Accident on 2/11 - Manono/Kekuanaoa Hilo

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mella l...I hope your friend has had some luck with witnesses coming through for them...

---

So far no one... but we are hoping.

[Chuysmom]

OMG Cat, is your friend okay?

Carrie


"The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it." Galadriel - LOTR

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chuysmom

OMG Cat, is your friend okay?

Carrie

---

Yes, she was shook up but relatively unharmed. Brand new car is gone! Thank goodness the woman who hit her had just pulled out of her driveway so she had not accelerated much or it would have been worse.

[jade]

(Rear end collisions have increased in intersections with the cameras. However, in general, the rear end collision does have lessor injuries than those caused by the "T-Bone" style accident which is more commonly associated with running a red light.)

I personally saw three rear end accidents with red light cameras. When you have to drive through those everyday it is not fun. It caused me so much anxiety. It is true that they take a picture when you cross the line. The problem is when the light turns yellow you have to make a quick decision. There are times when you hit a spot with the right amount of speed and question do I have enough time or do I slam on the brakes. I am sure everyone has been through this. The ticket is $300.00 and is moving violation on your drivers license which means your insurance will go up. I am a safe driver but I never liked the cameras. I thought it was worse than having a police officer on the corner.

[allensylves]

Wow, $300 is harsh. Here it is around $60 for speeding (first offense) and a little over $100 for the red light and it does not go to your insurance company, since there was no policeman there to verify it was you.

Allen
Baton Rouge, LA & HPP

[PaulW]

Rear-ender accidents are not caused by red light cameras, they're caused by people following too close behind.

People eventually get used to stopping in time for red lights - it's either that or lose their licence.
It's a lot safer than having people keep ignoring red lights more and more until someone gets killed.
I used to see three or four cars go sailing through the red light every single time at a certain intersection.

It also helps stop people later claiming the light was green, as in this case. I hope someone comes forward.

[Chuysmom]

In North Scottsdale people were being killed on the freeway at alarming rates. They'd get on that stretch and for some reason their foot hit the floor!

They installed the cameras and the death rate dropped significantly.

They are making plenty of money with the red light cameras as well.

Carrie


"The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it." Galadriel - LOTR

[mdd7000]

A friend sent me this article about cities that either are or have already, banned red-light cameras. Illinois, as a state, is considering a ban now.
Text copied for those on dial-up...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/201...ht-cameras

Christian Science Monitor
By Mark Guarino Staff writer / February 24, 2010
Chicago

Red-light cameras meant to fine speeders through dangerous interjections are instead catching flack from activists and lawmakers who say they are unnecessary and actually create more accidents than they are meant to prevent.

A movement is under way in cities as large as Chicago and as small as Chillicothe, Ohio, to ban the cameras. Voters in communities as diverse as Heath, Ohio, and College Station, Texas, have rejected the cameras through referendums.

This week, the Illinois State Senate created a special subcommittee to study a bill that would eliminate the cameras throughout the state. State Sen. Dan Duffy ® says the bill could move to the Senate floor in two weeks. If it passes, it would make Illinois the fifth state to ban the cameras.

“Illinois citizens are very upset with the intrusive nature of the red-light cameras and are contacting their representatives in Springfield,” Senator Duffy said in a statement. “The voters understand that the cameras raise lots of revenue for the government to spend, while improvement in safety is questionable.”

In fact, detractors argue that the red-light cameras are causing an increase in rear-end collisions, as drivers hit the brakes in an effort to avoid a pricey ticket.

But some safety organizations, such as the Active Transportation Alliance, which is a nonprofit working to improve street safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, favor the cameras. The organization also says that money from the cameras can be redirected toward programs that improve street design or promote driver education.

“We hear what people are concerned about, and they’re not wrong.… We just don’t think the legislation being proposed is productive. Those issues can be fixed without banning the cameras,” says Margo O’Hara, a spokeswoman for the Alliance.

While cities say the cameras prevent accidents, they also happen to generate much-needed revenue, as each ticket costs drivers $100. The 270 cameras in Chicago brought in $58.9 million in 2009 alone. And motorists have little legal recourse. Among the limited ways to avoid paying are: If you were part of a funeral procession or can prove your car had been stolen at the time the ticket was issued.

Scott Tucker says the cost is a “nuisance.” “I’m tired of politicians creating tax after tax and repeatedly coming after our quality of life,” he says. Mr. Tucker, a business owner on the city’s North Side, is a Republican candidate for the 11th District state House seat.

Like many of the cameras’ detractors, Tucker charges that, in a bid to increase revenue, Chicago’s yellow lights were reduced to 2.5 seconds from the three seconds that is the federally required minimum. The city of Chicago denies that any change in timing has taken place.

“So we’ve made intersections less safe and not more safe. [The cameras] are not about safety, but really about revenue,” he says.

Data fluctuates depending on which side you support. The Insurance Institute For Highway Safety says cameras reduced red-light-running violations by 40 percent in communities such as Fairfax, Va., and Oxnard, Calif.

However, data like that represent “a built-in conflict of interest,” says Barnet Fagel, Illinois safety advocate and traffic researcher for the National Motorists Association. That’s because the cameras benefit the insurance industry, allowing them to raise rates in states where violations accrue.

Mr. Fagel supports independent research, such as a recent Chicago Tribune series, that showed that collisions were either increasing or holding steady at 60 percent of the 47 city intersections equipped with the cameras in 2006 and 2007.

The cameras, Fagel says, “are holding the driver up to a scientific level of accuracy that was never intended by any drivers’ test.” He charges that by shortening the yellow light time by half a second, more rear-end crashes are inevitable.

“That may not seem like enough [to make a difference], but when you’re moving a 40,000 pound truck behind 20,000-pound car, it becomes very, very critical,” he says.

[StillHope]

In CA the fine is more than $400 .In HI - about $100.
(Bringing the subject to Hawaii[])

[mella l]

quote:

---

Originally posted by allensylves

Wow, $300 is harsh. Here it is around $60 for speeding (first offense) and a little over $100 for the red light and it does not go to your insurance company, since there was no policeman there to verify it was you.

Allen
Baton Rouge, LA & HPP

---

Well sleepy old Northern California $425.00! Just last month, read um and weep, oh running a red light. Insult to injury, well deserved injury, a PARK Ranger wrote this ticket! LMAO well it wasn't me!

mella l

Paris London New York PUNA