How will red light cameras "make" money, exactly. According to the estimtes by the MPD, the system will cover its cost. The vendor will be paid on a flat-fee basis, not on a per ticket basis. And the timing of yellows will not be altered.
Citizens remain protected. Mike Thompson Windom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [Mpls] Red Light Cameras CAUSE Injuries > > I posted a link to a NYT's article on this subject a while > > back. Yes, rear-end collisions increase, but side impact > > collisions decrease. Rear-end collisions normally occur > > at much slower speeds than side impact collisions and the > > injuries are less severe. I think that rear-end collisions > > can also be reduced by a public awareness campaign prior > > to installing cameras. Personally, I think that cameras > > should also be placed randomly at even low collision > > intersections. > > Astounding! You are so egar to turn law-enforcement (read: revenue > generating) over to automation run by a private, for-profit venture, that > you will turn a blind eye to a documented increase in traffic injuries as a > result of this highly irresponsible, suspicious Orwellian system? The report > by the VA DOT (stated to be in favor of the cameras) found no measurable > reduction in angle collisions (side-impact), while finding a measurable, and > significant increase in injuries resulting from rear-endings due to stopping > short. These are people who like the cameras, yet are dropping them, because > they are hurting people. Read this again: > > "Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers > found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" > decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more > injuries happened after cameras are installed. Camera proponents explain > this away by asserting angle accidents are more serious, but this claim has > not been scientifically studied according to this report. The rear end > collisions caused by the cameras still produce injuries -- the original > promise of camera proponents was that they would reduce accidents and > injuries, not rearrange them. > This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina." > > Many many on this list, despite this information still enthusiastically > support the cameras. Apparently in Minneapolis, making money for the city is > more important than protecting the citizens. > > > Dan McGrath > Longfellow > http://www.smokeoutgary.org > > REMINDERS: > 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > > REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
