"Red-light" Cameras

Not obvious to observation in my book. Attention is usually at the light itself and/or traffic.

I guess you could disguise the camera as a pretty girl pole dancing. That would get half the population's attention, no?

I don't understand what your point is?

you seem to be arguing against any traffic enforcement

if there were officers in plain white crown vics with no lights visible & only modest markings, would this be unfair too?

My previous post was in jest. But to answer your question, no. My post #1 explains my position on this.

That is, I feel that traffic safety trumps revenue as far as importance. If you disguise a red light camera or mark it in such a way that it isn't clear and obvious to all motorists, then the city's primary interest is revenue generation.

The bottom line is that people behave better when they are certain they are being observed. That better behavior reduces accidents better than waiting for an infraction to happen first, then cite them.

I am against unmarked patrol cars (used for traffic stops) because you don't know if it is really a cop stopping you or someone pretending to be a cop. We have had a number of incidents where impostors are stopping motorists and robbing or even killing them. The frequency of this is getting worse.

We are also seeing a string of impostors posing as police to gain entry to homes (home invasions). People open the door thinking they are about to talk to an officer and then the impostor charges into the home with guns drawn.

I said modest marking, not unmarked car

& as Lynn clearly pointed out in his part of the world, it's not about revenue generation

so the best solution would be for all the red lights to have cameras & everyone could then just follow the law,

Like they already should!

You wrote, "& as Lynn clearly pointed out in his part of the world, it's not about revenue generation..."

That is his claim.

I am not so sure and evidence suggests otherwise. No signs marking the intersection as a red light camera. The linked article stated that the company that owns the lights is making a good profit. That company and others that sell this service do a pretty intense dance and pony show to push these systems on the cities of the US.

They sell them as a stream of city revenue with the idea that it promotes safety. In the case of the ones Lynn cited they are unmarked and designed to penalize those people that have already had an infraction as opposed to making an effort to prevent an infraction in the first place.

If it really was prevention at heart it would be fine with me that every intersection had them. However, if that were the case they would not be generating much revenue and therefore a negative cash flow.

Lastly, I would think that most of the red light infractions are when the light is turning yellow to red. These infractions are more a nuisance than an outright danger since the opposing traffic has not yet started into the intersection (unless it is in Italy). Still, it would be nice to keep everyone honest so everyone ha their fair shake at getting through the intersection.

maybe the installed them not to make mone, but as a cost cutting mechanism.

Lyn tried that line of reasoning earlier

no one can deprive AH of the right to run redlights

it's a conspiracy don't you know

Ha!

I stop to a fault. Got my butt rammed once stopping before the light turned red. Imagine that?

One guy gave me the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree for stopping at a red light complaining that I better watch it because I had better brakes than he did. That logic escapes me.

When I went to Italy the first thing I observed is everyone stops on the yellow light. Why? Because everyone jumps the green light! :-)