NationStates Jolt Archive

Funny Just In: Another "Big Brother" Government promise to "make us a safer nation" turns out to cause more harm than good. I'm talking about the installation of Red Light Cameras. Turns out they actually have created an increase in accidents:

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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewspaper.com (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/news.asp?ID=117) ...

:p Whenever government gets involved at the expense of privacy for security, hillarity ensues.

"That government which governs least, governs best"
-Thomas Jefferson

People are too stupid to focus on the road when they think someone may be watching them.................?????????

Unless the cameras have flashes on them or distracting red 'recording' lights, I fail to see how simply having cameras even affects traffic.

I can see that they are unlikely to install them soon here in Rio Grande do Sul.
The gaúcho driver takes pride in not being the first one to stop at a red light. This means that the lights go amber so everyone that can see the lights accelarates as hard as possible to get through them.
Red light cameras, forcing people to stop would cause multiple pile ups.

"That government which governs least, governs best"
-Thomas Jefferson
"Or preferably, not at all!" --Robert Anton Wilson

I can see that they are unlikely to install them soon here in Rio Grande do Sul.
The gaúcho driver takes pride in not being the first one to stop at a red light. This means that the lights go amber so everyone that can see the lights accelarates as hard as possible to get through them.
Red light cameras, forcing people to stop would cause multiple pile ups.

Have you gone to Rio? People there are crazy, man! They shout and scream and honk! Worst traffic I ever seem!

While I do agree that having cameras at traffic lights is excessively expensive and overkill, and that no more should be installed, I don't totally understand how they are causing accidents.

While I do agree that having cameras at traffic lights is excessively expensive and overkill, and that no more should be installed, I don't totally understand how they are causing accidents.
I'm not sure why this happens either, but statistics show strong evidence that it does indeed increase traffic accidents. Who really knows?

The point was, the government says "Give us 20 billion dollars and a chunk of your freedom for Program X, and we will make a large, obvious improvement to American life". That's what politicians promise.
That's what they should have to deliver.

More often than not, more harm than good is done.

(I'm not really expecting you to debate this point, Andaluciae) ;)

Funny Just In: Another "Big Brother" Government promise to "make us a safer nation" turns out to cause more harm than good. I'm talking about the installation of Red Light Cameras. Turns out they actually have created an increase in accidents:

This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North Carolina.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewspaper.com (http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/news.asp?ID=117) ...

:p Whenever government gets involved at the expense of privacy for security, hillarity ensues.

I hate those damned things! They have them all over Greensboro ( NC ) and they cut NO slack ... none! If 2" of the the ass-end of your car is still "in the entersection," when the light turns red, you get a $50 "running a red light" ticket! GRRRRR!

I hate those damned things! They have them all over Greensboro ( NC ) and they cut NO slack ... none! If 2" of the the ass-end of your car is still "in the entersection," when the light turns red, you get a $50 "running a red light" ticket! GRRRRR!
Pssst... There's a loophole on the books in almost every state with these Orwellian devices-- You don't really have to pay any ticket that wasn't served to you directly by a human being. ;)

Have you gone to Rio? People there are crazy, man! They shout and scream and honk! Worst traffic I ever seem!

No. I have managed to avoid evertything to do with Rio, except the airport to switch planes.

Vamos xingar os Estados Unidenses (sou Inglês, não vai me pertubar)

Have you gone to Rio? People there are crazy, man! They shout and scream and honk! Worst traffic I ever seem!
A good friend of mine lives in Rio

I wish the article would have gotten around to telling us WHY researchers believe that the installation of cameras correlates with an increase in a certain kind of accident.

I wish the article would have gotten around to telling us WHY researchers believe that the installation of cameras correlates with an increase in a certain kind of accident.
Because that would be blatantly fraudulent in an article concerning itself with statistical evidence, and totally sacrifice the legitimacy of the entire study.

It would only be relevant statistically if each and every person included in the study (who'd had an accident) stated exactly why they got into the accident, in writing, and made that information available to the statisticians.

I'm assuming they remained professional by not providing subjective conclusions, just numbers and trendlines.

They are trying to put traffic lights in here, despite some one already pointing out that it will cost less and provide the same decrease in major accidents solely by adding several seconds to the yellow light duration. Maybe i should add the fact that accidents are over all increased to the misinformation spreading about,

Jefferson also believed that the United States should be a country of farmers.
He grew up in a far different era.


