Slashdot Mirror
Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected
countach44 writes that (in the words of the below-linked article) "Chicagoans are costing the city tens of millions of dollars — through good behavior." The City of Chicago recently installed speed cameras near parks and schools as part of the "Children's Safety Zone Program," claiming a desire to decrease traffic-related incidents in those area. The city originally budgeted (with the help of the company providing the system) to have $90M worth of income from the cameras — of which only $40M is now expected. Furthermore, the city has not presented data on whether or not those areas have become safer.
Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate driver's speed. It is virtually impossible to challenge these, and many municipalities already do this with red light and speed cameras.
Also, can we stop pretending these are about anything other than revenue generation?
It proves the cameras are working, and people are speeding less. What's the problem? In an ideal world, the cameras would never go off, and never issue a ticket.
The Ottawa Public Library is having a significant budgetary shortfall due to a reduction in late fees.
The sad thing is that these entities have integrated punitive fines into their standard funding expectations and financial plans.
I think that sort of thinking needs to be scorned. It is a poor way to manage an institution. You don't want your model to be 'well, we will depend on and be incentivized to encourage people to break the rules we claim we want them to follow'. It's a rather ethically laughable situation.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
You can't count on law-breaking as an income model, or you by definition automatically have no moral right to claim it's for safety. The ultimate goal of whatever system you put in place is to put itself out of business. Instead, the system is put in place to serve itself and NEVER accomplish it's goal of stopping people from breaking the law.
Yet the camera marketing companies keep spinning them as ways to provide money to cities.
In reality, that only works for the rare city where most drivers are from out of town.
As people learn the location of the camera's and just stop speeding because of them, the revenue will go down. I expect many people that do speed will take alternate routes. It might be more dangerous in other area's because of the new traffic patterns.
Perhaps someone could have done some actual analysis vs. relying on the company that is selling the equipment?
They have their camera's and the company has its money, time to raise taxes to make payments on the bonds.
Furthermore, the city has not presented data on whether or not those areas have become safer.
That's because they haven't, otherwise the city would be taking a victory lap. That's because gadget enforcement can't change human nature.
We won't see any real safety improvements until we take human nature out of driving and turn it over to machines.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Is that they will now lower the speed limit. Eventually they'll get it low enough to hit their revenue goals - since that is what automated traffic devices are for anyway.
People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
I mean, *if* you believe what they spout off all the time about the REASON for installing these cameras in the first place? Clearly it's about improving safety. Who in their right mind tries to project potential profits from implementing a safety measure?
Think about it ....
Money collected as punishment for crimes should be destroyed either literally or as a bookkeeping entry, so nobody* benefits from its collection.
Ditto punitive damages from civil suits.
This would remove the financial incentive for governments to fine people and remove the financial incentive for plaintiffs to seek high punitive damages. The stated "justice/deterrence" purpose of fines and punitive damages would remain.
*I'm ignoring the theoretical, negligible gain in the value of everyone else's dollars as global supply of US dollars shrinks by the amount of the destroyed money and the not-necessarily-theoretical hit to the local or national economy if money that would otherwise be spent on goods and services by the person paying the fine and/or by the government collecting the fine is lost.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
it will require a constitutional amendment
1. no government entity (fees, fines, tolls, tariffs, settlements, and seizures) may use non-tax monies for any of its operating expenses
2. all non-tax revenue are distributed evenly amongst the citizens of the collecting jurisdiction on an annual basis
People who break the law or use limited government services still pay. People who don't break the law and don't use services are rewarded with an extra tax refund. And politicians can't be sneaky about the amount of money they spend since 100% of it will have to come directly from taxes.
Of course this will never happen because of entrenched power and the 1% benefiting from the current system fleecing the general public.
I know TFS says they haven't presented data... I wonder if they were collecting data at all.
Colorado made a big deal of how much money they would take in by legalizing marijuana. They, the state, predicted they would take in $184 million in the first year and now it looks like they'll be lucky to hit $40 million.
Wow only $40 million? What an insignificant figure ....
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Most likely the camera companies have minimum guarantee payments, will not let changes to traffic lights and timings that would reduce both accidents and fines etc. There was the fiasco with parking spaces, that makes it impossible for Chicago to create more parking spaces without paying the private company for their "loss of revenue". The private bridge owner of the bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Canada is suing to block the building of any new bridge. When turnpike operations are sold to such private companies, they have clauses preventing the improvement of alternative roads owned by the state or city that would divert traffic away from the turnpike.
The great American rip-off is the private companies taking over tax funded infrastructure and then preventing improvements to alternatives, and extracting rent. I think the only way to stop them is to sue such companies for criminal conduct and bad faith and have the original contract declared null and void. Two bit politicians coming into office for a single two year term should not be able to burden all the citizens for eternity to such contracts.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Anyone considering the use of speed cameras for anything else than safety in high-risk areas is doing something wrong in my opinion. Just as much is it wrong to review their use by any other criterion.
In this case, both the review (based on financial gains) and the expectation of revenue show me that they are doing all this for the wrong reason. And I find that really sad. How wrong can that morally be, to install speed camera based on expected revenue... that's quite a low. I'd rather have a totally uneconomical speed camera in a high-risk zone like a school zone than where its going to be economical.
There is of course another side to this. It's quite possible that those who planned the installation of the cameras did it with the right idea in mind, but had to prepare those analysis for the twisted and lost management minds. Than it shows us another interesting thing... Either they totally overestimated the speeding issue, or they underestimated the dissuasive effect of those cameras (which means they work actually pretty well... assuming they are correctly placed).
I'm a big fan of both red light and speed cameras, so long as it's clear that the goal, and the only goal, is to improve traffic safety by getting people to abide by speed limits* and obey traffic lights. The ideal scenario would be one in which the cameras generated zero revenue at all, because everybody was following the law.
*I'll be the first to say that speed limits on highways are too low, I'm talking about areas where cars have to share the road with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Clearly these aren't manufactured by the same company that makes Chicago's voting machines.
Crime went down in colorado. Along with drug overdoses.
Productivity might be an issue. But your other point is pure bullshit.
1) Do the installation in phases
2) Only move on to Phase 2 if Phase 1 works without any problems, as expected.
3) Require third party testing to be sure that Phase 1 is done fairly
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
it will require a constitutional amendment
1. no government entity (fees, fines, tolls, tariffs, settlements, and seizures) may use non-tax monies for any of its operating expenses
2. all non-tax revenue are distributed evenly amongst the citizens of the collecting jurisdiction on an annual basis
People who break the law or use limited government services still pay. People who don't break the law and don't use services are rewarded with an extra tax refund. And politicians can't be sneaky about the amount of money they spend since 100% of it will have to come directly from taxes.
Of course this will never happen because of entrenched power and the 1% benefiting from the current system fleecing the general public.
This. PLEASE! I've been saying it for years.
A Cochrane meta-analysis of red-light camera studies concludes:
Red-light cameras are effective in reducing total casualty crashes. The evidence is less conclusive on total collisions, specific casualty
collision types and violations, where reductions achieved could be explained by the play of chance. Most evaluations did not adjust for
RTM or spillover, affecting their accuracy. Larger and better controlled studies are needed
http://www.thecochranelibrary....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
Thousands of Chicago drivers have been tagged with $100 red light fines they did not deserve, targeted by robotic cameras during a series of sudden spikes in tickets that city officials say they cannot explain, a Tribune investigation has found.
The Tribune's analysis of more than 4 million tickets issued since 2007 and a deeper probe of individual cases revealed clear evidence that the deviations in Chicago's network of 380 cameras were caused by faulty equipment, human tinkering or both.
Money is relative. If you are in government and want to buy something, it's only 2 billion. If you are against buying something it's an outrageous 2 million.
Yes, it is an insignificant figure considering they said they would get $184 million. Do the math, that's less than a quarter of what they said they would get (21.7% to be exact).
But thank you for playing and proving my point of people's hypocrisy when it comes to something they don't like (red light cameras) and things they do like (legalizing marijuana).
When something you don't like doesn't meet its expectation it's a complete and utter failure. When something you do like doesn't meet it's expectation it still got something.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I have an idea. Spend 1 million training kids to not wander randomly into the street. I love how there's this magic assumption that at 25 MPG you won't hit some idiot in the street but at 32 you would. You're probably going to hit the stupid kid at any speed. They should just not be in the damn street!
