding a ticket.... BUT... wait a minute, HE STOPPED AT THE LIGHT... also avoiding a possible wreck... or pedestrian.... so... where did I miss something at how that scenario ISNT a GOOD THING?

The red light camera did its job, it got someone to stop at the light that, weather intentional or unintentional, would have possibly blown through it and maybe hurt someone.

**proudNMAmember** · 08-28-2007, 06:52 PM

The govt's are promoting RLC's is because they think they are for safety and for generating revenue. None of us on here are saying running a RLC is a good thing Paperlantern. What the govt doesn't understand is that at these RLC intersections, accidents have went up and in some circumstances, up by 50%. Here is another reason. An average Joe is coming up to a RLC intersection and see's the sign, just as the light hits yellow, he "slams" on his breaks (since he is so worried about the RLC) and guess what, the vehicle behind him slams his trunk into Joe's back seat. This is why the accidents at RLC's have gone up. Check into this, and you will see.

**pkquat** · 08-28-2007, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by proudNMAmember

The govt's are promoting RLC's is because they think they are for safety and for generating revenue. None of us on here are saying running a RLC is a good thing Paperlantern. What the govt doesn't understand is that at these RLC intersections, accidents have went up and in some circumstances, up by 50%. Here is another reason. An average Joe is coming up to a RLC intersection and see's the sign, just as the light hits yellow, he "slams" on his breaks (since he is so worried about the RLC) and guess what, the vehicle behind him slams his trunk into Joe's back seat. This is why the accidents at RLC's have gone up. Check into this, and you will see.

Yup

This has happened too. That is why I said add the sign(s). I also like the construction worker LEO as long as he is visible near the road way and there is a men working sign. If someone gets a ticket during those conditions they completely deserve it.