No WAY! …LAPD lied…?

pinocchioWe’ve said it again and again “ITS ABOUT THE MONEY!!!” yet the capacity for automated ticketing proponents to remain in denial seems boundless.

The pitch is that these cameras will increase safety and reduce accidents. Also, the cities will make some money on the side at more than $400 a ticket!

In Los Angeles the LAPD claims accidents are down after they installed cameras, but are they telling the whole truth or just trying to make money off motorists?

We crunched the numbers and the results may surprise you.


18 Responses to No WAY! …LAPD lied…?

  1. B says:


    Get the word out!

    That’s pretty definitive… The LAPD tried to use soothesaying (“You’re supposed to focus on the positives of red light cameras – help us out…”) and large price tags ($512 for a computer printout? Did a scribe do it with gold ink in calligraphy??). Then, when that didn’t work, they tried to rationalize their intentionally misleading statistics.

    Watch the video at that link – must see viewing for ANY pro-camera reader.

    Objective statistics win the day!

  2. glyphhunter says:

    See the Tempe Chamber page here.

  3. Dr Jett says:

    I was totally shocked!!! LAPD spokesman’s words:
    “we would hope that it is the goal of KCBS/KCAL to discuss the positive aspects of the photo red light program.”
    The news media only reported that the LAPD INTENTIONALLY HID INFORMATION that showed there is no positive aspect about photo radar except the $$$$$$$ the city is raking in by ROBBING THE CITIZENS! Oops, that is only positive for the MONEY GRUBBING CITY. A good reason to replace ALL of the officials that voted to ROB THE CITIZENS.

  4. jose esteban says:

    Last time I checked a rear-end accident was always the fault of the person doing the rear ending. Im guessing that the blowing through red lights and slamming into a car are a little more serious and those accidents are likely down.

    • metelhed says:

      Nothing like some rationalizing untruths to support a point. “The ends justify the means” is not a good philosophy to live by. And no, if someone changes lanes, hits the brakes, and causes a collision, they will be at fault, not the person who rear-ends. Are you also being deliberately misleading to try and score a point?

    • guttersn1pe says:

      Accident = accident. It doesn’t mean only reporting the accidents they want to tell you about to make their own statistics look better.

    • jgunn says:

      Last time I checked, being injured in a rear end accident is not good for anyone. Do you enjoy seeing more people injured by the red light cameras or something? Do you get off on others pain and suffering? If the red light cameras are increasing injury accidents, they need to go, no ifs ands or buts!

    • photoradarscam says:

      Rear end accidents can be just as deadly.

  5. Dr Jett says:

    That is true, but why are there so many rear-end accidents. Drivers aren’t paying attention.
    The best solution that I can think of is to start every driver out on a motorcycle. Those that don’t survive the first 5 years of riding weren’t meant to be car drivers because motorcyclists can’t take too many hits like a car, so you learn to be more observant and a more skilled driver.

  6. Stacey says:

    It is too bad so many cities shorten yellow lights once they get the cameras.

  7. Camera Hater says:

    This is typical of the modus operandi of these scammers world wide – selective use of stats to justify their depredations! I will watch with interest to see if the US acquires another little malignancy that we have developed in Australia – the “academic research centre”, growing fat on the nice juicy fine revenue stream, issuing a string of “research reports” justifying ever more scameras, ever lower speed limits (with no reference to the 85th percentile!) and lower and lower BAC limits (we are currently at 0.05, and shortly to be 0.02!!)

  8. LoneWolf says:

    Photo-enforcement critic’s cases raise issues with system

  9. LoneWolf says:

    Second Texas City Initiates Traffic Camera Referendum

    Quote: “Schirmbeck has been especially interested in the issue since he caught the city using illegally short yellow times in an effort to increase revenue. After he beat his ticket at West Baker and Garth Roads earlier this year, the city increased the yellow time to 4.5 seconds on June 5. Seeing the number of $75 violations drop, the city decreased the yellow time to 4.0 seconds in July. The city justified this change by putting up a 40 MPH speed limit sign on the camera-monitored approach, even though the other side of the same road is posted at 45 MPH. Texas law sets minimum yellow timing standards according to the posted speed limit.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: