I still think that the real "point" to all this is being missed. I agree that using cameras to give out tickets is suspect as best. Since the government and certain manufacturers stand to make money from these things, ethics and motives come into question. But what if the pictures were only used in cases where there is an accident? What would you all say then?

This brings me back to my orrgional statement that it is not whether or not we are being watched but how that information is used.

 

Contrary to popular belief here it is not your right to run a red light. If you believe this then why stop at all?

You are in public when driving. In case you all didn't notice you have no privacy in public. Why should you all of a sudden be able to declare that your privacy is being violated when you are in public? That makes no sence to me.

Just like you can't take a leak in the middle of the street, where this is pretty much a victimless crime, you cirtianly can't do some thing where it may kill someone.

No, this is not another step towards a huge government conspiracy to overthrow civil liberties in the attempt to control everything we do in our lives. Some of you sound like you have watched too many of these si-fi movies. These cameras ARE in place, however, to try and protect the innocent lives of other drivers. And yes you do have to civil right to LIVE! And yes the government does have the right to try and protect people from possible death caused from someone elses ignorance.

 

Wow. Those numbers infer you were 144 yards away when the light first went to yellow. Wouldn't you call that almost a certainty to run a red light? That's just gambling with your life that someone traveling on the cross street in front of you hadn't seen the yellow reflection (for your direction), and was accelerating in anticipation that his light would be green by the time he reached the intersection.

IMO, Aron has made the most positive statement I've read here, and I agree entirely with everything he says. From my understanding, the purpose of a yellow light is to tell you to come to a safe stop; it's not a license to keep going in the hope it will stay yellow long enough for you to get in the intersection before it turns red. Unfortunately, most people seem to think it's a major achievement to get into an intesection on yellow; and if the light just happens to turn red, then they start praying there are no cops or RLCs around.

 

The topic here is cameras and monitoring, not the pros and cons of red light running.

IMO cameras comprise a lazy and ineffective replacement for 'real' cops on the road. A camera doesn't stop a dangerous driver, a lane weaver, a road rager, or even most speeders for that matter. It just raises revenue.

 

This is a response about the red light cameras from a member of www.ferrarilist.com

[QUOTE]In its contract with Lockheed, the District projected that the cameras would generate 80,000 speeding tickets a month, netting the District more than $11 million in fines this year. The District issued a total of about 10,000 tickets last year.

This will net Lockheed approximately $2.32M every month!

 

I'm a freedom lover and this is just one more way to control people. There will always be sacrifice for freedom. And yes, that means someone may run a red light out there without getting punished.

S*it happens. Sometimes it happens to you, someone you love, or some person out there that you never ever come in contact with. Deal with it and enjoy the good things you do have in your life. I would rather have a few bad things happen to me and be free to make my own choices than have a "perfect" society where I have to follow someone else's ways/beliefs.

Anyway...Just my opinion.

 

Those of you who believe unwarranted surveillance is a good thing might find this article enlightening. The rest of us already anticipated this scenario:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/080801/TampaBa...e_feel_li.shtml