Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government The Almighty Buck Transportation United States Politics Your Rights Online

Cities View Red Light Cameras As Profit Centers 740

Posted by timothy
from the criminalize-everything-spread-the-guilt dept.
Houston 2600 writes "Chicago could rake in 'at least $200 million' a year — and wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009 — by using its vast network of redlight and surveillance cameras to hunt down uninsured motorists, aldermen were told today. The system pitched to the City Council's Transportation Committee by Michigan-based InsureNet would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists. That's already happening daily in 13 states, but not here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cities View Red Light Cameras As Profit Centers

Comments Filter:
  • by bensafrickingenius (828123) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:23AM (#27225725)
    because of the DROP in revenue. People weren't running enough red lights to pay for the system any more.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:25AM (#27225765)

      Solution: Create more laws for people to break.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:19PM (#27226725)

        "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

        - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

        I don't even think Rand, in even her most paranoid fantasies, ever imagined that the government would last long enough to achieve the level of corruption required to add ambiguity to laws against running red lights.

        And yet, here we are.

        Did you stop before the line and make a right turn on the red light?
        Did you stop after the line and make a right turn on the red light?
        Did you not come to a complete stop and make a right turn on the red light?

        Funny, the pictures don't seem to tell the difference. Here's one of your car before the line. Here's one of your car partway over the line. Here's one of your car over the line.

        Sure, we could build a camera that captured video instead of stills, which would unambiguously (or at least, to within one frame of animation) answer the question of whether (and where) you stopped, but that might exonerate you. Sorry, but all we can "afford" is this still-camera system that takes pictures once every second.

      • by Chyeld (713439) <chyeld&gmail,com> on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:54PM (#27227351)

        There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
          - Ayn Rand

        I don't agree with much of what she said, but this has a certain ring of truth to it.

    • Side effect (Score:5, Funny)

      by suso (153703) * on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:25AM (#27225777) Homepage Journal

      But boy is it safe to drive in Denver now. That's the problem with cities getting greedy, they don't see the positive side of their efforts.

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:34AM (#27225915) Homepage

      ...in your mad dash to be first post?

      Summary says: "...to hunt down uninsured motorists"

      I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists.

      • by cayenne8 (626475) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:49AM (#27226179) Homepage Journal
        "I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists."

        I don't either, but, I also don't want the cities photographing, id'ing and logging everyone as they drive about just to catch the few people out there that are driving w/o insurance. That is just WAY too large a dragnet.

      • by fm6 (162816)

        Actually, the Sun Times FA emphasized the revenue issue too. Though I do agree that cracking down on uninsured motorists is a worthy goal.

        That's the problem: instead of generating revenue, the system will probably just improve compliance. So much for ending Chicago's deficit. But also so much for the usual "red light camera" outrage.

        Which really, really irritates me. People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hal2814 (725639)

      Snellville, GA did the same thing and it really pisses me off. I wouldn't mind them taking the cameras down for legal or ethical issues but to take them down because they're working? That's almost as bad as the politicians complaining that tax revenue gained from tobacco sales is down because the increased taxes are actually getting people to stop or at least cut down on smoking (which was the stated purpose of such taxes in the first place).

      • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:35PM (#27227031)

        The incidence of red-light-running didn't go down because of the cameras, it went down because a new state law went into effect this past January that lengthened the yellow light time. (Or rather, put it back to the safe value that the engineers intended, rather than the unsafe too-short value that the politicians changed it to in order to increase revenue from red-light cameras!)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by QuantumRiff (120817)

        In my old town, they talked about cameras. Seems the cities don't own or run the camera's. They ALWAYS pay a company to do it for them. In my little town, they were looking at spending something like $30k/year for one light, in one intersection. Now, the company takes 1/3 of the fine as a fee (since they own the camera, and process the tickets, no going to the courthouse to argue to a judge).. So basically, a 30k/year light takes something like $45k/year in fines to break even. So once the violations s

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      In other words, the system worked so they are getting rid of it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by geekoid (135745)

        no. They returned the yellow light time to the correct interval, and offenses dropped. Shocking~.
        The cameras can't pay for them selves without lowering the yellow light time to a time that isn't safe.

