You have got to be kidding me..

1) Private industry ala Pitney Bowes, install, control and regulate, red light camera's. Which means, private industry not the state, not local law enforcement, are empowered to decide if you broke the law or not.
- Since they have a fiducary incentive to determine that you did break the law, especially if the infraction is not black or white, but grey, it is unconstitutional.. It's like having a JURY that gets paid a bonus, if they convict you...
2) They do not improve safety
3) They are installed in areas that are most thought to increase revenue.
4) Studies show over and over that the decrease of "right hand, red light crashes" - decreases approximately the same amount that "rear end - red light crashes" increase..

"One issue is the potential conflict of interest when private contractors are paid a commission based on the number of tickets they are able to issue. Pictures from the San Diego red light camera systems were ruled inadmissible as court evidence in September 2001 (Judge's ruling). The judge said that the "total lack of oversight" and "method of compensation" made evidence from the cameras "so untrustworthy and unreliable that it should not be admitted"."

"Another common issue is a challenge to the accuracy of the cameras. Cameras which give false positive results can cause legal issues. For example, a speed camera which reports the wrong speed may result in an attempted prosecution of a driver who was not speeding. In particular the cameras have often been accused of photographing the wrong car."

B

p.s. - I'm not saying that people should run red lights.. I am saying that RED LIGHT CAMERAS are not the way to solve the problem..

__________________
----------------------------------------------------------

"When two people agree on everything, one of them is not necessary" - Arliss