This doesn't include the associated costs with the increase in crime or loss of productivity which have to be taken out of that amount.
They're probably saving much more money by imprisoning many less people over frivolous possession charges.
Green is now red for purposes of traffic law. Red remains red. Yellow is still Procede With Caution. Release the hounds.
No, crime did not go down.
Not to mention places being specifically targeted.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
... will tell you that they aren't actually making money on speed cameras. They have about 100, of which 25 are active at any time; whenever they get the impression that people figured out one is inactive, they swap.
According to them, having 100 speed cameras, even with the majority not actually doing anything, is enough to serve the purpose, which is keeping speed down. Well, that's what the police tells you.
There are areas in London where things are different. And don't go 71mph on the motorway in Cornwall.
I really do think Budgeting is one of the places that one has to be the most careful about creating perverse incentives.
Frankly, cities should not be using fines in budgeting, but rather, should have a designated fund for ALL fines and fees to go into, which should simply be added to next years base tax income or, used to offset an entirely unrelated portion of the budget to the fine.
In this way, while there may be a sort of general incentive to increase general revenue, but the one thing you don't want, is the budget of any department with any control over either enforcement or policy making seeing any direct effect on his budget from the making or enforcing of the policy.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There's an old saying that the best way to get a bad law changed is to strictly enforce it. Piss off enough people with either having to drive slow or pay the tickets, they'll instead elect anybody promising to fix the 'problem'.
I don't read AC A human right
They're still making money from marijuanna sales there. I could have told them they wouldn't make that much money, they were way too optimistic, and set the tax rates too high to properly compete with illegal sources.
Compounding that was a federal campaign against the financing and housing of legal dispensaries - they have a hard time getting the money to get the economy of scale necessary for profit. Leasing commercial property is also almost impossible.
I don't read AC A human right
Also, can we stop pretending these are about anything other than revenue generation?
This. Just the mere fact that they actually budgeted against the ticket revenue tells you everything you need to know.
Wrong: Economic forecasters in Olympia predicted that the state’s new legal recreational marijuana market will bring nearly $190 million to state coffers over FOUR years starting in mid-2015. Washington state sets budgets biennially.
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Every section of road I've ever seen that has stop lights also has speed limits much less than 60 mph.
You need to get out more. I have stoplights on the road I live on where the speed limit is 50mph and there are plenty of rural highways with stoplights and speed limits of 60mph. They're not even remotely hard to find. My daily commute has 10 miles of travel with speed limits of (mostly) 55mph and traffic signals at every major intersection.
Couldn't you get most (if not all) of these automated tickets thrown out in court by citing the 6th ammendment (the right to face your accuser), since it isn't an actual person issuing these tickets?
The contractor that Chicago officials were bribed by (Corruption? In Chicago? AW HELL NAW!) put them up.
Last I checked, the revenue sharing plan was that Chicago was supposed to get about 10% of the total ticket revenue from all cameras.
The BIG problem is, these cameras are NOT placed in a way that allows them to actually be used for safety checks. They're placed for optimal "surprise" ticket revenue.
The thing is, people get wise to that over time. While their driving habits around the camera outposts change, marginally, to stay on the side of the angels, their OVERALL driving habits simply DO NOT change. So all this expensive equipment is going up. Then the city (and their contractor isn't recouping the costs.
And the DUMB thing? Chicago budget morons are GUESSTIMATING potential ticket revenue and spending as if it were money already in hand!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Did you read those sites? they do not prove what you said at all.
The first one was out because they did't know the distance traveld. It ahs NOTHING to do with camera caligration, and it fact it worked, but the SOB got it tossed on a technicality. He even said:
"And just in case you're wondering: I probably was speeding."
So there you have a guy who was breaking traffic laws, but wasted ta dollars instead of owning up. Mean he cost his fellow citizens money for somethign he did. Fucking coward.
The second one:
"I think it was an oversight more than anything," Yes, a person setting up the light did set it yo country standards. Form the time given, it matches federal standards,
Again, nothing to to with calibrations.
