The end does not always justify the means. Red light cameras smacked clearly of Big Brother. I say good riddance. (And, no, I was never "caught" by one.)

"Congratulations, you've just decreased your future income!"

Hard to give up the pork once you become addicted,huh Mr. Hodges? I find it amusing to watch the hogs fight over this ill-gotten loot. Besides, I thought the "NC Education Lottery" was going to create a shangri-la for the public ed. system?

"I'd like to see the law changed (ahem, legislators). That way, companies like Peek Traffic can lock themselves in at a 10 percent profit (or some equally agreeable figure), with the rest going to local schools."

10% won't even pay Peaks office rent where they hold their kangaroo court.

Good riddence to an illegal money scheme by a private vendor.

If any of you have ever gone through a big intersection and gotten t-boned by a driver running a red light, sending you to the emergency room, as I have, then you would be more receptive to the writer's concerns. I don't see this as big brother at all, but a law enforcement tool. We have traffic laws that prohibit entering an intersection when you have a red light, so having a camera at an intersection to police that law, is not impractical or "big brotherish". If the many careless and negligent drivers in this county persist in reckless driving, then let them pay.

As far as the squabble over the proceeds, it is no surprise that the schools would not negotiate a fair split of the proceeds, rather than lose it all. This is their style. Terry Grier and our school board have an insatiable desire for money to spend; $500,000,000 per year is not enough. They have wasteful and unproven new programs to implement, all the while county children spend time at school and leave unable to read and do simple math.

I find it hilarious that when the cameras first went up in Greensboro and High Point, all the leaders were saying that the ONLY reason they were going up at all was for safety. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING MONEY!!! Then, as soon as it was ruled that the cities did not get the money was being generated from the fines....POOF!!!!! They are gone. My question is.... if it were for safety reasons and not the money, what did it matter where the money was going? The whole reason behind using the cameras was for our safety, right?

As "Deepthroat" told Woodward & Bernstein, "follow the money." That will tell a much larger story on ANY issue than one dare to read!

mprice, it WAS about the money! As noted, after the money was gone, so were the camera's! Funny is it not?!!

And no, I was never caught by one either, nor had I any worry of it either. I found it funny reading of a situation in Charlotte involving these "infamous" cameras getting those dastardly redlight runners! It seems that at a specific intersection, a great number of vehicles were photographed within moments of one another on the same day. You may be asking yourself, how in the world could this happen without an accident? Well, it seems that the vehicles running the red light were ALL in a funeral procession! Mysteriously, each of these vehicles had the ticket thrown out! Thank goodness that the camera was at that intersection!

What I find is the lack of evidence supporting the increase of accidents since the cameras have been turned off. No one seems to know if this is the case. Wonder why this evidence is not being gathered and published to the public? Anyone see the "greed" or love of money aspect besides myself?

Shalom

I have also been in an serious accident that involved the other driver running a red light but I fail to understand the argument that a camera might somehow have prevented her from running the light. Maybe someone could explain it to me. However, I do acknowledge that it might have come in handy had I not had a witness. Unfortunately, I was the one that t-boned her and that automatically made me at fault unless I could prove my light was green.

Also, am I mistaken in my belief that it wasn't the schools that initiated the lawsuit? I was under the impression that it was a private citizen that discovered the funds were being misdirected and filed suit; not because he necessarily wanted the schools to get the cash, just to put the kibosh on the cameras. Can anyone enlighten me?

While I do not take a stand on the supposed benefit of these monitoring devices (big brother) I do have a hard time with the cost being 70% of revenue. Maybe negotiating a resonable contract would provide a better margin. And since when does the supposed saving of lives and the money to support our children's future not benefit the city? High Points City Council should be replaced, lock stock and barrell! Mayor should walk the plank first! Moronic logic at best.

Kel, you are correct that the lawsuit that ending this fiasco was initiated by a private citizen. This was not because the cameras were opposed so much as it was the funds were not being used under current law.

It just gave Grier and his jackboot junkies a new funding source. However, they failed to see that it was a one time cash infusion!

Shalom

Kel,

In answer to your questions, yes, the knowledge of working red light cameras does serve as a safety feature. In other jurisdictions where they are effectively used, the incident of red light runners is significantly reduced, especially after the first ticket.

And, in the event of absence of witnesses, the red light camera do serve as evidence of the fact that the red light runner was at fault. The mere fact that the red light runner t-boned someone is not sufficient. In my case, the red light runner told the police that he had a green light. Fortunately, there were witnesses that came forward to give testimony to the police that was not true. In the absence of willing witnesses, my case would have likely have had to go to civil court to be adjudicated, and justice may not have prevailed. As a result, I would be very happy if there were working red light cameras at major intersections. Regardless of the dispute over the money, red light cameras do save lives and serious injuries.

I agree ORR.

I think the cameras are useful. You beat me to the punch on your reply to Kel. These redlights have signs posted in advance of the intersection to let you know that the redlight has a camera. When frequent redlight runners (you know who you are) see these signs, they make it a point to not run these lights. If they travel the same route, they know EXACTLY which ones are camera enforced and which ones aren't.

