If It’s Not About The Money, Then Prove It
January 2nd, 2008 Posted in Red-Light Cameras
The National Motorists Association and its members know that engineering solutions are the real way to prevent red-light violations and accidents at problematic intersections.
In fact, we are willing to wager $10,000 to prove that engineering will work better than ticket cameras.
The revenue from ticket cameras serves as a reward to cities that fail to make motorists safer through proper signal timing, better signal design, and improved intersections. This is an engineering problem, not an enforcement issue.
Today we say to the communities that employ ticket cameras, "Let’s put traffic engineering solutions to the test."
Here’s our challenge:
Show us any camera-equipped intersection that still has high numbers of red-light violations and we will guarantee a minimum 50-percent reduction in red-light violations through the application of engineering solutions.
If our recommendations fail to meet our minimum goal, we will pay the community $10,000 to be used on any traffic safety program or project it chooses.
However, if we succeed, the community must employ our engineering-based recommendations at other troublesome intersections and scrap its ticket-camera program.
What do you have to lose, other than your ticket-camera revenue?
If you have any questions about this challenge or you believe your community would be interested in participating, please contact the NMA at (608) 849-6000 or via email at nma@motorists.org.
Other Related Articles
11 Responses to “If It’s Not About The Money, Then Prove It”
By Moshuluu on Jun 20, 2008
In New Orleans it’s known as a “cash-cow” to be used by Nagin and his administration of clowns who spend upwards of $3k of taxpayers money on a taxpayer credit cards at night clubs impressing their friends.
By Baja Joes on Mar 10, 2008
I live in California and if I get a camera ticket will not pay. What do you think will be my fate?
By Bobby L. Eldridge on Jan 29, 2008
In my opinion, the Governor of Arizona has officially recognized photo enforcement as the cash cow that it really is. She is attempting to attach the state coffers to the cash cow udders. In her efforts to have part of the fines from photo enforcement go the state, she is, in my opinion, fully acknowledging that photo enforcement is all about generating revenue. In proposing the state’s participation in this potential rip off, she was quoted as making estimates of the number of photos that would be taken, the number of net tickets that would be generated after bad photos were tossed, and the amount of revenue that would be generated after traffic school options were exercised. And I’ve had local a local police chief and a town manager try to convince me that I’m wrong when I contend that photo enforcement is very much about revenue generation.
By Officer Josh on Jan 8, 2008
In the state of MD we have an “overflow” account that the money from tickets and fines go into and is given to the state to put into whatever they see fit. You can look it up if you dont believe me.
By morpheus on Jan 4, 2008
This is a no brainer its called a roundabout. Roundabouts eliminate the t-bone accident and if there is one it is glancing one so much less damage occurs. I would like to recommend that you do your research before you argue against this. the reason the problem is not corrected is because accidents provide money for the state and the court -judiciary complex (LAWYERS)