Red Light Cameras
Lawmakers were considering having those red-light cameras installed, which would catch people running red lights, take their picture and then a ticket would be sent to them via the mail.
The pilot program was struck down, but what do you think about it? Is this Big Brother or should safety come first? Would these have been safe? Love it or hate it?
Categories: Uncategorized
April 25th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I really am having a hard time believing you would vote against anything that would help Las Vegas and the traffic. Who are you afraid will get mad at you? Or maybe you are afraid you will be caught.
Thank you
Suzanne Nesci
April 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I think this is a wonderful idea. Phoenix has been using cameras for many years and it has made a big difference in the number of accidents. I know I get aggravated when it’s my turn at a light but can’t go because five other cars from the other direction have run the red light. I think our lawmakers should see how Phoenix handles the issues of violation type and take another look at this proposal. Even if it is considered a lesser penalty, it is still a ticket. This also would free up our police officers for more important situations. On a strictly financial basis, one camera can take 10x the number of pictures in the amount of time it takes one officer to write one ticket.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I am definitely in favor of these cameras. They work well in States such as California. Why are we Nevadans so reluctant to take appropriate steps to improve safety on our roadways? People walk into casinos every day and are followed by cameras constantly while they are there. However, we can’t enforce laws via red light cameras because it might invade someone’s privacy?! It doesn’t make sense! I fully intend to write to my legislators and tell them that they made a huge mistake in voting this down! How many deaths is it going to take?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Great thought but what would that lead too.
And where would that take us. Not for me
April 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I think it is a GREAT idea! My daughter is in England and they have these cameras all over the roads there and trust me it works!
I think it would be a good way to catch those who run the red lights and cause accidents and save money by not having to have police officers there all the time.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I am disappointed that in the way this bill was written, if caught, using this system would be the same penalty as a parking ticket. Sen. Dina Titus said she voted against because of this fact. Metro needs all the help they can get, they are too busy with accident investigations instead of traffic enforcement. We need to make running a red light a stiff monetary penalty,put some teeth into the law. Drivers continue to break traffic laws because there is very little police presence. We need this technology to save lives.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
This is one issue our politicians should’ve voted yes on. We need all the help we can get to stop people from running red lights and this system does work. Metro claims they don’t have the manpower to stop people from running red lights. Well this system will do their job. I’m from Chicago and we’ve had them there for awhile. There was a large decrease in red light runners right away. It also helped that there are plenty of police officers doing their job which you don’t see here. I’m really surprised that the insurance companys are not lobbying for this. It would save them money on accident claims.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
It seems the legislature care nothing about the safety of its citizens. They are probably the ones running the lights and don’t want to get caught. It’s another way they get to control the masses and show their power over us.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I think it is a disappointment that the Red Light Cameras were voted down today. I think it would’ve helped with the accident rate here in Las Vegas. However, I do see why Nevada Lawmakers voted down on the issue. We simply don’t have the money. There are plenty of other things that we can use the money for other than Red Light Cameras. I mean, they are thinking of cutting all day kindergarten simply because of funding. Kindergarten would be much more beneficial to the future of our society than red light cameras.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
We do not need to intalls cameras in busy Intersections. There are other alternative to resolve this matter. For Ex increase penalties in red light runners, that it would hurt the pockets.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I think this idea is wonderful, they have this cameras in some places in California and it works. I have friends that always are afraid to croos the red ligth because of the camera. This is a penalty that people need to paid for, so what it is the problem?
April 25th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
it has been show that traffic light cameras actually increase rear-end collisions because of hard breaking. If the law had only mandated that there was a 5 second delay between the red of one light, and the green of the next, accidents would show a large decrease and not cost the taxpayers any more money for cameras that only show the plate, are not necessarily tied to the driver and create accidents. why waste money for a costly program that would also add to the accident rate?
April 25th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
drivers are going to still run red lights,you know that, just add a few seconds to make all lights red before turning green.easy solution,do it.we have a 4 billion dollar in highway debt and you talking about spending more money. put the cameras on the police cars dashboards,like other states. thank you gw
April 25th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
There should be a five second ALL RED rule on all intersections. Cameras belong on a few select intersections such as the top 20 accident corners. This would put drivers on alert for each intersection not knowing if it is wired. Violation penalty shoud be culmultive over two year period. $100.00 1st time, $300 second time, $1,000 third time, felony idiot driver 4th time with Jail.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I think it is ashame that the Senate did not vote this law in. For safety reasons if nothing else, they should have voted yea. It would also have created additional income for the department which would help pay for the installation of the cameras. I think, if this bill comes back, it should also include a longer red light before the green light comes on. This will also save lives and help keep the amount of accidents caused by running red lights to a minimum.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:59 am
I think that the lights will help but not stop the problem.What we need is to have enforcment with the stifist penalties anywhere and repeat ofenders do jail time and comunity service then it may help.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:21 am
GREAT!
Finally, the people win one.
This is a matter of “The Right To Travel”.
Look it up!
It about time these Terrorist Out of Control cops learn who they work for. Lets continue to put a stop to Nevada Police Abuse. Lets protect our Civil Rights.
Nevada badly needs Police REFORM!!!