Down to the report:
Red light running never was much of a concern...but does the report go specifically into repeat performances?
The cause is that people think they can make the yellow, and then slam on their brakes when it turns red, thus hitting the people behind them.
I would even speculate this happens primarily in rush hour, where people are more likely to run reds, and, of course, more cars behind.

The answer to this is not the removal of cameras, but, rather, the enforcement of speed limits.

Pretty funny.

The answer to this is not the removal of cameras, but, rather, the enforcement of speed limits.
Another ineffectual attempt that's been tried, and denied.
You probably remember (or have read about) the safety value of the 55 mph speed limit enforced in '74. This actually made no visible difference at all.
If you check out the timeline, the period of the greatest change in accident deaths had nothing to do with government regulation.
The steepest downward slope occurred between '34-'49, an era when gov. regulations were nonexistant and speed limits (where they existed at all) were high. How could this be?

Because the automobile manufacturers were creating safer cars as technology improved. And an alive customer is ummm, well, still a customer.
A dead one offers no chance of future sales.

Another ineffectual attempt that's been tried, and denied.
You probably remember (or have read about) the safety value of the 55 mph speed limit enforced in '74. This actually made no visible difference at all.
If you check out the timeline, the period of the greatest change in accident deaths had nothing to do with government regulation.
The steepest downward slope occurred between '34-'49, an era when gov. regulations were nonexistant and speed limits (where they existed at all) were high. How could this be?

Because the automobile manufacturers were creating safer cars as technology improved. And an alive customer is ummm, well, still a customer.
A dead one offers no chance of future sales.
companeis would sto pcreatign safer cars without regulations because safer cars are no longer profitable. see Not Safe at Any Speed for proof. if it wasnt for that book and campaigning by nader there would be no regulatrions. the company had decided it was mroe cost effective to leave the deadly defect in the car than to fix it and pay out money to everyone that dies from it.


and wait to see this happen again now that bush is getting his anti-consumer shit through congress.

companeis would sto pcreatign safer cars without regulations because safer cars are no longer profitable. see Not Safe at Any Speed for proof. if it wasnt for that book and campaigning by nader there would be no regulatrions. the company had decided it was mroe cost effective to leave the deadly defect in the car than to fix it and pay out money to everyone that dies from it.


and wait to see this happen again now that bush is getting his anti-consumer shit through congress.
Nader is a nutcase. This misconception about regulation and corporate evil stems from a complete misunderstanding of the consumers urge to out-do the Jones'es. It's a matter of supply and demand, the fault lies with the consumer, not the car companies (although let's not call them innocent). The unsafe conditions of our highways are mainly caused today by defensive consumption.

Example: The number of enormous SUV's, trucks, and vans has skyrocketed to such a point where people are forced to think twice about buying a smaller car.
When there is a fatality in a collision between a SUV and a car, 80% of the time, it's the person in the car who dies. (Duh)
These enormous cars increasingly preferred by consumers everywhere make the roads so dangerous that everyone else has to consider buying a larger car just to protect themselves and their loved ones.
It's a clear "race to the bottom", and the race is being run by consumers, not corporations who are supplying for the demand someone will inevitably fill in the market.

Accept blame where blame is due. The real question is, are you willing to sacrifice the lives of your own children by buying a subcompact?

Another ineffectual attempt that's been tried, and denied.
You probably remember (or have read about) the safety value of the 55 mph speed limit enforced in '74. This actually made no visible difference at all.
If you check out the timeline, the period of the greatest change in accident deaths had nothing to do with government regulation.
The steepest downward slope occurred between '34-'49, an era when gov. regulations were nonexistant and speed limits (where they existed at all) were high. How could this be?

Because the automobile manufacturers were creating safer cars as technology improved. And an alive customer is ummm, well, still a customer.
A dead one offers no chance of future sales.


And if this concept ALWAYS applied, then the world would be a magical place, and Iraq would line it's streets with lolipops so more people would go there and terrorists would be discouraged.
Anarchy is never preferable, and the legalists of China accomplished far more in 14 years than any other comprable period of time.
Through intense lawmaking. (Of course, they were a bit fascist)

I can also attest that another one of the articles on this website, the naked street one, is completley inapplicable to the real world.
There is already danger on dangerous roads.
People already know this.
They are already paying attention.
The people who create problems when there ARE regulations will still create problems WITHOUT regulations.

Statisitical anomalies mean nothing to me. And I've played with enough stats to know they can easily be twisted. (Such as Dems whining that 3 out of 5 new jobs pay below the median wage)

Once more, like I said, enforcement.
You know how many speeding tickets are issued in Cook County(Chicago)?
Almost none, because the judges do not even want to see the tickets unless the person is going 13 MPH over.
This means that many dangerous drivers...are still there.
However, OF COURSE the creation of a speed limit will correlate with a rise in fatal crashes or no change.
1. Most people will drive at normal speeds, creating no change.
2. Those that do obey the speed limit will expect other people to pay some heed to them...creating a false expectation that increases danger.

I ASSURE you, that if the government quit worrying about people who scream "FACSISM!" everytime they go 40 in a residential neighborhood and just issued tickets, that prices would FORCE people to drive slower, which would lead to greater safety.
Enforcement is the issue.
Can't expect government to win when you tie its hand behind its back.

You know how many speeding tickets are issued in Cook County(Chicago)?
Almost none, because the judges do not even want to see the tickets unless the person is going 13 MPH over.

Although 13 mph over may be a bit ridiculous for this, in many places cops aren't allowed to issue speeding tickets if the radar picks up a person driving at some slightly over the limit speed, simply because the car's speedometer may not be calibrated correctly and the person may believe that they were in fact obeying the speed limit.

And if this concept ALWAYS applied, then the world would be a magical place, and Iraq would line it's streets with lolipops so more people would go there and terrorists would be discouraged.
Anarchy is never preferable, and the legalists of China accomplished far more in 14 years than any other comprable period of time.
Through intense lawmaking. (Of course, they were a bit fascist)

I can also attest that another one of the articles on this website, the naked street one, is completley inapplicable to the real world.
There is already danger on dangerous roads.
People already know this.
They are already paying attention.
The people who create problems when there ARE regulations will still create problems WITHOUT regulations.

Statisitical anomalies mean nothing to me. And I've played with enough stats to know they can easily be twisted. (Such as Dems whining that 3 out of 5 new jobs pay below the median wage)

Once more, like I said, enforcement.
You know how many speeding tickets are issued in Cook County(Chicago)?
Almost none, because the judges do not even want to see the tickets unless the person is going 13 MPH over.
This means that many dangerous drivers...are still there.
However, OF COURSE the creation of a speed limit will correlate with a rise in fatal crashes or no change.
1. Most people will drive at normal speeds, creating no change.
2. Those that do obey the speed limit will expect other people to pay some heed to them...creating a false expectation that increases danger.

I ASSURE you, that if the government quit worrying about people who scream "FACSISM!" everytime they go 40 in a residential neighborhood and just issued tickets, that prices would FORCE people to drive slower, which would lead to greater safety.
Enforcement is the issue.
Can't expect government to win when you tie its hand behind its back.
You've managed to write an exhaustive post without once directly challenging a single point I've made, unless your point was (as taken) all scientific evidence is bullshit, we should just crack down.

Your authoritarian naivite is amusing, at best. :p

Unless the cameras have flashes on them or distracting red 'recording' lights, I fail to see how simply having cameras even affects traffic.

If a person knows that there's a camera (or has reason to think that there might be one) he's probably more likely to try to stop at the light rather than go through, even if it's about to turn red and the car's moving at a fairly high speed. This would increase the number of rear-end collisions.

Nader is a nutcase. This misconception about regulation and corporate evil stems from a complete misunderstanding of the consumers urge to out-do the Jones'es. It's a matter of supply and demand, the fault lies with the consumer, not the car companies (although let's not call them innocent). The unsafe conditions of our highways are mainly caused today by defensive consumption.

Example: The number of enormous SUV's, trucks, and vans has skyrocketed to such a point where people are forced to think twice about buying a smaller car.
When there is a fatality in a collision between a SUV and a car, 80% of the time, it's the person in the car who dies. (Duh)
These enormous cars increasingly preferred by consumers everywhere make the roads so dangerous that everyone else has to consider buying a larger car just to protect themselves and their loved ones.
It's a clear "race to the bottom", and the race is being run by consumers, not corporations who are supplying for the demand someone will inevitably fill in the market.

Accept blame where blame is due. The real question is, are you willing to sacrifice the lives of your own children by buying a subcompact?

um no, when its more cost effective to leave deadly defects in cars than to fix them, companies will no longer fix deadly defects because it will hurt their bottom line more. You didnt even read what i said, you just came up with the nader thing and quit. trying looking over the facts presented by unsafe at any sdpeed, im sure you can find an overview if you use google

um no, when its more cost effective to leave deadly defects in cars than to fix them, companies will no longer fix deadly defects because it will hurt their bottom line more. You didnt even read what i said, you just came up with the nader thing and quit. trying looking over the facts presented by unsafe at any sdpeed, im sure you can find an overview if you use google

Sounds like someone's been watching Fight Club. :D

Although 13 mph over may be a bit ridiculous for this, in many places cops aren't allowed to issue speeding tickets if the radar picks up a person driving at some slightly over the limit speed, simply because the car's speedometer may not be calibrated correctly and the person may believe that they were in fact obeying the speed limit
I can certainly agree to this.
But the 13 limit is mainly due to the overwhelming of the courts here, not to individual rights.
Most people only go 8-12 over...right under what it takes to nail 'em. :)

You've managed to write an exhaustive post without once directly challenging a single point I've made, unless your point was (as taken) all evidence is bullshit, we should just crack down.
My direct point was that speed limits have never been enforced...and the enforcing them will, logically, get the results we want.
I can also bring up evidence that number of Protestant priests in Europe directly correlates to the amount of beer being imported...but this is counter to logic.
If you take it as all evidence is bulls*...well, that wasn't my intent, but, certainly, if logic dictates something will work, do it.

Your authoritarian naivite is amusing, at best.
Libertarian rants have, likewise, always amused me. :p

I can certainly agree to this.
But the 13 limit is mainly due to the overwhelming of the courts here, not to individual rights.
Most people only go 8-12 over...right under what it takes to nail 'em. :)


My direct point was that speed limits have never been enforced...and the enforcing them will, logically, get the results we want.
I can also bring up evidence that number of Protestant priests in Europe directly correlates to the amount of beer being imported...but this is counter to logic.
If you take it as all evidence is bulls*...well, that wasn't my intent, but, certainly, if logic dictates something will work, do it.


Libertarian rants have, likewise, always amused me. :p
enforcing speed limits hard will not have the sllightest effect on accidents resulting in lights turning

Sounds like someone's been watching Fight Club. :D

Yes I have. ...or did you mean the other guy?

People are too stupid to focus on the road when they think someone may be watching them.................?????????

Unless the cameras have flashes on them or distracting red 'recording' lights, I fail to see how simply having cameras even affects traffic.There are signs that tell you a camera is present, this only disuades some drivers from risking running a red light. Rear end accidents happen when someone willing to risk it gets behind someone who's not. The same drivers are causing the accidents, the ones who push the yellow way too far, only now they rearend others insead of getting nailed from the side. Even if the accident rate is up, I bet the rate of deaths and serious injuries is way down. Side impacts are just that much more deadly on average.

I can see that they are unlikely to install them soon here in Rio Grande do Sul.
The gaúcho driver takes pride in not being the first one to stop at a red light. This means that the lights go amber so everyone that can see the lights accelarates as hard as possible to get through them.
Red light cameras, forcing people to stop would cause multiple pile ups.
And whose fault would that be? The camera or the stupid assholes behind the wheels?

um no, when its more cost effective to leave deadly defects in cars than to fix them, companies will no longer fix deadly defects because it will hurt their bottom line more. You didnt even read what i said, you just came up with the nader thing and quit. trying looking over the facts presented by unsafe at any sdpeed, im sure you can find an overview if you use google
I'm quite aware of cost analysis and recall-lawsuit statistical comparisons.
Anyone who's seen Fight Club knows the formula.

It was you who didn't read my post, since it was obvious that I was ammending yours by mentioning that although car companies aren't completely innocent, consumers don't exactly qualify as helpless victims either.

Just one calls the shots in a supply/demand market. Guess which?

I'm quite aware of cost analysis and recall-lawsuit statistical comparisons.
Anyone who's seen Fight Club knows the formula.

It was you who didn't read my post, since it was obvious that I was ammending yours by mentioning that although car companies aren't completely innocent, consumers don't exactly qualify as helpless victims either.

Just one calls the shots in a supply/demand market. Guess which?
We arnt talking about consumers or consumer tastes so bringing it up and trying to change the focus to it is really irrelevant. We are talknig about businesses not giving a damn about consumers

We arnt talking about consumers or consumer tastes so bringing it up and trying to change the focus to it is really irrelevant. We are talknig about businesses not giving a damn about consumers
Incorrect on both counts. We were discussing the efficiency of Big Government.
You were discussing "businesses not giving a damn about consumers".
By the way, I started the conversation, so I'll decide where it's going, since I can't hijack myself. :p

Incorrect on both counts. We were discussing the efficiency of Big Government.
You were discussing "businesses not giving a damn about consumers".
Nobody brought it up before you. :p
no, i didnt start talknig about it until some one else did, my first post on it quoted some one

actually, iwas quoting you about companies making safer cars

Most of this discussion is irrelavent to the main point. The accuracy of a ticket issued using a machine cannot be verified, and the government has no right to issue incorrect tickets. Furthermore, the evidence appears to illustrate, here as so many times before, that the latest governmental intrusion has done nothing to solve its original problem but has cost private citizens both innocent and guilty the benefit of a fair trial. The intrusion is costly, ineffective, counter to the rights of the governed, and repugnant to the subjecive nature of law enforcement. It must be ended.

Most of this discussion is irrelavent to the main point. The accuracy of a ticket issued using a machine cannot be verified, and the government has no right to issue incorrect tickets. Furthermore, the evidence appears to illustrate, here as so many times before, that the latest governmental intrusion has done nothing to solve its original problem but has cost private citizens both innocent and guilty the benefit of a fair trial. The intrusion is costly, ineffective, counter to the rights of the governed, and repugnant to the subjecive nature of law enforcement. It must be ended.
It's nice to know there's someone who understood the post, without getting sidetracked with consumer vs. business arguments (I was suckered into, dammit!).
Although this would be a good thread elsewhere.

Most of this discussion is irrelavent to the main point. The accuracy of a ticket issued using a machine cannot be verified, and the government has no right to issue incorrect tickets. Furthermore, the evidence appears to illustrate, here as so many times before, that the latest governmental intrusion has done nothing to solve its original problem but has cost private citizens both innocent and guilty the benefit of a fair trial. The intrusion is costly, ineffective, counter to the rights of the governed, and repugnant to the subjecive nature of law enforcement. It must be ended.
actually if i recall the letter to the editor, private third parties are allowed to set up the cameras and issue the tickets themselves and collect alot of the money from people paying those tickets

Thank you. I find Nader to be something of a frustrating foe to argue against since his supporters have so little understanding of economics and the rules of the market, so I'd rather keep this between reasonable people and confine it to the governmental end of the question, as you probably intended. Interesting thread topic, by the way.

Thank you. I find Nader to be something of a frustrating foe to argue against since his supporters have so little understanding of economics and the rules of the market, so I'd rather keep this between reasonable people and confine it to the governmental end of the question, as you probably intended. Interesting thread topic, by the way.
as far as i can tell the markets only rules is whoever can make money will do so by any means open to them, in spite of the health and safety of anyone

Thank you. I find Nader to be something of a frustrating foe to argue against since his supporters have so little understanding of economics and the rules of the market, so I'd rather keep this between reasonable people and confine it to the governmental end of the question, as you probably intended.
I feel your pain. Nader-nuts aren't even interesting. I'd rather talk to a Kerry voter instead. :rolleyes:
Interesting thread topic, by the way.
Thanks! Thought I'd create a diversion from the usual gay, religion, and "hot or not" threads that are the norm here.

actually if i recall the letter to the editor, private third parties are allowed to set up the cameras and issue the tickets themselves and collect alot of the money from people paying those tickets

Governments do not allow companies to issue traffic tickets. I don't know where you got that one from, but i'm checking my shoesoles.

That changes nothing. In fact it makes it worse. Beyond the extreme improbabiltity of any municipality allowing private organizations to issue traffic tickets (and the likelihood that you're just plain incorrect about that point) , the partiality of the ticket issuance and appeal judging both private and governmental is a further deprivation of the rights of the driver. What is your point, anyway? That we should continue an ineffective practice just so we can feel macho?

Governments do not allow companies to issue traffic tickets. I don't know where you got that one from, but i'm checking my shoesoles.

