Mr. Bob 2 is 100% correct. At the gridlocked intersection I mentioned, the number of people who willfully blocked the intersection went down quite significantly after about three months.

I think where people have a problem is that the companies, and the government people on their 'de facto payroll', seem to be using this technology to drive profits. In San Diego, originally the lions share of this loot went to a private company. None of this extra loot was used to educate drivers, to improve public safety, or to a general fund.

And consider the $298 fine for running a light pales in consideration to what an insurance company profits on this situation. If an insurance company raises a drivers insurance just $100 a month, thats $8400 over the legal seven years. Once again, none of that money goes to educating drivers, to improve public safety, or to a general fund. It once again goes to some company's bottom line.

And of course, a flesh and blood police officer would not issue tickets where a driver was stuck in the intersection because another driver made an equally legal move, as in my example. I saw this type of innocent situation happen more than once, almost every day. With these cameras a driver is basically "guilty until proven innocent". Once again, it seems more company profit driven than public safety driven.

And then there is the "anti-big government" argument against traffic cameras. First, they were only for traffic enforcement. Now it was OK to use them for finding abducted children. Next, will they be used to monitoring everyones movements? The argument goes: Who knows? Personally I'm not that paranoid.

But, I agree with Mr Bob 2. I never had my picture taken. I do feel safer knowing that people are less likely to run a red light, or railroad crossing. I believe that if the companies hadn't made these cameras into another welfare program, they would be welcomed instead of hated.

Thanks folks,
Steve