        Cameras do very little to nothing for safety. People run red lights becasue they aren't paying attention. Only when something unusual happens do they pay attention. But only until it becomes normal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) *

      Some suburbs of Atlanta are considering the same thing, since the state government passed a law lengthening yellow times for 1 second. It turns out that actually giving people enough time to react to the yellow decreases the number who end up running the red! Gee, who'da thunk it?!

    • You can't get blood from a turnip. Much of that money will not appear as the uninsured motorists have no money. It may be great for enforcing the law and getting them off of the road but not a great source of income.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by UncleFluffy (164860)

        They may not have money, but they have a vehicle. Confiscate it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Delusion_ (56114)

          Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor. Oh wait, done and done.

          • by UncleTogie (1004853) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:58AM (#27226377) Homepage Journal

            While I'm under the poverty line, I still make sure my car insurance is kept up. Before I could afford a car, I rode the bus.

            This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able. I have about as much sympathy for those folks as I do for the folks that took out mortgages they couldn't afford... or is that "discrimination against the middle class"?

            • it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able

              That's not always true, and I'd go so far as to speculate it probably isn't even usually true. A lot of them probably had cars when they could afford it, then fell on hard times, and still have the car.

              I'm a decent example. When I left my parents' house at 19, I had an old 1986 Volvo, then a fourteen-year-old car -- a total beater, but it worked. The only place I could afford was on the ass-end of town with nowhere to work within walking distance and the busses were too infrequent to realistically use. So, since I had a car, I was able to get a really lame, low-paying job, but the place was far enough that driving there was the only option.

              Being young and stupid and poor, I drove uninsured for much of the time. I felt I didn't have a choice -- I couldn't afford insurance (especially at the rates they charge young males), but I had to get to work somehow. Even looking back, the only "option" I can see was maybe quitting my job, getting an even lower-paying job at the Wendy's three miles away, and somehow scraping together enough money to get a bike. With the reduction in income there I'd never have been able to pull myself out.

              The point is, having a car and being poor doesn't mean one purchased a car one couldn't afford; this isn't analogous to the idiots extending credit they don't have to buy houses they can't afford.

              And in many ways, the current traffic laws are discriminatory against the poor: Even a simple, non-moving violation can run a few hundred dollars, which is disasterous for someone who can barely afford rent. Yet someone pulling in six figures gets charged the exact same amount for that same violation, and it's practically pocket change to them.

              If the point is deterrence, then the fine should scale to the person's income. A $200 dollar ticket would ruin many low-income people, and be barely noticed by someone more wealthy. Of course, many higher-income types can afford a lawyer for an hour to get the ticket reduced or thrown out entirely before it ever goes to court -- an option poor people don't have, and there are no court-appointed attorneys during the pre-trial shenanigans in traffic court.
          • by loshwomp (468955) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:07PM (#27226515)

            Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.

            How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.

        • by cayenne8 (626475) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:52AM (#27226263) Homepage Journal
          "They may not have money, but they have a vehicle. Confiscate it."

          They actually tried doing that down here in New Orleans...back before Katrina. The measure got thrown out as that it was branded a 'racist' ordinance. That just blew me away. I don't care what color you are, if you can't afford to have lawful insurance on the car, you shouldn't be driving one. A car costs money (fuel, repair and insurnace)...if you can't afford one, don't drive one.

        • by snarfies (115214) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:51PM (#27227295) Homepage

          The city of Philadelphia does this.

          If you are caught driving without insurance in the city of Philadelphia, your vehicle is confiscated ON THE SPOT, and you will walk home (or ride SEPTA, but walking may be faster/easier).

  • This is a Tax (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gates82 (706573) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:24AM (#27225757)
    It drives me nuts when traffic violations are used as tax rather then for public safety, and these things typically get passed under the guise of safety.

    --
    So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

    • by internerdj (1319281) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:29AM (#27225823)
      Yeah, but it is a tax on the nasty lawbreakers right? Especially those nasty minority lawbreakers or those nasty lawbreakers who happen to drive flashy extravagant cars. Everyone needs to be taxed except me.
      • by FooAtWFU (699187)
        Well, really, there already is a "tax" of sorts called the Uninsured Motorist premium. Look for it on your insurance next time it comes due. This one may be marginally more productive, if the enforcement isn't too obnoxious.
      • Re:This is a Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arcmay (253138) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:47AM (#27226139)

        Screw uninsured motorists, IMO. If you can't afford compulsory insurance, you can't afford to drive, period. Take the bus. I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects minorities, if they are the ones disproportionately breaking the law.

