<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Red light cameras too good for their own good?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://geekandthegimp.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/red-light-cameras-too-good-for-their-own-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://geekandthegimp.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/red-light-cameras-too-good-for-their-own-good/</link>
	<description>A service of Hookakat Enterprises International (LTD)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 20:58:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: tazdog</title>
		<link>http://geekandthegimp.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/red-light-cameras-too-good-for-their-own-good/#comment-385</link>
		<dc:creator>tazdog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://geekandthegimp.wordpress.com/?p=1038#comment-385</guid>
		<description>I like this part of the story as I have all along have figured that red light cameras would cause more accidents..  I bet accidents are up and not down like they had wished and now like the article states, they are losing anticpated $$ that they were banking on....   ~t


Nor is money the only reason cameras have been removed. In Lubbock, Texas, the City Council shut down all its cameras last month, citing a report that showed statistically significant increases in rear-end collisions at intersections, including those with cameras.

Rear-end collisions, in fact, have been cited in numerous reports and lawsuits questioning the benefits of red light cameras. Opponents claim that the cameras actually create more hazardous conditions.

“When people know there’s a red light camera, they change their driving behavior, and they slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket,” said Tom McCarey, an activist for the National Motorists Association. The association, which is based in Waunakee, Wis., calls itself a 6,000-member group “dedicated to representing and protecting the rights and interests of North American motorists.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like this part of the story as I have all along have figured that red light cameras would cause more accidents..  I bet accidents are up and not down like they had wished and now like the article states, they are losing anticpated $$ that they were banking on&#8230;.   ~t</p>
<p>Nor is money the only reason cameras have been removed. In Lubbock, Texas, the City Council shut down all its cameras last month, citing a report that showed statistically significant increases in rear-end collisions at intersections, including those with cameras.</p>
<p>Rear-end collisions, in fact, have been cited in numerous reports and lawsuits questioning the benefits of red light cameras. Opponents claim that the cameras actually create more hazardous conditions.</p>
<p>“When people know there’s a red light camera, they change their driving behavior, and they slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket,” said Tom McCarey, an activist for the National Motorists Association. The association, which is based in Waunakee, Wis., calls itself a 6,000-member group “dedicated to representing and protecting the rights and interests of North American motorists.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