I admit that I received 2 tickets from these cameras. In one case, I was speeding. In the other case, I was following a moving van too closely to see the light turn red. In each case, I broke the law. I was lucky to just get a ticket instead of putting myself or someone else in a casket.

My main complaint about these cameras is that I think they should be at EVERY redlight. The other complaint is that I also believe that the company receives way too much of the money. I also know certain lights turned red much faster (the period of yellow was shorter) when they had cameras aimed at them.

One other complaint about Greensboro. The reason, I believe, that we have such crazy, reckless and rude drivers is due to the lack of enforcement of traffic laws in our city. How many people did you see speeding or otherwise breaking the law on your way to work? Now, how many did you see get tickets?

The Greensboro and County police are not patrolling our roads adequately. Most of the time when you see a ticket being written it is by a state trooper. I can't tell you how many stupid reckless drivers I see coming to work each day (just yesterday nearly got hit head on by someone passing on a double line-ON A 2 lane BRIDGE!!!)

I, too, have been in a serious wreck. All the laws in the land or red light cameras would not have prevented it. There are laws against drinking and driving, as there are also laws against driving without a license. None of this prevented a man, previously charged with six DWI's, running a red light and hitting someone else seven months earlier, from getting dead drunk and hitting me head-on.

Laws and cameras don't mean beans if some fool decides they can beat them. And they certainly do not protect you from these fools.

I travel frequently, YD, and I can positively tell you Greensboro has no monopoly on reckless drivers.

"The bottom line is, everyone should want this program."

Quite the contrary. This program should stay de-activated for MANY reasons.

(from the National Motorist Association)

Regarding the "reduction of crashes" at camera monitored intersections (from a NC A&T study):

http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/burkeyobeng2004.html

Excerpt:

"The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes."

From other sources:

http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/dc.html

Key Statistic:

"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."

So much for the "safety" aspect of the RLC program.

If proponents were REALLY interested in the safety aspect, they should be promoting THIS, the increased timing of the yellow light at intersections, instead of the RLC program:

http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/studies/effectofyellowintervaltiming.html

Or this, regarding 4 way red signals:

http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/studies/behaviouraturbansignalized.html

There are many other examples that show the RLC program is a complete waste.

But, as others have already pointed out, it's ALL about the money......how our local government can make us all part with a little more of our cash without the passage of yet ANOTHER tax hike.

It certainly isn't about "Safety", is it?

I recall a teacher friend of mine telling me about her experience at one of these photograph intersections. It seems she had "run" the red light and got photographed. Upon receiving her "ticket" signed by the USPS, she made contact to appeal.

At that "trial," her photograph was used as evidence to convict her. In that photo, it clearly shows her vehicle, STOPPPED, with the rear wheels at the thick, solid white line (which means stop for those unfamilar with NC road law).

My friend argued her case that how could she have "run" the light when the photograph clearly shows her vehicle stopped? While she was beyond the line by a few feet, she had NOT entered the intersection and continued without stopping.

She lost, paid fine!

Shalom

"While she was beyond the line by a few feet, she had NOT entered the intersection and continued without stopping."

Had a police officer been present at that intersection at that time, she would NEVER have gotten a ticket for that infraction.

It's ALL about the money.

Let's make sure we never allow this travesty to become active on our streets again!

Bubba, that is what has been said, thanks for reiterating the poing; IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

Shalom

I challenge anyone to watch the intersection of Battleground and Cone and not observe within 5 minutes of any given day, someone running a red light. I mean, not just barely, but so blatant so as to require those at the opposing light to wait, despite the built in lag in between changes, until the idiot clears the intersection, before proceeding. That means the light had to have been red 50 yards or more before the fool ever entered the intersection. I want to say something to those talking how stop light cameras smacks of Big Brother and how this infringes on their rights How about the senseless joker that runs the red light and kills or seriously injures your daughter, mother, wife or husband, or you? How much of your freedom will they have taken? How many of your rights? It is time to throw out that old tired phrase as a blanket argument why certain laws can’t be enacted and look at the specific merits of each proposal.

The fact is, running red lights is rampant at many intersections in Greensboro. I have a daughter who is just starting to drive. It scares me to death. If something is not done to better enforce compliance with traffic laws, you will see within a few years a complete disregard for stoplights. Think it can't happen? Visit any South American City. Bring back the stoplight cameras! If you are concerned about the safety of your loved ones, especially if you have a new driver in the household, raise your voice for this cause. It is time that we, as law abiding citizens, have the courage to do what it takes, to impose harsh and severe penalties on those who would jeopardize our most basic right, the right to live.

papasmith, who is to say that we should not be worried about your daughter being the one we have to worry about running the red light?

What we have is a total disrespect for the law/s. Is having a camera taking photos of those violaters really going to stop someone from running the red light?

I suggest that you go read or re-read the information regarding what happens at intersections with & without the cameras. Maybe that will shed some "light" on the issue. No pun intended.

Shalom