        This is a good use for traffic cameras, much better than for catching red light running or speeding, because there's always room for subjective calls on what was safe under the particular circumstance of the infraction. If you are uninsured, that is just a fact and you should not be on the road in the first place. End of story.

        I agree that this probably isn't much of a revenue stream, since if you can't afford insurance you probably can't afford the fine.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by greg_barton (5551) *

          I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects minorities, if they are the ones disproportionately breaking the law.

          I agree.

          Also, whites shouldn't be business owners. The current economic crisis demonstrates that whites can't be responsible in their business dealings. I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects whites, if they are the ones disproportionately wrecking the economy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mrchaotica (681592) *

          Screw uninsured motorists, IMO. If you can't afford compulsory insurance, you can't afford to drive, period. Take the bus.

          While I agree, that's easier said than done in some places. Take a look at the Gwinnett County, GA [gwinnettcounty.com] bus system. (Sorry, I looked for an overall map showing all routes at once but couldn't find one.) Now, imagine you live in Snellville. What bus would you take, pray tell?

          And keep in mind that this is not a rural area. It's a suburb of Atlanta with a fairly large overall population, very he

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by forkazoo (138186)

          Screw uninsured motorists, IMO. If you can't afford compulsory insurance, you can't afford to drive, period. Take the bus. I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects minorities, if they are the ones disproportionately breaking the law.

          Public transit in America is a joke. All the fees and costs that go along with having a car might make sense in a world where it was practical not to have one. But, my tax dollars go to create infrastructure and city planning that assumes everybody has a

    • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      It is not a tax, and this the use is not for traffic violations but for civil law violations, specifically insurance requirement for licensing a vehicle.

      Please go take a reading comprehension course.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Grax (529699)

      What could be smarter than a tax on broke people?

    • That's OK, just wait until the next "terrorist" action and the military will step in and take it all over...revenue angle solved.

      Transporter_ii

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hoi Polloi (522990)

      I love revenue sources that depend on negative behavior. If people stopped smoking and drinking most state govs would really be broke.

  • by Duradin (1261418) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:29AM (#27225819)

    Ahh, sorry, I have an update coming in. That should be "too bad for the motorists that Chicago is not a bastion of integrity".

    You'd think more people would be worried when law enforcement is publicly billed as a revenue source.

    It's why they'll never end the war on drugs or even legalize pot: the departments couldn't afford to lose all the free money they get from drug related forfeitures. And pot heads make very easy targets. Which do you think a cop would rather bust: a vegged out pot head or a well armed group of Mexicans with a meth lab in the middle of a corn field?

    • The whole system is broken. Police should never see any of the money they get for drug busts. Cities should never see any money for parking enforcement, red light cameras, etc. All of that money should be evenly divided between all of the tax payers and given back. It's the only way to prevent corruption. Even if you move the money to some other program, like schools, you'll inevitably end up with some kind of magic accounting that shuffles the money around.

      It'll probably only add up to a few bucks per per
    • by mishehu (712452) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:52AM (#27226265)

      Remember this: In Chicago, when Mayor Daley announces that city government will be downsizing, and therefore laying off or firing from various departments, there is one office that never downsizes: The Dept. of Revenue (notorious as the issuers and collectors of many forms of tickets/citations).

      My recommendation if you're visiting Chi and are not familiar with the city: if in downtown, park in a garage, forget about parking on the street. Also, read every sign on the same side of the street within a block of where you park.

  • countdown (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I still argue that installing walk/don't walk signs with a countdown that turns yellow on zero does more to discourage red light running than the cameras do. Sometimes you just don't know how long the yellow will last or how long the hand is going to blink. Using the countdown I have a decent idea from about 50 ft away and can act accordingly. I feel safer as a result and I think most people would agree.

    Cities don't want this, however, because they don't like to think that something they've spent so much mo

    • The handful of places I've seen the countdown for the walk signal I've really liked it. It'd definitely make even more sense for drivers. Particularly when you're driving someplace you're not familiar with. With a yellow light there's no way of knowing whether it's safer to slam on the breaks or try and get through the light. A few seconds can really make a difference and a timer would make that decision more clear.

