Red Light Traffic Camera's, For Safety Or Profit?

The National Motorist Association has conducted studies in several states to evaluate the efficiency of these cameras and found some startlingly statistics. They have come to the conclusion that they do not endorse the use of these devises. They actually find a decrease in red light running crashes; but an increase in rear end crashes as well as an increase of crashes of people following the law that allows a right hand turn on a red light. The National Motorist Association feels that better engineering and longer delays in light changes are safer for the drivers, beside the driver taking responsibility to follow and abide by the traffic laws set by their city or town. Their general objections are:

Ticket recipients are not adequately notified. Most governments send out the tickets by first class mail, which we all know, is never a 100% guarantee that you are going to get the ticket in the mail. They assume that you did get it, and simply don't care to address it or to show up for a court date.

The driver cannot be positively identified. Photos are taken, but cannot always identify the driver and the city will not send a copy of the photo with the ticket. The owner is now responsible for the ticket, which I believe he should be, but what if your car was borrowed or worse stolen? There are other scenarios that could negate the owner of the vehicle from paying the fine, but not without its cost. He would need to take time from work, hire a lawyer and spend time actually trying to find court-approved proof of innocence.

Ticket cameras do not improve safety. The companies that sold these machines to the municipalities made promises of increased safety and decreased traffic accidents. They have not lived up to their promises. Overall, speed has reduced; however, one type of accident is being replaced with another type of accident. Red light running accidents are down in Florida by 4%, however, more people are slamming on their breaks to not get ticketed by the camera which is forcing more rear-end accidents. Another accident on the rise is when people take a right hand turn on a right light. People don't understand this law. It states "you may take a right hand turn at a red light if it is safe" It doesn't mean you can squeeze into oncoming traffic.

Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents. People do not drive down the road with the intention of hitting another car, there are always mitigating factors as to why the motorist went through the intersection without stopping. Cameras will never stop people from lighting a cigarette or changing the car radio, unfortunately these things happen.

There are alternatives. If the municipalities spent the money on better engineering of the traffic lights with better synchronization it could in fact eliminate the need for camera mounting. Perhaps a little longer delay in the change of the lights from each side would help to prevent that red light accident. Motorists would rather see the money spent to improve safety rather than see their city or town increase revenue. Studies have also been conducted in States like North Carolina, Virginia and Ontario, Canada and all have come to the same conclusions, that the cameras have no effect on safety; but do have a significant impact on the increase of accidents involving injuries up to and including death.

The negatives of these cameras heavily outweigh the positives. They really are nothing more then a way for local government to make money. Safety factors are not even a consideration. Many of the companies that provide these cameras get paid with a cut of the income and insist on certain quotas. Does this sound like a safety issue? There are many ways to protect yourself from these cameras and there tickets. You can learn more at http://hubpages.com/hub/How-To-Beat-Traffic-Camera-Tickets or http://cameraticketsscam.blogspot.com/

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com