Cities View Red Light Cameras As Profit Centers

Houston 2600 writes "Chicago could rake in 'at least $200 million' a year — and wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009 — by using its vast network of redlight and surveillance cameras to hunt down uninsured motorists, aldermen were told today. The system pitched to the City Council's Transportation Committee by Michigan-based InsureNet would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists. That's already happening daily in 13 states, but not here."

Comments

This is a Tax

[Gates82]

It drives me nuts when traffic violations are used as tax rather then for public safety, and these things typically get passed under the guise of safety.

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:Side effect

[Moryath]

Houston, TX installed "red light cameras."

Then the greedy-ass city council wanted more revenue, so they shortened the yellow-light timing. They now have yellow-light times that are around 2 seconds on most of the camera-watched intersections. Other cities have done the same thing.

The problem is, the shorter a yellow-light timing, the more accidents. Study after study has shown this. Shortening the yellow light timing (to trap motorists "still in the intersection") to get more ticket revenue also makes for more accidents.

It's literally blood money, coming at the expense of people injured or killed in those accidents, but the city councils don't care because it's "their" blood money.

Pimp your teacher

[m0s3m8n]

I forget where I read this, I apologize. Somewhere the High School kids figured out it would be fun to make copies of their teacher's plates and put them on another vehicle. Then they would proceed to run several red-lights with cameras. Teachers would get bill in the mail a few days later.

Re:Driving as right vs. privilage

[phoenix321]

While you're at it with your socialist rant, please add "everything I need to live well" to your wishlist, because in reality, that's what you're really requesting by that.

Cheating on taxes is unethical, but way more ethical than skimping on car insurance. Because you're hurting The State financially, but your the impact is so low that society as a whole can probably cope with if only some people doing this.

If you're skipping car insurance and hurt someone, you're against ONE single selected individual and you can bankrupt them for decades or the rest of their lives.

So choose if you're hurting our anonymous society a small bit or destroy one individual with name and face for the rest of their lives.

I would rather start a revolution than to ruin an innocent family, I tell you.

Re:Side effect

[GuyverDH]

There's a simple way to fix it...

Sue the city that shortens the light, showing accident rates, long waits at the lights causing wasted fuel, out of sync lights, causing wasted fuel.

Make it too expensive to operate the lights in question, and they will disappear.

Better yet, take your own video of the intersection, then send it to the local news to show how the lights are *too short* but only at the camera intersections. Site safety issues and government corruption... They won't stay in office for long.

Re:Side effect

[Hatta]

Nothing wrong with that, even if it is a profit center for the city.

Law enforcement should never be a profit center for anyone. That's begging for abuse. Collected fines should simply be destroyed, increasing the value of the money supply for everyone.

Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro

[snarfies]

The city of Philadelphia does this.

If you are caught driving without insurance in the city of Philadelphia, your vehicle is confiscated ON THE SPOT, and you will walk home (or ride SEPTA, but walking may be faster/easier).

Re:Side effect

[NormalVisual]

Since when do laws have anything to do with a city's implementation of a red-light camera system? The city of Orlando implemented one a few months ago, even though Florida Statutes 316.007 clearly states: "The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on a matter covered by this chapter unless expressly authorized (emphasis mine). Traffic lights are explicitly and clearly covered under F.S. 316.075, and the city doesn't have the required authorization from the state, so they're flagrantly violating state law. Hell, the city won't even speak to me on the phone or return e-mails, so it looks like the only way to get any action taken on this is for me to run one of the lights late at night when there's no traffic, just so that I'd have standing to sue and hopefully get an injunction preventing the enforcement of the ordinance.

Just because state law tells a municipality they can't do something, doesn't mean they won't do it anyway. Laws are for us little people, not those in power.