Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • Yup, learned out those the other day. farkers.
  • Slower drivers are safer drivers.
  • AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


    Slow drivers cause accidents.
  • As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.
  • AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


    So if I drive backwards, I'll be immortal?
  • dofus: AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.

    So if I drive backwards, I'll be immortal?


    Yes.
  • AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


    www.egmcartech.comView Full Size
  • Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.


    Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

    /don't remember where I read that
  • "Taxation Without Representation"
  • I for one welcome our, as they pronounce it in The Twilight Zone, "robit" overlords.
  • Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough. 

    Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.
  • no problem if break the laws as long as you send in a check
  • DerAppie: Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

    Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

    /don't remember where I read that


    That might cost tax money, and if there's one thing every politician is desperate about these days, it's not raising taxes in any way for any reason, or even the appearance of not lowering them annually. It's become more of a third rail than social security.
  • We should "NECKLACE SPEED CAMERAS"

    i.ytimg.comView Full Size


    /tire, gasoline, match, TAH DAH!!!!
    //problem solved.
  • swaxhog: Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough. 

    Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.


    If speeding was equivalent to running red lights, every highway in the land would be full of burning wrecks every 100 feet, every day. You ever get out there are see just how many people are really speeding? Speed cameras are a much bigger fail than red light cameras.
  • Meh. Local governments need money to operate. "Tax" is the devil's word, but "Fee" and "Fine" are pure and clean. Silly taxpayers get what they ask for.
  • We had a rash of cameras go up in the last year. There are several on my route to/from work. When they first went up I was amazed at how often they were triggered. 5 to 10 times per light cycle easily. I figure the local government made a lot of coin in the first 6 months. Now, not so much. I rarely see them go off. People figured it out.

    Now if the real reason for them was safety, well mission accomplished. If the reason was revenue generation, they will go bye-bye soon enough.
  • fines for driving 1 to 10 mph over the speed limit were reduced from $75 to $50.


    You can get automatically fined for driving 1 mph over the speed limit? That's horrible.
  • foxyshadis: DerAppie: Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

    Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

    /don't remember where I read that

    That might cost tax money, and if there's one thing every politician is desperate about these days, it's not raising taxes in any way for any reason, or even the appearance of not lowering them annually. It's become more of a third rail than social security.


    But we just read that even with the overhead of the company there is a very substantial profit to be had. No taxes required, it'll pay for itself.
  • Dull Cow Eyes: fines for driving 1 to 10 mph over the speed limit were reduced from $75 to $50.


    You can get automatically fined for driving 1 mph over the speed limit? That's horrible.


    Welcome to small town 'murica. You're not from around here, are ya, boy?
  • I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY
     

    Cash grab from who then?!?!
    Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

    Got a ticket?
    Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?
    Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.
    Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

    .
  • swaxhog: Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough. 

    Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.


    Do you have any reason to think that going the limit is safer than going faster than the limit?
  • It cost $52 million to install, operate, and maintain the cameras over 3 years, and they brought in $85 million last year. Not sure how the costs break down, but I imagine much of it is related to installing new cameras. I wonder how much it costs to run and maintain existing cameras? Overall it sounds like a profitable enterprise. For safety, of course.
  • Load 18 of 18 newer comments
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.