So is the 80's music bad or is my signing bad?  Because I'm going to win American Idol 12.  I've just got to practice a bit more.

Strongly disagree.  There was some study some time back that said that the yellow at red light cameras lasted half as long as normal lights.  Additionally, my best friend is a cop, and he says that if you are in the intersection and the light turns red, then you didn't run the light.  Now with the shortened time and the uneasiness with the camera you quickly get to yellow=red at a red light camera.  I was actually on a interview and the driver locked up the breaks to avoid going through a yellow because it was a red light camera.  Now you would say this individual was an idiot, I believe that individual was being cautious surrounding an uncertain event.

If they work, pony up the money, get the support get them paid for.  However, I'd rather my money go to police, fire, roads, infrastructure, some of the other things the government has to accomplish. 

When I see a spade I call it a spade.  If you didn't want me to respond you should have put at the title only people that agree with me can respond.  There still isn't much information that these do save lives and there definately wasn't very much information when cities decided to dive into these.  So they based their decision on money and sold the "saves lives" part to the community. 

 It's probably a bit of both. 

If they work?  Read the article again: the do work.  And if these are doing the same thing as the police (and better) why wouldn't you want money to go to them?  Additionally, I would rather my local police stop actual crimes than have to worry about people running red lights. 

Once again: READ THE ARTICLE.  Unless you don't agree that people that run lights endanger lives, you can't disagree that the amount of red light running fines have dropped dramatically therefore it is saving lives.

This isn't about some big brother is watching you crap, it's the city would rather have money than have a system that actually works. 

...

...

So the trend is that governments will only have new policies (or even keep existing, working policies) if they make money from them? WHAT DO THEY THINK TAXES ARE FOR? We pay them to sort out the stuff that doesn't generate revenue, like schools, hospitals, reducing crime, etc.

Dallas: Lived there for 3 years; never want to go back.

Great gross generalizations are always the best way to win arguments.  And glad you want me my dad, my uncle and my best friend to all die.

Auto-generated does one thing, it makes one spot safer.  People are still going to run red lights just not that one.  So overall does it make society safer or make better drivers?  Also, everything comes with a cost.  Since you would like to see them stay, what is your plan, to make cuts somewhere else or raise taxes?

Yes. Demolish the Defence budget to 5% of its current level and divert half to real defence of citizens (police and red light cameras) and the other half to non-"Star Wars" science research to make up for the loss in Defence R&D.

 Come to Dallas and then be all defensive again.  I guess I'm just calling a spade when I see a spade.

Only one problem with that.  Defense is federal, traffic law is state. 

I've come to Dallas, and I've drove in several big cities.  I've seen alot of bad drivers.  However, that doesn't mean they deserve to die.  It means that we should actually have a driving test instead of giving anyone a license.  Maybe they do save lives.  You know how to really save lives?  We can make everyone purchase a Nascar, have rollbar, wear helmets/firesuits in cars, and then just for gigles, we'll lock the engines to a max of 20 MPH.  Then no one will ever die in another car accident. 

Realistically though, here is my problem with Red light cameras.  It makes us one step from an in car device that can communicate through GPS to a satellite, how fast we are going whereever we are.  So yeah, we can get to the point where we have a no tolerance system.  Cops certainly aren't going to catch everyone, but we can come up with a system to get everyone.  Then where does that get us?  Is it truely safer or we just going towards a hidden tax on society?  Probably a bit of both, but red light cameras are at less than .01% of all intersections.  So I'm not going to lose any sleep if they lose a couple of them.

Rear ended collisions kill people too.  And also have a huge personal property damage cost and take up officers time.  But I'm sure those people deserved to have there cars wrecked for going 30 mph over and the officers would just be eating donuts anyway.

Whoa there, as a motorcyclist on dirt and street since I was seven years old, I find that more than a little fuckin' offensive.

If you had any idea how stupid the average car driver is and how vulnerable you are on a motorcycle, you would be a little more courteous toward our two-wheeled friends and their behaviors. Half the shit you probably put in the "they deserve to die" category are actually defense mechanisms used by motorcyclists to not get fucking killed by some fucking soccer mom talking on a cell phone while doing her makeup (such as lane-splitting or driving slightly faster than the regular flow of traffic).