On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:36:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2017 11:13 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:22:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

When speed
cameras are employed, they get slammed as "money generating scams" by
people who are obviously breaking the law.

If red-light cameras are not a money-generating scheme, why are the
people who install and maintain them paid a percentage of the take?

I was actually talking about speed cameras, but nonetheless:

I'd like it better if the jurisdictions bought, installed and maintained
the cameras. However, I assume that's not financially feasible. If it
were more profitable to do so, I think cities would be doing it.

They are always talking about photographing vehicles *in* in the
intersection, never about recording what color the light was when the
driver committed to entering.

According to
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...htmlstory.html
"C:The video camera records the vehicle moving through the intersection
with traffic light overhead, and a still camera takes a photo of the
license plate (the flash)."

I don't see shortening the yellow time as a way to reduce the number
of crashes in intersections, but it works a treat for increasing the
number of fines.

One of the closest calls I had on my motorcycle was when a couple of
young punks deliberately ran a red And it was not a "fresh red" it had
been red quite a while. I say they did it deliberately because as I
panic stopped, they were looking at me and laughing.

I have no sympathy for red light runners.

In Western Australia - perhaps all of Australia - they have "speed
Cameras" set up way out in the country. They are linked with some sort
of radar so that they take a picture of any car exceeding the speed
limit. This is somehow processed by computer and a notice is mailed to
you advising you that you have been fined and to come and pay.

A friend's daughter works as clerical help in the Perth police station
and I asked her whether you could demand a trial rather than just pay
the ticket and she thought that yes, you could elect a trial but the
photo was considered prima facie proof of guilt.