The police cannot be trusted and this should send them a message that we don’t appreciate being abused anymore, Henderson cops included.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:05 am
The companies that supply these cameras do so on a revenue sharing basis. The more tickets, the more they make. They have been implicated in multiple cities for manipulating the timing of the lights to increase ticket revenue. I’d consider them only if they were made available ONLY on a set dollar lease, or were sold to the cities.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Bad move Carson City! Southern Nevada is overflowing with awful, and disrespectful drivers. I have seen over a dozen people a day on average run red lights, and that is an understatement. All a time delay between red and green changes would do (like some people have suggested) is nothing but give the violators more time to BREAK THE LAW!!!! As the state has yet to learn you have to spend money to make money, Business 101 folks. Just think that if the cameras caught 10 offenders a day and charged those offenders $150 per violation, that would give the city $1500 a day, $45,000 a month, and an extra $540,000 a year, and that is only catching 10 people. Police cannot be everywhere, but the idiots that take their lives and other peoples lives in disregard, need to be held accountable. What better way than to mail them tickets. They might not like it, but their pocketbooks being affected would probably make them slow down at yellow lights, not speed up.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:57 am
The hard numbers indicate the fact that the cameras do increase traffic accidents including an increase in fatalities! http://www.newsnet5.com/investigations/11063550/detail.html
April 26th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
1. Installing these cameras do not prevent offenders from running red lights.
2. They are not 100% reliable, whereas police officers are because they are seeing it with their own eyes.
3. Dashboard cams are only installed in smaller counties, not major metropolitan areas.
4. Take into account the amount of intoxicated drivers versus sober drivers. The probability of a red light runner being intoxicated is higher in which case the cameras do not resolve the issue because intoxicated drivers aren’t paying attention to any other traffic regulations anyway.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Red light cameras are successful throughout many large cities in this country. The fines are stiff, and they should be. After all, shouldn’t the process work? This city clearly has the worst drivers in America. Is there any wonder why insurance rates are so high? I’ve never lived in or traveled in any city where people drive this fast, pass you on the shoulder, don’t stop at stop signs at all, routinely drive 20 MPH over the limit, not to mention driving within inches of your rear bumper. Local police depts are understaffed (they don’t hesitate to tell you) and therefore drivers generally are not ever caught, and they know it! Not having a pilot project to assess how it would work here is a shame and is taking several steps backwards. ANYTHING that could be done to assist with traffic control and violations would be a plus. Re-write the bill and get it right next time, that is, assess the proper fine. Do it NOW. It might even help the city be reduced to the number two spot in the country in stolen vehicles instead of number one.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Bring them on!
It seems than many follow the addage:
Green: Go
Yellow: Go Faster
Red: Go, and don’t get caught.
I used to be the driver that HAD to be the first one in the intersection and the flash of green. Now, after all the crazy, in a hurry, freaky drivers, I am the last one into that intersection. As least that way I know my patience will get me home alive!
Cameras for red light runners could be the beginning to the end of horrible driving habits in this city.
PS – Would it kill people to use a turn signal?
October 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Sounds like the City wants to make more money. How many times have a person have to make a Go-NoGo decission on having to either stop or go thru… If you have these cameras, I bet there would be a lot more accidents, because, if a light suddenly turns red, someone might panic in fear of getting a ticket, and slam on the brakes, causing the car behind them to run into them. A police officer would be able to determine if the individual had enough time to stop prior to the light and will use sound judgement if they should give the person a ticket for running the light. Hats off to the folks in Carson City for not allowing these cameras to go foward. Another note:, if they was so concern about cameras, why did it take years for Stop lights to be put on Lossee, Lamb, and Pecos intersections on Hwy 215 in North Las Vegas. A lot of fatalities happened there. So who we kidding? The city just wants to generate more money…
October 12th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I am utterly against the cameras.
Red light cameras have one purpose: revenue. Not safety. Car and Driver magazine published an article siting a study which suggested that Red light cameras actually increase accidents because people either charge through the light, or slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket, causing rear-end accidents. The most efficient way to stop red-light-runners is to increase the time of the yellow light, allowing people to clear the intersection; but more often when the camera is installed, they DECREASE the time of the yellow light. This causes more people to run the red and increases revenue. The lights are installed for free by the manufacturer (which in that case was Boeing, I believe) who then participates in 40% of the profits from the light!
So, this is about revenue at the expense of safety. You wanna make lights safer and decrease accidents? It’s simple: increase the length of time of the yellow light.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:04 am
You do realize that these cameras are unconstitutional because they remove the right of the accused to confront his/her accuser.
Still, if you want to trade liberty for safety, write your legislators.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:31 am
No way should these cameras be used. They are revenue producers and ultimately, the cities that have them always talk about how much they make off of them. I wuoldn’t even want the city to own them, because they can manipulate their timing, too. How about more police?
FORGET IT!
November 11th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Its all good…but while the lawmakers are at it since there are more intersections than there are schools maybe they could install metal detectors or security alert devices at the entrances of our schools
so we can feel more secure about sending our children
off to school and know they won’t be shot and killed there!! Lawmakers should go for this since the fine for carring illegal weapons, or attemting an assault or murder is far larger than running
a red light! Besides that they can write it off to the
counter terrorist support, since history tells us guns
at schools results in multiple death fatalities!