Suffolk lawmakers vote to install red-light cameras

Hope Suffolk hires a company without the political ties like Nassau did.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Suozzi hire his brother-in-laws company to do the installs in Nassau??
Keep it in the family they say.

If morons could learn to stop, we wouldn't need the cameras.

How will this prevent the same accident that happened to poor Donna Velazquez? She was broadsided.

Here we go again waste our tax payer money on electronic cameras at the lites wait for those that shoot it out with bb guns, like they do to lamp lites, this will give them more reasons to shoot them out, common sense once again doesnt prevail, how about using the highway patrol to patrol those bad areas since they no longer patrol the highways just a thought. wise owl.

cameras dont lie.its not that hard to beat tickets that cant be backed up by hard evidence.$50 fine is not high enough.some parking tickets cost more & dont help prevent this kind of accident

The camera have proved to be very good at raising fine revenue, insurance rates and rear end crashes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/...

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/...

red light cameras are a MONEY LOSING DEAL

http://www.insidesocal.com/news247/2009/02/up...
The city has been losing money on the deal since the cameras were installed five years ago, said Police Chief Steve Adams.

http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp...
Red light cameras are not generating revenue in Lubbock and in fact, they are losing money. A new report also shows cameras are not improving safety.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970
A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.
City officials in Charlotte and Fayetteville, N.C., recently turned off all of their red light cameras, concluding that a state law diverting much of the revenue they generate in fines to schools meant their general funds were actually losing money, NBC affiliate WNCN of Raleigh reported.

Columbus, OH budget, city council included $1 million in anticipated fines for 2006. they took in a bit over $160,000 that year, issuing 6,000 citations. L.A. is losing money each year they keep the program running.

and we taxpayers will pay 2-3 times for this once to install, once for hight taxes due to it not making money, and a third time to uninstall them

just great more costs to long islanders

Since Steve Levy and Sheriff DeMarco believe a warning is as good as a ticket, and their goal is to only lower accident rates, let's just send violators nasty letters. Otherwise when the 3-4 cars that go through each red light start stopping, there's going to be huge pileups.

anymouse wrote:

red light cameras are a MONEY LOSING DEAL
http://www.insidesocal.com/news247/2009/02/up...
The city has been losing money on the deal since the cameras were installed five years ago, said Police Chief Steve Adams.
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp...
Red light cameras are not generating revenue in Lubbock and in fact, they are losing money. A new report also shows cameras are not improving safety.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970
A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.
City officials in Charlotte and Fayetteville, N.C., recently turned off all of their red light cameras, concluding that a state law diverting much of the revenue they generate in fines to schools meant their general funds were actually losing money, NBC affiliate WNCN of Raleigh reported.
Columbus, OH budget, city council included $1 million in anticipated fines for 2006. they took in a bit over $160,000 that year, issuing 6,000 citations. L.A. is losing money each year they keep the program running.
and we taxpayers will pay 2-3 times for this once to install, once for hight taxes due to it not making money, and a third time to uninstall them
just great more costs to long islanders

im pretty sure the maintenance isnt worth the revenue. i thought police officers were paid to enforce traffic laws? now we will get cameras...are the cops taking a paycut? im sure they arent and will just have more time to enjoy "cruiser spooning" in the bushes

skeptic wrote:

The camera have proved to be very good at raising fine revenue, insurance rates and rear end crashes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/...
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/...

Good point. People will be scared to get caught between the yellow and red and will slam their brakes, resulting in a surge in rear end accidents. What about when there is traffic and it's moving slowly and you're caught 'in the box'. It happens to all of us. This is f'n ridiculous and a SCAM to milk the taxpayers even more.

What difference does a camera make when an un-licensed driver, working for someone else, doesn't seem to notice a red light and goes through it at nearly full speed and hits a car in the intersection? A year later, still having problems and pain. Again, a notorious traffic accident spot, buy how could a camera help this problem?

Red light cameras cannot reduce overall accident occurances. Do the lawmakers and Newsday editors expect us to believe and buy into that sort of nonsense? Take for example the increase in rear end accidents caused by the red light cameras due to drivers who stop short and how many people die as a result? Many U.S. States have outlawed red light cameras because they are flawed with problems, so why is stupid New York State looking to introduce them here, especially given how unpopular they are? Some people are no doubt being paid off to allow this! How about the instances where running a red light to avoid an accident can save lives? What about the known fact that a police officer is a better judge of a person's driving when deciding to hand out a ticket? A police officer has a brain which a camera doesn't! What about the possibility that the government is trying to promote "safety" as a lame excuse only to create revenue and to snoop on us? The flawed premise of promoting "safety" about having these cameras put up couldn't be further from the truth! Please visit: http://www.camerafraud.com IF YOU GET A TICKET, JUST DON'T PAY IT! THEY CAN'T THROW US ALL IN JAIL AND CAN'T STEAL EVERYONE'S VEHICLE! 1984 we want too see no more!

This is nothing but another way for the hacks to put their hands in your pocket, and pink up a little graft along the way if nassau is any indicator. OF COURSE I will be stopping on yellow to avoid a ticket, what do they expect? If they were concerned with safety, the first 2 tickets would be warnings.

ps voting yes on this should be enough to vote no, come election day.

Red light camera companies usually charge by the violation. Many times they shorten the yellow to produce more violations.

The accident that Donna Velazquez was in would not be prevented by the camera, because apparently the one who hit her entered the intersection well into the green phase in her direction.

The cameras usually make the money out of people who will accidentally misjudge the light and enter the intersection in the all red phase approximately 0.1 seconds into the all red. They do not recognize the 1 or 2 seconds of all red is there to help us avoid accidents when misjudging a light by 0.1 seconds.

NY needs to require red light camera intersections to have an additional second of yellow. The result in Georgia was no more revenue, 80% reduction in violations, and no more cameras.

How soon before the good people of Suffolk County can vote their legislators out of office? The legislature didn't have the b/a/lls to increase taxes, so they're trying to balance their budget on the backs of the motoring public. Did anyone mention that the camera contractor takes up to a third of the "fines?"