Initiative Takes aim at Red light camera Profits

[darin]

FANTASTIC! I hope this passes and moves on to other states!

(emphasis added)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...dlights22.html

Motorists with a loathing for the red-light cameras that have become the darling of police departments across the state have an ally in Tim Eyman.

With his latest effort, the transportation-related Initiative 985, Eyman is taking a swipe at the automatic cameras that photograph motorists who drive through red lights, allowing authorities to mail a $124 ticket to the offender later.

Seattle has the cameras installed at several intersections around the city, with a plan to police 23 intersections with the devices.

I-985 is not billed as anti-red-light enforcement. Rather, it is touted as a traffic congestion relief measure that requires the state Department of Transportation to make traffic improvements, such as opening HOV lanes to all vehicles during off-peak hours, requiring traffic light synchronization and boosting roadside assistance programs.

The money would come from taking 15 percent off the sales and use tax on vehicles, tapping highway tolls, and directing cities with red-light cameras to deposit all the revenue raised through fines into a special state account, the Reduce Traffic Congestion Fund.

Eyman said he doesn't expect the fines to provide that much money, particularly if cities discontinue the programs as a result of the initiative.

His real goal, he said, is to take away what he calls the profit motive for the cameras in the first place.


"If they want to put up red-light cameras, they can put up as many as they want," Eyman said. "The initiative doesn't say they can't put up red-light cameras."

And while most city leaders and traffic officials contend the cameras reduce accidents and make roads safer for motorists and pedestrians, Eyman doesn't buy it.

"If it was all about safety, they'd be increasing the duration of yellow lights," he said.

Eyman points to studies that have shown accidents can increase where red-light cameras are installed and argues that most drivers caught by the cameras aren't racing through the intersections, but turning right at a red-light without stopping before making their turn.

He believes that revenue, not safety, is the reason for the cameras.

"That's not how you should be determining public policy," Eyman said.

....
But if I-985 passes, Ceis said it will be difficult for the city to cover costs from its general fund.

"That means something gets cut to pay for it," he said.

Eyman was unmoved by the argument that the cameras improve safety, despite the statements of city officials.

"If they truly believe it, then it should be worth the investment," he said.

[diuretic]

Of course it's revenue - public safety is an incidental by-product of the search for revenue.

[Gaffer]

Of course it's revenue - public safety is an incidental by-product of the search for revenue.

So very true.

[mrg666]

same here in the uk pure revenue , and i hope it gets through then maybe it will happen here

[Joe Steel]

Anyone who'd protest a red light camera must be a criminal trying to avoid the penalty for his crimes.

Don't run the light and the red light camera won't take your picture.

[Nukeman]

Anyone who'd protest a red light camera must be a criminal trying to avoid the penalty for his crimes.

Don't run the light and the red light camera won't take your picture.

You are such a moron!!!!

Have you not seen the articles about cities "SHORTENING" the yellow light time at the intersections that utilize these cameras?? It has been nothing but a money maker pure and simple. It is nothing more than "taxation through citation" ohhh wait you are joe steel, your all about MORE taxes aren't you. You would be happy if everyone had to pay 100% of their income in taxes and penalties just so we can redistribute the wealth!!!! Moron!!!!!!!!!!