The third one is from a letter on reddit. He won because the county would provide up details about the camera. His numbers are not the federal and/or county guiding, they are a recommendation from some else. His math was irrelevant. Again, no evidence or re-calibration due to the camera installation.
In fact, in every case the cameras HELP the person getting a ticket. Had a police officer just pulled them over, they would have had no record to use. It would have just been cop said, he said. They would have lost.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
let’s put this into perspective
1. population of Chicago is approx. 2.9 million
2. "earn 50M less than expected"
so a little math...50,000,000 / 2,900,000 = $17.24
$17.24/365 = approx. 4.7 cents per individual in Chicago per day.
Now what's the price of a coffee at Starbucks again?
as part of a solution I would propose dummy cameras. Only a small percentage of the camera's actually need to be active. Just the presence of a potential camera will slow most people down. So put the camera's in a case so that you can't tell if there is actually a camera in there or not. have 100 cases but only 20 camera's.
Budget reduced, traffic is still slowed, # court cases reduced and if they weren't making money anyway and the true goal was to slow traffic...well then...
How much are they saving on jails and courts by not prosecuting pot users?
The construction zone that runs basically from Rockford into downtown is like 45 MPH the whole way, despite the road being two lanes and the construction nearly complete.
I drove it last week and it was agonizing AND the State Police were actively pulling people over.
I thought they could have set the limit to 55 MPH very reasonably; there were only a couple of places where I thought it realistically should have been 45 MPH.
I drive a lot in Israel and use an app that warns me about cameras and spots frequented by traffic cops. Never got a ticket so far.
They could take pictures of all cars, not necessarily speeding, and measure their average speed. Could get those 50 million back.
Linking to Ken Sabet basically discredits you in any Marijuana related discussion. Things are fine here, please fuck off and stop pointing fingers at my state.
If its really about safety then get rid of the fines and just lose demerit points, eventually the people will lose the license and hopefully not be on the roads, making them safer. The installation should cost public tax dollars to ensure they are only used where necessary and the people agree.
Here, fixed it for you:
"Speed Cameras In Chicago confiscate $50M Less Than Expected"
The cameras don't earn anything, as they don't produce anything of value. They are simply taxing devices, yet another way to confiscate money from drivers, and justified with an unproven "keep your children safe" blanket
First off, because of state law, the speed cameras can only issue a ticket for going 6+ over the limit. So, 25 in a 20 school zone, or 35 in a 30 "near a park" zone is OK. Second, the 6-10 MPH over the limit is a $35 ticket. BFD. Only when you do 11+ over the limit (e.g. 41 in a 30), that's when it shoots up to $100. Finally, speed cameras are NOT allowed on Lake Shore Drive, Lower Wacker, and (obviously) Interstates.
On top of that, because of state law, the city had to paint "SAFETY ... ZONE" on the street in each lane, along with putting up extra speed limit signs with "PHOTO ENFORCED", by every camera installation, on that street and on all intersecting streets...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
At least they decided to put them where they really belong ... in Germany, it appears as if a large amount of mobile speed checks (and in part, permanent also) are done at places which guarantee for a good income - revenue from most tickets (unless the drivers are so much over that it's something like a felony, requiring prosecution through the state) goes to the communities/cities, and is usually a calculated part of the yearly budget. Often, they are placed in school zones for a short time, before moving them off to places like two-lane out/inbound streets or ones that have an illogically low speed limit that doesn't really belong there ... especially if the places have a low accident rate to begin with.
Of course, being caught is still the main fault of the driver, not the speed camera.
What increase in crime? What loss in productivity? You also fail to recognize the elimination of major cost centers involved with prohibition: namely enforcement, judicial, and incarceration costs. Not only is your post flatly off topic, but it is also incredibly short sighted, based upon both flawed logic and ridiculous reefer madness-esque misunderstandings.
