URGENT: London, ON voting on RED LIGHT CAMERAS

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, bend, Decatur

250alp
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:43 pm

Re: URGENT: London, ON voting on RED LIGHT CAMERAS

by: 250alp on
Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:18 pm

Apparently it passed, LONDONER's get out your wallet and get ready for money to leave the economy. The represented motorists is fair game for paying for broke governments.
5yrs from now? when the whole program fails you can revisit this post.
Like one of the fine Councillors said on LIVE streaming 'takes money away from the local economy for dubious results that longer yellow light times will solve and then the business case falls apart'...
I believe it was Councillor Michael van Holst, good man and here is an article he worked on with LFP.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/12/27/red-f ... ht-cameras


250alp
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:43 pm

by: 250alp on
Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:39 am

"46% increase in rear end collisions at Red Light Traffic Cameras."
Why do they happen?
Because instead of a yellow amber light meaning "proceed with caution", citizens of London will be scared to death of this draconian fine and will be slamming on the brakes.
I will and you will, admit it.
It gets better, now you or your family member or friend is at fault for hitting the person stopped at a yellow traffic light and your insurance will go up plus the heavy demerit penalty.
Bottom line London Councillors choose to ignore the lessons learned from USA cities that are pulling the plugs on red light cameras due to: poor business case, corruption, increasing yellow light times by 0.5 sec or more and angry voters.

http://abc7ny.com/traffic/new-jersey-dr ... nt/416041/


Mugwug
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:31 pm

by: Mugwug on
Wed Jan 13, 2016 6:51 am

250alp wrote:London Councillor just asked about RH turn red lights, "YES you will get a $325 ticket unless you make a full stop".
So, if you break the law you risk a ticket? Not sure I'm seeing how this penalizes safe drivers.


User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:31 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: Decatur on
Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:40 pm

Perhaps those who are driving will now actually leave enough space in front of them to come to a safe stop if the person in front has to "slam on their brakes"
It's no different than if that person had to do the same if a child ran onto the road.


250alp
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 3:43 pm

by: 250alp on
Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:42 pm

Not sure whose side you are on? More government control or more trust to the people? Advanced societies don't need a policeman on every corner. Advanced societies people police themselves and don't hand over their destiny to Politicians who don't have a clue what they are voting on.
Some of us see photo radar, red light cameras, average speed calculators as money scams with questionable safety benefits when you actually look at the DATA vs the headlines.
ONTARIO pulled the plug on the photo radar experiment in 1995, 20+ years ago after making $19,000,000 in 11 months and what happened on our freeways NOTHING.
ON still has the safest highways in N.American, perhaps that is because only 2% of fatalities happen on 400 series highways in the first place. -SAE paper 960439.
Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?
Who funds this site?


Mugwug
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:31 pm

by: Mugwug on
Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:52 pm

250alp wrote:Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?
Who funds this site?
Uh yeah, anyone disagreeing with you must be shilling for the man.

Clearly some just don't see red light cameras as the Orwellian threat to free society that you do.


bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: bend on
Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:35 pm

250alp wrote:Not sure whose side you are on? More government control or more trust to the people? Advanced societies don't need a policeman on every corner. Advanced societies people police themselves and don't hand over their destiny to Politicians who don't have a clue what they are voting on.
Some of us see photo radar, red light cameras, average speed calculators as money scams with questionable safety benefits when you actually look at the DATA vs the headlines.
ONTARIO pulled the plug on the photo radar experiment in 1995, 20+ years ago after making $19,000,000 in 11 months and what happened on our freeways NOTHING.
ON still has the safest highways in N.American, perhaps that is because only 2% of fatalities happen on 400 series highways in the first place. -SAE paper 960439.
Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?
Who funds this site?
Whether we agree with something or not, it doesn't change whether a comment is factual accurate.

- Red light camera tickets don't increase insurance rates.
- Red light cameras don't ticket every driver who rolls a right on red. If you're so passionate about the issue, perhaps you should look at a RLC ticket and see how that idea is impossible without taking a picture of every car that uses the right turn lane.
- "Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms ". Soldiers didn't die for your freedom to drive through a red light because you're not free to drive in the first place. I don't agree with everything in the HTA, but driving is not a right whether I like it or not. Besides, using soldiers as a pawn for some argument is tacky.
- Trying to use the argument that poor innocent family members are now slamming into the rear of other vehicles, also tacky and already illegal. People (tailgators) who slam into the rear of another vehicle aren't the victims, which is why they can be charged. Hazards on the road appear all the time whether it's another vehicle, slow traffic, basketball, child, garbage can, piece of lumber, whatever. Those people are allowed to brake as need be without you injuring or possibly killing them in the process. There is already a law to prevent your dilemma, yet your solution seems to be to add even more safeguards (e.g. extending yellow lights), which condtradicts the whole nanny state mentality you're trying so hard to fight.

If you were an individual who opposes the use of RLC in your area, I commend you. There should always be a discussion from both sides of the fence on these issue. However, you've made some pretty big statements here.


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

by: Stanton on
Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:10 pm

I'm not sure why the implementation of red light cameras would necessarily preclude a change in timing of the amber lights as well. I think red light cameras can help increase motorist safety but obviously shouldn't be the only consideration. I'm not aware of any Municipalities in Ontario that have changed the timing of the lights post traffic camera installation. I'd also point out that in locally from what I've read, red light cameras seem to be beneficial in the long run. There tends to be a spike in rear end collisions for the first few years but afterwards a drop in overall collisions. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/10 ... _show.html


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests