No.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/anchorage/2016/12/07/anchorage-assemblyman-wants-red-light-cameras-at-intersections/

Whats the problem? If you obey the law you won't have an issue. Personally I think it is a good idea. People will be more hesitant to disobey the traffic lights causing less accidents.
Pat

Just. No.  Already discussed why a few months ago.

Does Traini expect this time will be different?

Lack of due process.

As much as I don't mind the violators being "taxed" so to speak, they do appear to violate due process which is why I can't fully get behind it. They do seem to work and a lot of places have reduced the number of crashes when its known they are set up.  However school bus violations are issued to the owner of the vehicle and also violate this process but no one seems to make a stink about that.

Plus, the government or the company purchasing the tribute from such a scheme, mess with the lights to cause more red light runners. We had less than half second yellow lights near us, as they continually messed with the settings. Some intersections were having accidents from people stopping to avoid getting tickets, and getting hit from behind. Fortunately, the city finally got rid of the cameras.

And, you end up blocking emergency vehicles, because of people not wanting a $200 ticket with no appeal and increased insurance costs, because they can't get out of the way without "running" the red light. (And no, even in the Texas Medical Center, not all lights have overrides for emergency vehicles.)

And that's all it is.  A revenue generating scheme, rapped up into a nice little package under the all encompassing word...safety.  But if it just prevents just one accident...yada yada.  It reminds me of the "It's for the children" schemes for everything.  And if you give the bureaucrats an inch, they will take a mile.

I think the scheme absolutely violates due process.  I believe they cause more rear-end accidents, especially in the states with more inclement weather.  I couldn't imagine how bad this crap would be up here in the winter for most drivers.  What the hell are truckers supposed to do?  They have a serious problem because the truck and trailer is too long to be able to get all the way through many intersections before the light changes again.  Up here, we pull double trailers.  What if I have an empty set of trailers and don't have very good traction on the ice and can't make it all the way through an intersection that has a short light?  Or I'm driving slow for conditions with a set and can't make it all the way through because I'm over 100 feet long?  I don't see them making exceptions down in the States for trucks.  Because it isn't about safety, its about money.

There are plenty of ideas on ways to potentially make things safer.  Roundabouts probably have their place in this discussion.  Different styles of traffic signals and timing.  Changing the way the inpavement sensors and loops detect vehicles approaching an intersection to give proper timing and right of way to vehicles already at speed.  Ever remember traveling along at speed and begin to approach an intersection only to have the light suddenly change because there is one little car sitting over on a side street waiting?  Why didn't that guy get to go way before you were even near the intersection?  That one pisses me off, and it is ridiculously unsafe.  Especially in the winter.  Maybe have actual count-down timers for vehicles that are visible and are accurate to the action of the traffic signal instead of trying to rely on the cross walk timers.  The cross walk timers can really get you in trouble because sometimes they will count down and turn red, but the traffic signal stays green for your direction of travel in a vehicle.  Everyone could probably write a book on that one.  So why not come up with something better?  Lots of ideas out there...

Your emergency vehicles don't have those light signal transmitters that changes the traffic signals to green? If not that's crazy because we have them here. They aren't expensive compared to lawsuits and vehicle/people damage from the  crashes.

Lets be honest here the real reason people don't want it is they want to get away with running red lights. Underneath all the BS that is what I hear. Just be honest about it.
Pat

If that is what you heard under all the "BS" (lack of due process, revenue generating stream, BS like that), then there is no getting through to you.  You assume people will break each and every law if there is no Johnny Law on the spot to keep them in line in each and every circumstance.  My perception was formed by dealing with like folks with a similar mindset and circumstances, and your perception is formed by dealing with scumbags your every working day.

I don't get tickets because I don't run red lights, generally obey the speed limit as it is usually a prudent speed limit to begin with, and I try to drive defensively.  Photo radar was ALL ABOUT generating revenue.  I detest to my bones the idea of a picture = guilty with no recourse.

I think it is the lights that don't have receptors. (But our former mayor spent millions on pushing social agenda lawsuits.)

We only have them on the fire rigs and city buses. It would be nice if the cop cars did.

Lack of due process?  I am sure that someone can come up with a way to incorporate due process into it lime a simple postcard letting them know that they have x # of days to contest the violation.

Fair enough. I think their should be due process. I believe they would still have the same rights as any other traffic offense. The code could be written the same as being the owner of a vehicle that passes a school bus with the lights on. We don't have to prove they drove only that their vehicle was involved. If we can prove they were driving then it becomes a misdemeanor crime instead of a violation. So make it no points just a fine for the photos. I am ok with that. That way if someone was borrowing their car they can get them to give them the money for the fine and not loan the car to them again.

This is the way it was in Texas.  You get a notice in the mail, has web links to photos/video of your vehicle running the red (where your vehicle was actually behind the line when it turned red, not mid intersection).  It's just a simple fine as they have no way to identify/confirm that it was you driving, it simply goes based on vehicle registration.

If you wish to state that it was not you driving and want to get the bill shifted, you can notify them and they will move it.  Otherwise, you simply pay it and are done, nothing goes on your driving record.

Still not a fan of them in general

Why? Just like every other Goverment project all it will do in the end is be another tax on the people and a further reduction of their rights...fuck that...what happens in the winter when it snows and someone can't stop and slides thru an intersection? Or can stop but realize if they do the idiot behind them can't? We do not need more goddamn laws and taxes....If average joe isn't smart enough to look both directions when approaching an intersection in the first place then cameras aren't going to save his ass either...

Actually it will save lives. Traffic laws are there for a reason and this is just another way to enforce those laws. It is not a reduction on your rights because you absolutely do not have the right to break the law.
The way cameras save people is by deterring them. If they knew they are going to get a ticket and it will cost them money they are less likely to break the law. Also its not them I am worried about saving its the family in the other car they hit when they illegally run the red light.

Sounds like a bunch of liberal bullshit to me....Anyone who approaches any intersection without looking left and right before entering it is a fool to begin with...our Goverment proves everyday that more laws and revenue is not the answer...and feel good cameras won't stop dipshits from being dipshits either no matter how many of them they hang or how much the tax penalty is.....

Its funny as much as its is the lefts response to a conservative to label someone racist or sexist etc. Its the typical redneck response to label anything they don't like as liberal. Obeying traffic laws is not a liberal or conservative issue. The laws are there for a reason and I enjoy giving people tickets for running stop signs that use your logic. You are not a special snow flake and the laws apply to you as much as anyone else. Yes traffic fines do deter people. Hence why some are so up in arms about the idea of these cameras.
Pat

Lol..typical...everyone's breaking the law if they don't go along with what gov.  wants huh? Sorry dude but your full of shit if you think your laws are deterring criminals....especially red light camera laws...next your gonna be all over them gun control laws so cops are safer too right? I thank you for the job you do, But America from top to bottom needs less laws, less intrusion and most of all less Goverment...

Its black and white if you don't stop at a red light you are breaking the law.  You would be surprised that I agree with you in some areas we do need less laws and I believe in less government intrusion. But that does not mean we need no laws. Gun control laws are stupid because they try to control objects not peoples behavior.
Pat

Look, I have no desire to argue with you, but we do not need more gov....especially right now...Let me ask you this, isn't traffic safety on the roads the largest part of the polices job description?Why do we need cameras? Why is it with all the cops this city employees we somehow need cameras on every light?

That comment about enjoying writing you a ticket was out of line. I am not arguing for more government. Traffic laws are already there its not new or more restrictive. For my area traffic is a large part of my job because my department is not all that busy. With APD however those guys are super busy and don't have time to run much traffic enforcement. They do traffic stops between calls for service which is not all that often. I think cameras placed at intersections with higher accident rates would be a good idea. Basically targeted enforcement. Camera's help because we can not be everywhere.
Sorry if I was a bit of an ass. Take care
Pat

If APD is so busy why does one sit in the corner of my deadend street for hours at a time several times a week? If they are so busy why do they have time to have 10-50 of them down  by Ak sales walking out in traffic checking seat belts then radioing cars who to pull over in the summer? Why do they need 20-30 cops standing around the arena for a hockey game or a concert? Honest question how many redlight runner accidents happen in the MOA each year? I bet the number is pretty low.....I also bet red light cameras have far more to do with dollars then real verifiable reduction in wrecks because if it was all about saving lives, the cops would be getting ordered to drop all the other crap and nail light runners.....regardless be safe out there..

Double tap...stay safe Pat...

The concerts are over time gigs paid for my the event sponsors. As for sitting in the dead end corner he is probably writing reports. I did a ride along with APD when I was thinking of going there and it was call to call. I have several friends who work there as well. Most are super busy for the first 8 hours of their shift and on the last 2 hours with overlap they catch up on all their reports. Checking the safety belts is also a highway safety grant overtime assignment. They make good money but I would not want to work there. You stay safe as well.

Pat

Maybe, but since I have had both family and customers who worked for them and they would use my place as a hangout at times, I doubt it..but regardless we are in enough debt, the cost is not worth what the results would be...gov reaching deeper in our pockets and further encroaching on our rights...even if it takes years to do so...our gov needs to get smaller and less intrusive, not more....

It is like asset forfeiture laws--the bill is against the car, so unless there's a police report of a stolen car, you're paying the bill.

As a reminder most places these are used, the people running the revenue generation scheme start messing with the timing of the lights to the point where you start getting rear ended trying to stop on yellow, because they've cut yellow down to a quarter of a second. They also bill for legal turns on red (right turns on normal streets and left turns onto one way streets)--while the revenue collectors are supposed to review the tape for legal turns, historically they aren't good at it, since there is no financial incentive and a lot of disincentive to it.

It isn't about safety, it's about revenue.

You can call it a tax if you want but its completely voluntary.
You get to choose if you want to be taxed or not. dont wanna pay? No problem. Dont run the light.


IMO speed cameras on the Glen would be a better idea for revenue.
I guarantee all those idiots would be WILLING to pay that tax and I would love to see it.
In addition to that make tailgating in the camera payable too.
75 MPH or faster 12 feet apart. Pathetic. Make'em pay until they stop.

 I've never ran a red light never will. I don't want red light cams.