Top traffic cameras bring in $1 million PER WEEK

[Anonymous]

OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

[Anonymous]

The crazy thing is traffic cameras are required to be clearly posted so you know they are coming up. And they are civil infractions so no points. So people would rather pay someone to sit around and hide to catch a speeder, then give that person points on their license and probably raise their insurance, and ultimately could result in loss of driving privileges. Or in Virginia, jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

No. They're complaining that it's racist. Black people pay the vast majority of the fines, which are very expensive and can ruin people's lives. The Washington Post (and a lot of other publications) have written about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty useless to argue with the proponents of these cameras. DC needs the money, so we'll continue seeing more of them, and the people who actually think they make the roads safer will do their chest thumping because they believe the speed limit is some sort of magic number that will prevent traffic accidents. Just learn where the cameras are on the routes you take regularly (and if driving a different route, be extra vigilant), learn what the threshold is for them to ticket you, and act accordingly.

In other words, automated enforcement works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

No. They're complaining that it's racist. Black people pay the vast majority of the fines, which are very expensive and can ruin people's lives. The Washington Post (and a lot of other publications) have written about this.

Black people also suffer disproportionately from car crashes, which are very expensive and can end people's lives.

[Anonymous]

Just don’t break the law and you won’t have to worry about paying the fines.

This is a basic concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

No. They're complaining that it's racist. Black people pay the vast majority of the fines, which are very expensive and can ruin people's lives. The Washington Post (and a lot of other publications) have written about this.

Black people also suffer disproportionately from car crashes, which are very expensive and can end people's lives.

They also suffer disproportionately from "pedestrian errors."

Makes you think huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

No. They're complaining that it's racist. Black people pay the vast majority of the fines, which are very expensive and can ruin people's lives. The Washington Post (and a lot of other publications) have written about this.

Black people also suffer disproportionately from car crashes, which are very expensive and can end people's lives.

They also suffer disproportionately from "pedestrian errors."

Makes you think huh?

It makes me think you're that poster who's weirdly obsessed with blaming non-motorists for being killed in car crashes, and is apparently also a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the stop sign cameras are absurd. if you dont stop long enough to eat a sandwich, they will ticket you.

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the ramp to/from 66. There are no pedestrains, bicyclists, scooters, wheelchairs, children or dogs at risk. There are zero "safety" concerns involved. Instead there are very significant safety reasons regarding merging why someone might need to speed. It's nothing but a blatant cash grab.

Alternatively: obey the law, don't speed.

A safe merge/exit on a highway sometimes requires temporarily going faster.

Faster than the legal speed limit? There? Nah.

To safely merge/exit around existing traffic then yes. Have you never driven on a highway before because it sure sounds like it.

If you can't drive without breaking traffic laws, you shouldn't be driving.

You're a fool stuck on a talking point.

To merge onto a highway you have to go the prevailing speed otherwise you are creating a major safety issue.

And you’re a fool stuck on one single example where a traffic camera MAY not make sense, and using that to say all traffic cameras are bad. We see you.

No. I'm talking about the top grossing camera. The actual topic of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's counter-intuitive, but traffic cameras make streets less safe because:

1. Now, no one is policing drunk and stoned drivers

2. Dangerous drivers will just avoid the streets that have traffic cameras (and they know that no traffic camera = no traffic enforcement). They can do whatever they want on streets that don't have cameras (which is most of them).

Actually, I always felt they made the streets less safe because my automatic reflex when I see one is to tap the brakes and check my speedometer. If someone is tailgating me, a sudden, unexpected brake could result in an accident. Similarly, there may be other things happening on the street that need more attention than my speedometer.

I always felt that posting the signs that display your speed would be safer than just installing cameras, because they keep your eyes on the road and let you know if you need to reduce your speed. I also like the speed bump recommendation from another PP.

So you:
-aren’t paying attention to speed limit signs when driving
-aren’t aware of your speed when driving
-aren’t paying attention to cars around you enough to not notice a tailgater
-are slamming on brakes hard enough to be rear ended in a <35 mph zone
-need expensive devices on the side of the street to tell you how fast you are going rather than paying attention yourself

It sounds like maybe you shouldn’t be driving.

Hey- give me a break, I’m usually drunk!

The driver claiming to be usually drunk wasn’t the one who posted about cameras making things unsafe. I know because I’m the one who posted about tapping the brakes and checking the speedometer. What’s more, I don’t drink (or do drugs), let alone when I’m driving.

I do pay attention to speed limit signs, but sometimes the speed limit changes on a stretch of road and if I missed a sign I wouldn’t know - because I missed it. What’s more, there isn’t a speed limit sign posted at every entrance to a road. Sometimes you have to drive on a road for a while before you see a speed limit sign.

I do not stare at my speedometer so I that I know my exact speed at every moment. I do know approximately how fast I’m going, although it can vary a little bit both ways.

I do pay attention to the cars around me, but if a car zooms up behind me to crowd my tail, I may not notice it immediately, because I’m also not staring into my rear view mirror.

I didn’t say I slammed on my brakes, but a tap is enough to cause an accident if someone is tailgating.

As I said above, I know approximately how fast I’m going, but a device that provides information to drivers about their speed seems much safer than cameras that distracts drivers and interrupts their driving. Spending money on a device that isn’t a moneymaker may seem expensive in comparison. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more, dollars or safety.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure I have paid half of that on one of those lights. sigh. I recently got a ticket and thought it was because I hadn't stopped long enough, and the ticket said my speed was 0. Turns out I was over the stop line (there is a giant construction thingie in the way and you need to pull forward to see around it). I tried to contest it, but alas.

[Anonymous]

A speed camera is unsafe, distracts drivers, and interrupts their driving, but a radar speed sign is safe, doesn't distract drivers, and doesn't interrupt their driving? Please explain how that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure I have paid half of that on one of those lights. sigh. I recently got a ticket and thought it was because I hadn't stopped long enough, and the ticket said my speed was 0. Turns out I was over the stop line (there is a giant construction thingie in the way and you need to pull forward to see around it). I tried to contest it, but alas.

Yes, you have to come to a complete stop behind the stop line, before you pull forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

No. They're complaining that it's racist. Black people pay the vast majority of the fines, which are very expensive and can ruin people's lives. The Washington Post (and a lot of other publications) have written about this.

Black people also suffer disproportionately from car crashes, which are very expensive and can end people's lives.

They also suffer disproportionately from "pedestrian errors."

Makes you think huh?

Foiund the racist