Saturday, December 29, 2007

Does the $1 Million Projected Stop Light Camera Revenue Include Replacement & Protection Costs?

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Guest article by “funnelcake.”

I wonder if city council’s projected $1 Million dollar stop light camera windfall will include replacement costs & police protection for all of the cameras.

I recently saw this article on the Wired blog about a group in England destroying the ‘Gatsos.’ Both speeding cameras & stop light cameras are being targeted.  They are being burned, blown up, torn down, gutted, spray painted, paint balled.  The group in merry old England has claimed that they have perfected a method of destroying Gastos in just a few seconds.  Since the summer of 2000, they have destroyed over 1,000 Gastos.  In a recent press release they have also announced they will “target for destruction all speed cameras in the UK.”

Here are four pages of destroyed Gatsos.

I don’t advocate the destruction of public property.  But I do want to point out the inevitable before we open up the public coffers for a failed stealth tax program.

While I do make a point of reporting graffiti, I somehow don’t envision myself lifting a finger to call the authorities if I see someone disabling one of these devices.

I personally don’t want to get a traffic fine every time I get stuck at a light trying to turn left (who hasn’t been there?).  And I by no means want to be the one behind some nervous nelly who slams on their brakes the instant a light turns yellow.  Collision rates & insurance rates are bound to skyrocket.

I say nip this in the bud & vote it out.

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Norwood Woman says:
30 Dec 2007  at  07:35 am | #

It’s amazing and disgusting that Cincinnati politicians are
about using stop light cameras as a revenue source.  It’s the complete opposite here in Norwood:  every time the subject of raising fines for traffic infractions comes up on council floor, the President of Council or some other elected official quickly pounces with, “We don’t increase fines to raise revenue” and the topic dies.  This has even been the case throughout our 3 years of Fiscal Watch when ANY extra income would have been helpful. 

Over the last six months, our council has been studying the possibility of installing these cameras but dropped it several weeks ago during a council meeting because of a recent Ohio court case ruling - which made me wonder if Cincinnati is aware of this ruling but has decided to go ahead anyway.  Perhaps someone should look into this.

funnelcake says:
30 Dec 2007  at  01:56 pm | #

Norwood Woman,
Interesting.  I ran a search & came across something else.  A collection of studies that show that Red Light Cameras significantly increase collisions:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

So Cincy council is willing to put public safety at risk to raise a few extra bucks?

Norwood Woman says:
30 Dec 2007  at  04:53 pm | #

Oh my, those studies were REAL interesting...if you’re interested in public safety rather than creating a ridiculous revenue stream.  Why, who knew just adding an extra second or two to yellow lights would be a cheap way to reduce accidents, but then that’s not where Cincinnati city council’s interest lies, is it? What I would give to be able to cast a vote against this gigantic ripoff of the public.  Off with their heads!

Who Cares says:
04 Jan 2008  at  07:27 pm | #

Seeing as how you don’t want to get a ticket for trying to turn left on a red light, I can only assume that you are the type of driver that pulls out into the intersection during congested driving conditions and blocks to intersection for oncoming traffic to get your “turn.”

Arguing that collisions increase is interesting, but maybe that points to the larger problem: we need to train people to drive better and to not follow so closely behind.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: