and why do they decrease the interval of time for the yellow light on these traffic signals?
and most of all, WHY DO THEY CONTINUE TO USE THESE, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO INCREASE ACCIDENTS???
2007-05-05 21:51:55 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
look it up! its a known fact now. in EVERY study that has been done, it increased accidents, including fatality accidents.
2007-05-05 22:00:33 · update #1
when i say, "the state" i mean the government.
2007-05-05 22:01:16 · update #2
come on, they take many more than 5 a day. and add up all of the lights that are in a single city...you are talking millions a day.
2007-05-05 22:02:42 · update #3
i haven't heard they increase accidents, here in washington they have helped a lot in decreasing red light runners. the state or city doesn't make money on the cameras here, but it does improve the community we live in and the police aren't writing tickets all day
2007-05-05 21:56:35 · answer #1 · answered by daniel_97202 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those cameras are owned and maintained by cities, not states. So say on average the camera gets a fool proof photo of an absolutely, undeniable red light vioaltion maybe 5 times a day at $200.00 per citation. So say a grand per day per light.
2007-05-06 05:00:13 · answer #2 · answered by Bonathon M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with your premise. The cameras are there to produce revenue. They serve their purpose.
In England, a lot of them get burned up or shot on a regular basis. The English understand that automatic conviction should at least take some effort by the ruling classes.
2007-05-06 08:46:17 · answer #3 · answered by Yesugi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm totally against them, but the calls I've made and the letters I've written have done no good.
2007-05-06 06:31:43 · answer #4 · answered by luckford2004 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmmm, ya must have been busted LOL
2007-05-06 04:54:50 · answer #5 · answered by Army Retired Guy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