Given that more cost of their upkeep comes from red light runners...
2007-03-08 10:40:13 · 5 answers · asked by Redeemed 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
If no one runs the light, how much would it cost to maintain them? Most of the cost is related to issuing the citations. Most cities that have them don't pay to maintain them directly. The cameras are contracted out and the city pays a percentage of the fines.
2007-03-08 13:25:13 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. However, even before they decided to put up that camera, there would have to be strong evidence that many people did run the red light. That said, it's probably up there for a purpose: they know they will make money. I don't think I've ever heard a case where people suddenly stopped running the light because of a camera and they had to shut it down like that. The fines too low and there are no major or other consequences so what stops someone from running it over and over again? It will probably stay up just because the statistics were strong yet for practical use it wasn't good. It's the government < not that i don't like it :p
2007-03-08 11:42:37 · answer #2 · answered by pat t 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the presence of the camera really completely eliminated the dangerous practice of running red lights, I would think the taxpayers would be overjoyed to pay the minimal cost of upkeep. I know I would.
2007-03-08 12:16:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's funny! That would make it a budget problem, so the cops would probably be told to write more tickets.
2007-03-08 10:44:02 · answer #4 · answered by Bad Ichi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They would just tax everyone for them, seldom does government ever take something away once they have it,
2007-03-08 11:50:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