      Sadly my experience so far is that cities like to spend money on making driving even less in
  • My insurance company already hits me with one of those twice a year for my wife's modest car. I can't imagine if she was driving something extravagant. I guess the laws are for motivating low-income people to get insurance.
  • Not so bad... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Crazy Man on Fire (153457) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:39AM (#27225999) Homepage

    I'm generally opposed to this sort of stuff, but this particular application doesn't seem so bad. Uninsured motorists are a problem for everyone. If you're going to drive a car, you should have a license and your car should be registered, insured, and inspected according to state laws. Yes, this makes money for repair shops, insurance companies, state government, and the police. However, all of this is important for having safe roads and keeping down the cost of insurance.

  • False positives? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Grey (463613) * on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:42AM (#27226063)
    Wouldn't there be an ungodly number of false positives from a system like this?

    ... would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists.

    So the system would scan a license plate, see if it appears on the list of insured motorists and, if it doesn't, then fire off the ticket/fine? They would be basing this scheme on the absence of information?

    For many reasons, that just doesn't seem right.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by megamerican (1073936)

      Use false positives to get rid of the system.

      Simply find out what car the Mayor or city council members drive, including their lisence plates. Rent the same car, or something that looks very similar. Print out real looking lisence plates, put them over the real ones and drive through as many red lights as possible.

      Once they get the tickets in the mail, you better believe the law will change quickly.

  • Running a red light is not like speeding. People concisouly decide to speed - because they are in a hurry. No one wants to run a red light. People are not stupid, they know it is dangerous.

    This means that:

    1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.

    2. Case B is RARE. In fact, it happens so rarely that it is never profitable. The cost to install and maintain the red light camera always ex

    • by langelgjm (860756) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:19PM (#27226751) Journal

      1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.

      I wish I lived where you live.

      Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.

      It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).

      It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).

      Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gurps_npc (621217)
        You admit you don't now WHY they run the red lights. I propose to you that the reason is bad light timing. Otherwise why would only the people in New Haven have that issue?

        Part of the problem is you don't always SEE poor red light timing. It is not just the 4 second amber light. Another example of bad red light timing is whent he police do this:

        Road A is a major road, heavily trafficked - You get 100 cars a minute. Road B is lightly trafficked - 10 cars a minute. Red light provides 1 minute for bo

    • by loshwomp (468955) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:48PM (#27227239)

      That's all great. Do you have any citations to back up your assertions?

    • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:52PM (#27227305) Journal

      While I'd like what you're saying to be true, with some people it simply isn't. I stop for yellow lights, and I routinely get honked at by people behind me for stopping when they wanted to keep going -- even when it means they would have been running a red light. This is particularly egregious when it's a left turn lane that has a red "no left turn permitted" arrow. I often (as in daily) see fully five cars go through the intersection after the arrow has turned red, obstructing cars that are trying to go straight through the now-green light.
      This is not a matter of poor timing, just a matter of people deciding that it's more important for them to get through the intersection than to obey the traffic rules. We have horrific crashes around here on a regular basis because someone comes through the green light and hits someone who was running the tail end of a previous green that is now red.

  • by andrewd18 (989408) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:56AM (#27226321)
    Most of the profit centers on the internet are red light district cameras, and very few people complain. I don't see how this is any... ... oh.

    Red stoplight cameras. Excuse me.
  • Pimp your teacher (Score:3, Interesting)

    by m0s3m8n (1335861) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @11:57AM (#27226345)
    I forget where I read this, I apologize. Somewhere the High School kids figured out it would be fun to make copies of their teacher's plates and put them on another vehicle. Then they would proceed to run several red-lights with cameras. Teachers would get bill in the mail a few days later.
  • Rare (Score:5, Insightful)

    by visible.frylock (965768) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:09PM (#27226557) Homepage Journal

    Rarely does a single article capture so much of what is wrong with a culture. We have:

    - Broken window
    - Excessive fines
    - Government corruption/collusion with private businesses
    - Legislated business models
    - Original sin as defined by the One True Authority. And, of course, only they have the cure.

    Disgusting if you think about it for more than 15 seconds.

  • by Valen0 (325388) <valen AT escom DOT us> on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:13PM (#27226621)

    Hello. I am Mr. Reality Check. Let us examine this proposal in detail.

    Chicago, the shining star of all good and right [wikipedia.org], wants to install a sophisticated network of cameras to (a) track every motor vehicle in operation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, (b) record the license plate tag, location, and time of motor vehicle operation, and (c) cross reference the license plate tag information with a comprehensive insurance coverage database in in order to (d) send out $500 citations via mail to potential offenders.

    Unfortunately, this system is not realistic and poses some massive privacy concerns. While it may be feasible to create the network of cameras described in (a), it is substantially difficult with current technology to implement the optical character recognition required to implement part (b). Furthermore, the privacy implications of tracking every motor vehicle in the Chicago Metropolitan Area are enormous. This network would take public surveillance to United Kingdom levels.

    Assuming that (a) and (b) were implemented successfully, there are major jurisdictional and scale issues with (c). In order to assure a minimum of false positives, the State of Illinois would have to implement a comprehensive insurance-to-registration tag database that would be automatically updated by the insurance companies within seconds of issuing or changing a policy. The cost of this type of project are enormous. The coordination of all involved stakeholders is extremely difficult given the various processing cycles, business policies, cross jurisdictional politics, and potential for error. There is also problems with the handling out of state registration tags. The system must be able to effectively deal with the tags of every state in the United States. If this system only processes Illinois residents, there may be some serious constitutional repercussions under Amendment 14 (equal protection of the law).

    Finally, after gathering the data in (a), processing the information in (b) and (c), we get to the collections portion of the process, (d). Now, assuming for the moment that this system works and is accurate, we can now send citations to every uninsured vehicle driving on the road way. However, since most citations carry the weight of a parking ticket, most people tend to ignore them [ocregister.com]. Since these uninsured motorists usually (i) can not afford the cost of insurance or (ii) do not want to pay for insurance, it is logical to conclude that they will not pay for their automated traffic violations. While the "more than $200 million" figure is impressive, I would be even more impressed if they managed to collect 10% of that number.

    In conclusion, this system will not work. It is technologically, politically, fiscally, and logistically unfeasible given today's technology and political climate.

    This is Mr. Reality Check and I am signing out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRedSeven (1234758)
      Two quick amendments.

      I agree with you--Chicago is corrupt. But Blagojevich was the State governor, not the City's. For that, you'd have to turn to Daley [wikipedia.org] and his corrupt cronies [chicagotribune.com] (convictions pending). If you're going to point out the corruption [despair.com] present [wikipedia.org] in my great [wikipedia.org] state [wikipedia.org], please at least point at the right people. :)

      Second, you're right about the assumption that people who aren't willing to pay for insurance aren't likely to pay a citation mailed to them. However, in Chicago, it is now possible for your
  • Paintballs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:34PM (#27227023)

    At what point will people wake up and start attacking these devices?

    There is a light bulb within 50' of the ground.

    There is a camera within 20' of the ground.

    If they are going to have a policeman sitting there 24/7 to protect the device it takes away the profit and purpose of the devices.

    I'm for stopping red light running- and it has been *repeatedly* shown that raising the yellow light duration by 1 seconds stops 99% of red light running. In cities with cameras they have been *repeatedly* caught lowering the yellow light duration to force more violations.

  • by solios (53048) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:36PM (#27227037) Homepage

    Can we? Can we PLEASE?

    I'm a lifelong pedestrian. Running red lights, gunning it on yellow, and the Pittsburgh left [wikipedia.org] don't bother me. What bugs me is the endless supply of $%$#%@! who stop at a red light ON THE CROSSWALK, instead of at the line well behind it. This behavior forces those of us who are on foot to either walk behind the offender, or worse (when the offender realizes their mistake, tries to back up, and the car behind them just Does Not Care), walk out into traffic.

    Find a way to ticket THESE idiots for being a public nuisance. You'll make the pedestrians happy and you'll be rolling in dough. :P

  • Minor problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @12:56PM (#27227405)
    I'm insured. I drive lots of cars. Not all are registered to me but my insurance policy covers me when I'm driving them. How will the state ever link the status of my insurance to some unknown vehicle plate?
  • At some point, people are going to need to just start smashing security cameras simply as a statement against monitoring.

  • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @06:19PM (#27233795)

    "Insurance Lobby figures out how to use local governments as a vehicle to sell more insurance, as well increase the premiums for existing policies....and pass on the cost of the program to the aforementioned local governments and their citizens."

    Yay for us! Da economicy is saved!

"The pyramid is opening!" "Which one?" "The one with the ever-widening hole in it!" -- The Firesign Theatre

Working...