-Turkey
I'm not sure why the GP was modded offtopic as the point is quite pertinent. These shortfalls are unfortunately typical of how local, state and Federal gov't in the US budget and spend money by "backing into" numbers. The process goes: 1) an administration or legislature comes up with some new program, initiative, or project that will cost an ocean of money way outside of the current budget allowance. 2) to fund their initiative, they hire their own "experts" to come up with absolutely batshit-crazy projections related to the revenue-generating mechanisms like new taxes, toll increases, etc. which don't account for realities like diminishing returns (i.e., small states with close geographic neighbors can only increase cigarette taxes so much before smokers just buy their death sticks in another adjacent state. For another example: you can only raise a toll on a bridge or tunnel so much until it's literally cheaper for people to take the long way around and gross revenues drop as you continue to increase the tax.). 3) the projected revenues in reality are many times more than the actual revenues that are collected. 4) Politicians spend the money they wanted anyway and then scream that they need to raise taxes to make up for the shortfalls due to their poor / bullshit planning or they'll be forced to shut down schools, libraries, etc. ("We need to do this for the children!") It's a scam that serves all 50 states well in varying degrees.
If you subtract court costs associated with prosecuting marijuana offenders, subtract out prison cots for marijuana offenders, I'd bet anything they've made more money than 184 million.
We saw how that approached worked out for them in video.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
That's interesting, I view all those safety features as protecting me from other idiots on the road.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Oops sorry, I take that back. Americans are too stupid to use them - stop at the entrance, don't indicate, panic when the exit nears.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I used my seat belt before there were laws stating you had to do so. Why in hell would you need such a law in the first place? If someone is so foolish as to think the seat belt is of no use then the sooner he's dead the better. The airbags serve no purpose except to destroy the inside of the car and beat the hell out of the driver and burn him or her. If you don't wear your seat belt of course they may save you. The insurance companies paid lawmakers to write laws forcing manufacturers to install airbags to save all the fools that refuse to wear their seat belts. Next thing you know they'll be writing laws to limit the size of soda cups to keep people from gaining too much weight.
Colorado made a big deal of how much money they would take in by legalizing marijuana. They, the state, predicted they would take in $184 million in the first year and now it looks like they'll be lucky to hit $40 million.
That isn't what the article you linked says, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? The article says that the forecast was for $184 million through middle of 2015, not for 2014. As for increased crime or reduced productivity, citation needed.
Enigma
real conversation:
work colleague: "studies have shown seatbelts do more damage than not having one on"
me: "what studies. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
work colleague: "lots of them! google it"
There is no hope
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
Along the same lines...I love the states with helmet laws for motorcycles.
Please...PLEASE ride without a helmet if you prefer. This way when we scrape you off the road we won't have to bother with CPR or expensive rescue/medical bills. Disclosure: 10+ year biker here :)
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Rev em up, race 'em out, and don't stop for any red lights. It's your civic duty.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes, it is an insignificant figure considering they said they would get $184 million. Do the math, that's less than a quarter of what they said they would get (21.7% to be exact).
But thank you for playing and proving my point of people's hypocrisy when it comes to something they don't like (red light cameras) and things they do like (legalizing marijuana).
When something you don't like doesn't meet its expectation it's a complete and utter failure. When something you do like doesn't meet it's expectation it still got something.
Look again and you'll see I never said a word about speed cameras, just that $40 million is a shit load of cash in anyone's book, or at least it should be.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Since I live and drive in Chicago, I can tell you exactly what we all do: we know where the cameras are, and we slow down just below their threshold around them. This is mediated by all the taxi drivers, in my experience. There's a couple areas on Western I see this happen around all the time; the cars are doing 36-40 MPH right before the camera, and about half a block from it, they drop to 34 at the fastest. The cameras trigger at 35. Also, there is a related story about them timing the yellow lights at intersections with stop cameras being timed odd. http://www.wbez.org/news/are-c...
I knew a guy in Germany that worked on his brother-in-law's bike. After fixing it he took it for a spin around the block and despite the strict German law he decided to do this even though he didn't have a helmet. A woman struck him with her car at low speed, around 30Kph and he fell and hit his head. Severe and permanent brain damage for a stupid mistake. Making it a law didn't prevent it either. I argue with bike riders all the time about helmets. They say they don't save your life at speed but what about the low speed accidents? And at least if you wear your helmet the police have an easier time finding your head after the high speed ones.
The use of speeding tickets for revenue necessarily depends on spotty enforcement. You need lot of people willing to risk a ticket because they think they're unlikely to get caught. The problem with speeding cameras then is that they catch everyone; if they want to increase revenue, they need to make the cameras so they only issue a ticket for every 20th car they catch speeding or something like that.
I can be much more verbose now, I have time.
I don't see how it could reduce accidents unless the yellow was too short to allow all vehicle types time to stop.
NHTSA and other associated organizations have done lots of math and studies to determine and verify 'best' designs for nearly every kind of intersection out there, which includes proper yellow light timing.
To put it in context - while I kept it generic I could have said 'increase yellows to NHTSA or similar standards'. If you look at the studies, yellows shorter than NHTSA recommendations tend to have more accidents and red light running. Yellows longer than NHTSA standards don't do much, so it seems they've done their work. Indeed, if all intersections utilize the same standards, you gain the benefit that drivers learn to expect how long the yellow will be at a given intersection - 'Level, 35 mph, the yellow will be 'this' long and I have time to make it/not make it'. No matter where the intersection is.
Thing is though, local governments are discovering that a properly designed intersection that meets NHTSA and similar department rules regarding a well designed intersection won't have enough red-light runners to justify the expense of cameras, and that designing it right(or fixing the flaws) makes it safer than what red light cameras can provide. Of course, this presents a problem - the safest course is to fix the intersection, but that costs money. Cameras at least theoretically 'make' money, so they're preferred in areas concerned more about revenue.
Of course, courts throwing out fines left and right(including forcing the government to pay back all collected fines in select situations) when it's discovered that the reason for excessive red light running is an improperly designed or programmed intersection alters the finances. Much less when it's discovered that somebody shortened the yellow because they weren't making enough, as has occasionally happened. Heads really tend to roll then. The problem is that even if the government and camera company select intersections that happen to have a short yellow, when they're forced to retime the light to standards suddenly revenue drops. Running the cameras are no longer worth it.
If the stats don't pan out, that's interesting.
I suggest reading the sources. It's noted all over that increasing yellow duration at problematic intersections works(at least most of the time). Nearly always there's some problem to be corrected - yellow timing is easy though. Sometimes all you need is a warning light earlier on.
I don't think fatalities is the big issue here. Drunk driving is its own problem that won't be solved with traffic signals. No one wants to deal with collision damage from lower speed accidents.
Bingo. Independent studies have shown that red light cameras don't really reduce serious accidents(T-Boning at speed and such), but can drastically increase the number of rear-end collisions. Not that I want to argue your experience, but there's reasons why I kept it all statistical - accidents will happen no matter what as long as humans are still behind the wheel. All we can do is minimize them.
I think the way we design intersections needs a rethink.
Actually, following NHTSA and similar standards tends to be very effective at reducing accident rates.
I don't read AC A human right
I used my seat belt before there were laws stating you had to do so. Why in hell would you need such a law in the first place?
If accidents caused by stupid resulted in their own injury and death without affecting the rest of us, I'd be in agreement with you - that's Darwin at his good work!
Unfortunately, stupid often kills or injures other people and when stupid doesn't put on his or her seatbelt and crashes non-fatally, we all get to pay to patch up their bloody carcasses.
Seatbelts, airbags, side-intrusion bars.. all there to mitigate against the actions of stupid (and self), because we worked out long ago it's less expensive for society if stupid doesn't horrifically mangle themselves and others when they inevitably do something .. stupid.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
It probably would have saved a lot of tax dollars had they just implemented signs saying there were cameras prior to actually signing the contract to install them. It's the old "if you think you are being watched, you will behave properly" notion. There are areas around my state that say "speed tracked by cameras" and usually I obey the posted limit but there are times I don't and have yet to get a ticket.
If the signs don't stop the problem of speeders, then implement the actual cameras but be prepared to not see a huge revenue increase as once the word is out, people will obey the limits.
Dewser - all around techy "In the immortal words of Socrates - 'I drank what?'"
In my old building, I was on the Strata council. One of the things we made sure was to *never* include fines in our revenue projections. Yes, paid fines went to general revenue, and were somewhat consistent, but all the operating budgets were set from set revenue and fines just got dump in at the end of the year (which did help with unexpected shortfalls, or to shore up the reserve) but they were never *expected*.
People on cell phones run lights all the time...