That changes nothing. In fact it makes it worse. Beyond the extreme improbabiltity of any municipality allowing private organizations to issue traffic tickets (and the likelihood that you're just plain incorrect about that point) , the partiality of the ticket issuance and appeal judging both private and governmental is a further deprivation of the rights of the driver. What is your point, anyway? That we should continue an ineffective practice just so we can feel macho?
Actually, I understand that some of these lights are being privately funded by companies like Lockheed Martin, who gets 90% of the ticket costs.

Also, they're not allowing them in some areas and taking them down in others becuase LM was obviously placing these cameras in dubious places (like at the bottom of hills) just to raise their bottom line.
Government Regulation mixed with privatization makes a good thing turn bad.

as far as i can tell the markets only rules is whoever can make money will do so by any means open to them, in spite of the health and safety of anyone

Except that the entire reason anyone buys anything is that they believe it will effect their own health, safety, or happiness. Companies have to provide that or they're toast. Government is responsible to no one and can do wahever it pleases contrary to anyone's safety without retribution. Vietnem defoliation. DDT. The syphilis experimentation. Japanese internment during WWII. Prohibition.

Read some economics. Try Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, or Robert Heilbroner.

Government Regulation mixed with privatization makes a good thing turn bad.

That's a good working definition of fascism. :eek:

That's a good working definition of fascism. :eek:
Exactly! You've only been here for 5 posts, and already I'm feeling less lonely here on NS. :D

Wait until you find out what a rare creature you really are. We're outnumbered by communists on NS, no kidding.

in toronto they've been decreasing traffic accidents, and pedestrian fatalities.

in toronto they've been decreasing traffic accidents, and pedestrian fatalities.
Do you have a link to an independant study that reflects this?

Exactly! You've only been here for 5 posts, and already I'm feeling less lonely here on NS. :D

Wait until you find out what a rare creature you really are. We're outnumbered by communists on NS, no kidding.
Eichen, you have no idea how true this statement is. When I first saw you posting, I was like oh my, another one of us? It's impossible!

This guy seems pretty cool too. :D

Eichen, you have no idea how true this statement is. When I first saw you posting, I was like oh my, another one of us? It's impossible!

This guy seems pretty cool too. :D
I hear ya.
Scary stuff indeed...
With millionaire rock stars rebelling against the system that makes them rich in favor of bigger government (how rebellious :p ), Republicans spending more on the military-industrial complex than Democrats would on their beloved Welfare State, and even AdBusters offering it's own line of running shoes, things are looking pretty crapcake indeed.

Do you have a link to an independant study that reflects this?
gah, do you know how lazy i am?

i read it in the newspaper in the summer...

i'll try to find something... give me a bit...

in winnipeg:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/02/03/919049-sun.html

From 2002 to 2003, police saw a 15% reduction in the number of collisions at the first 12 intersections that were fitted with safety cameras.


in calgary:

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread/t-21558.html


Red light cameras were first introduced in Calgary in March
2001. Traffic collisions at the first seven intersections
equipped with red light cameras were reduced from 57 to 35: a
39 per cent reduction. By the end of 2005, there will be 24
red light cameras rotating through a total of 84
intersections throughout the city.

and that's the extent of my effort.

i found an article that dealt with toronto, but i didn't want to register.

in winnipeg:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/02/03/919049-sun.html




in calgary:

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread/t-21558.html



and that's the extent of my effort.

i found an article that dealt with toronto, but i didn't want to register.
I don't know how to judge the sources becuase I know almost nothing about Canada (typical American, eh?). :D

I guess it begs the question: Why does this seem to work in Canada, and is a disaster here in the states?

I don't know how to judge the sources becuase I know almost nothing about Canada (typical American, eh?). :D

I guess it begs the question: Why does this seem to work in Canada, and is a disaster here in the states?
canadians are sane?

there was one for the uk, but they referred to them as "safety cameras" so i didn't know if it was for red lights or speeding too...

I guess it begs the question: Why does this seem to work in Canada, and is a disaster here in the states?
People in the US need to learn how to drive?

"Or preferably, not at all!" --Robert Anton Wilson
My hero (RAW that is, even his initials rock :p)
People in the US need to learn how to drive?
I concur, it frustrates me to no end how many jackasses that have little to no clue what they're doing behind the wheel that I encounter on the road...