Local News

Red-Light Camera Tickets More Costly

Posted August 3, 2007

— People who run red lights and are caught on camera will pay $25 more per ticket under legislation passed by state lawmakers.

Fines for the violation will increase from $50 to $75. The increase is meant to help municipalities pay for the camera system while giving the majority of the proceeds from the fines to local school districts.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Obscurite Aug 3, 2007

    "If people would pay more attention there wouldn't be any wrecks at the cameras at all :P"

    Absolutely, correct. But there are some who would rather blame the camera than the Cellphone they were talking into or the paper they were reading, etc.

  • Obscurite Aug 3, 2007

    Too funny, I read the report (which included results from your study). You post a folksy car & driver article. I'll read data, you go ahead and read car and driver (lol, truly unbiased reporting with a solid scientific backgroud). Point is that many states have contradicting study data but the study I posted takes into account multiple factors for why studies are valid and not when comparing the overall effectiveness of cameras. And BTW, didn't your guy post an article against global warming?

  • Drifter Aug 3, 2007

    I really hate red light cameras. But I'll just say that most rear end collisions (especially the ones the lights tend to cause) are a lot safer than T-bones or cross traffic collisions. And studies, IIRC, have shown that the cameras do prevent more of those types of wrecks.

    If people would pay more attention there wouldn't be any wrecks at the cameras at all :P

  • Steve Crisp Aug 3, 2007

    A commentary on your cute, little spillover effect:


    And some more valid studies showing rear end collisions increase with the imposition of red light cameras:

    2007 Virginia Study: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp

    Or just go to Wikipedia. As usual, ignore the specific entry and use it for citations.

  • Steve Crisp Aug 3, 2007

    You're just flat our wrong -- again. And I simply don't have the patience with your tripe anymore to discuss your inanities further.

  • Obscurite Aug 3, 2007

    Steve, actually this was the first study of its kind and noted the weakness of "The indications of a spillover effect point to a need for a more definitive study of this issue."...Thus the Cochrane Collaboration did in fact evaluate this further...the results are posted in the link. The spill over effect was one of the reasons for statistical variance which was applied. Nice research, though. Been there, done that.

  • Obscurite Aug 3, 2007

    Lol...have a great weekend...beer's on you???

  • WardofTheState Aug 3, 2007


    I bow to your superior stats (bends low). I'm not a bettin' woman. And it's five o'clock. And the beer alarm has just gone off.

    See you in the funny papers.

  • Obscurite Aug 3, 2007

    ...on second thought, place your bet...I need the money!

  • Obscurite Aug 3, 2007

    "I don’t have any stats, so please don’t chew me up…but my bet is that rear-end collisions HAVE increased."

    Don't place a large amount of money on that bet...