# Red Light Cameras



## MJS (Feb 13, 2010)

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-red-light-cameras.artfeb12,0,5683651.story

A topic that is being discussed in CT, is the use of cameras, to photograph the plates of cars that run red lights.  There are mixed views on this, with some claiming that it violates their civil rights.  (Man those words are used so much, they must feel abused..LOL)  Others, one being the Mayor of one of the cities looking into this, say that in todays world, rights are violated all the time.  He used the fact that the majority of cell phones today, have picture, audio, and video capability, so technically, someone could be recording or snapping shots of you, and you'd never know it.  He further goes on to say that its a shot of the plate, nothing else.  

So, what are your thoughts on this?  Do you live in an area that uses this system already?  If so, what are your thoughts on it?


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2010)

I like the idea.  If it serves as a deterrant, then sure, why not give it a try.  I mean, we hear people all the time, complain that the cops aren't doing their job, to which these people usually dont understand the fact that there are only so many on the road at one time, and given the fact that they have large areas to patrol, no, they can't be everywhere, all the time.  So, if these cameras actually do what they're intended to do, and if people know that they have a chance of getting caught for going thru the light, its worth it, in the long run.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 13, 2010)

Most crime done in large cities is usually caught on film somewhere. Some people call it "big brother watching", I call it got ya. If your on the up and up and you get detained, and asked a few questions, big deal. If your not trying to hide anything, you go on your way. Running red lights is a big deal and people die, and by the way you only save a minute or so, just make it up by speeding.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> Others, one being the Mayor of one of the cities looking into this, say that in todays world, rights are violated all the time.  He used the fact that the majority of cell phones today, have picture, audio, and video capability, so technically, someone could be recording or snapping shots of you, and you'd never know it.  He further goes on to say that its a shot of the plate, nothing else.



I think what the mayor is addressing are complaints that automated photographs of people in public are a violation of privacy.  He's right, they're not.  People in public have no expectation of privacy.

On the other hand, people who are accused of crimes have a right to confront their accuser.  That's actually a well-defined civil liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

That includes the right to cross-examine. One cannot depose nor cross-examine a machine.

There is much controversy over whether or not a speeding citation issued by a legal authority on the basis of an automated recording can be used in court _if challenged_ on the Confrontation Clause basis:

Here's one view:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp

Here's an opposing view:

http://www.islandlawblog.com/?p=401

There's a lot of news about red light cameras, and while they're becoming more popular in some areas, they're being outlawed in others:

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q="red+light+camera"

All municipal governments, from small towns to counties to large cities, are scrambling to raise funds during this recession.  This is one way to do it without 'raising taxes'.  However, it also runs the risk of raising citizen anger at the authorities, and the increasing feeling of living in an Orwellian police state.

Many citizens are striking back:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3043.asp

And in NYC, it was discovered that the red light camera boxes contained very expensive Nikon digital SLR cameras, which were then promptly stolen and sold on eBay.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/07/27/beware-cheap-nikons-on-ebay-22-stolen-from-nyc-red-light-camera/


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 13, 2010)

MJS said:


> I like the idea.  If it serves as a deterrant, then sure, why not give it a try.



From www.banredcams.com



> To those folks who are still for RedCams,
> Let&#8217;s be clear, we are for safety. We all agree that drivers who wantonly violate traffic signals should be ticketed by a police officer at the time of the incident. Yet, many, many studies conclusively prove that Red Light Ticket Cameras (RLTCs) are shown to affect traffic flow with unintended circumstances. RLTCs have been shown to dramatically increase rear-end and pedestrian collisions.
> In fact, RLTCs _cannot_ generate sufficient revenue for government and private companies in properly safety-engineered and maintained roadways and intersections. For example, a recent Georgia law extended the yellow-light time by one second at every camera-equipped intersection. Within 6 months of the law going into effect, the red light violation rate went down 80%, the red light collision rate went down 70%, and camera enforcement companies started to remove their equipment.
> Then, we can review the technical problems inherent in these cameras. When you buy a pound of hamburger, fill up your car at a gas station, take a cab ride, or get a clocked by police RADAR, each and every transaction is metered or measured by a device that meets statutory standards for accuracy and measurement. Even parking meters are subject to breakdowns and maintenance. Yet RLTCs are not subject to any of the same accepted standards of commerce, locally, on a state basis or federally. (Hmmm, wonder why not?)
> ...



The above was written by a researcher for the National Motorists Association, and activist for banredcams.com They have given permission to share this article so I am publishing the whole thing here.  Independent traffic surveys here have shown that these cameras INCREASE accidents at intersections, and many of the local Illinois municipalities have been caught short-timing their yellow lights in order to increase revenue from these cameras.  At least one local town (Schaumberg, Il) found that not only did these cameras increase accident frequency, they also dramatically cut back on revenue to local businesses and they promptly removed them.  These cameras also have a history of generating a huge number of tickets to people making legal right turns on red: oddly enough, most of the cameras here are geared specifically twords that: they are right turn lane cameras.  Because of these "oversights" Illinois law makers are now petitioning to change regulations on these cameras calling for standard timing to all Yellows, and a full time officer to review every traffic camera offense to determine if it was actually a ticket-able offense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 13, 2010)

As some famous radio-personality has said _"Follow the money."_

Cities do not put up red-light cameras on their own, generally.  They rely upon third-party companies to put up the cameras, collect the photographs, isolate the plate numbers, and even enter the resulting offense data into their ticketing system.  In some cases, they administer the ticketing and and the collection of fines as well, turning only money and scofflaw information into the civil authority.

In return, the cities share revenue with the third-party companies that perform these services.  In other words, the city gets a piece of the action.

Now, if the actual primary purpose of red-light cameras were to reduce traffic accidents, don't you suppose that cities would bear the burden of the costs themselves?  Even if the net revenue was negative instead of positive?  Most public services intended to save lives are cost centers, not profit centers.

*I submit that any government official who claims that red light cameras are installed to save lives is a liar.*  They may save lives - I won't dispute that, I have no idea.  But they also generate revenue, and that is why they are used.  That is their primary purpose.  Revenue generation.  A 'sin tax' under a different name.

Consider that in most cities, citations issued by red light cameras have an additional component - they don't increase points on your license, and they are not reported to insurance companies as moving violations.  So you won't lose your license, and you won't have your insurance rates go up.  You can run red lights all freaking day if you have the money to pay the fines.  *Does that sound like a city that is concerned with safety as a primary motivator for putting up red light cameras to you?*

And in another context, what other organization permits a third-party company to come into its turf, extort money from citizens, and pay a cut of the action to do so?  Right, *organized crime*.

Duh.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't know about the rights and wrongs of it but I felt very old when the article had to make a note to explain what an 'Instamatic' was!


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know about the rights and wrongs of it but I felt very old when the article had to make a note to explain what an 'Instamatic' was!



Shhh.  I remember those too!


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 13, 2010)

I'm not a fan of speed cameras; more on why shortly.  I do support red light cameras, despite some problems.  (For example, a lot of places have a rise in relatively minor rear end crashes at intersections as people begin stopping rather than trying to beat the red light.)

Red light cameras are in no way a privacy violation.  They record the license plate of a car passing through the intersection.  That license plate is then used to identify the owner of the vehicle, and issue a ticket.  The databases that are used are accessed and used in accordance with the laws; they aren't a search or other intrusion into an area not generally available.

The right to confrontation is a different issue.  I can't speak for every state, but every one that I am familiar with makes a red light camera violation an infraction issued against the owner, much like a parking tickets.  Additionally, there is usually a way to either request a hearing, or to file an affidavit that you (the owner) were not driving the car at the time of the offense.  For example, in Virginia, if you're issued a red light camera ticket, you simply have to file an affidavit that you weren't driving, and it is dismissed.  You also have a right to a court hearing.  Some states make this harder, and a few I've heard of require you to name the person driving.  I don't agree with that.

I don't like red light cameras where the contractor does all the work, and gets a percentage of the "take" from the violations.  That's just, to me, an invitation for abuse.  In Virginia, the ticket is issued by a cop, not a civilian on an commission.

There should also be some support for the reason you're placing the cameras (e.g., crash volume or seriousness of crashes at the intersection), and the yellow should be reasonable -- neither insanely short, nor overlong.

I like red light cameras, used reasonably and appropriately.  Virginia's law expired a few years ago, but has since been restored.  (It was originally essentially a trial in a few selected jurisdictions; it's since been permitted statewide.)  I lived in a jurisdiction that opted not to use them, and worked in jurisdictions that did.  I'm almost afraid to start across an intersection when the light changes at home; red light running is rampant.  At work -- things were much better.  Though, as I said, you can track an increase in rear-end collisions.  However, their severity was much lower than the t-bonings that had been happening as people ran red lights.

Speed cameras, I don't like.  They can't assess conditions, they have arbitrary limits, and are often not maintained so it's not been at all unusual for them to have been found to be improperly calibrated or set.  And too many of them are being used clearly as speed traps, not safety tools.


----------



## just2kicku (Feb 13, 2010)

I personally hate them, but maybe that's because I got nailed by one and gotta pay $500 including traffic school. In all seriousness tho, at night those damn flashes are bright and blinding.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I like red light cameras, used reasonably and appropriately.



I do not believe there is an appropriate use for such things.  They are purely revenue-generation in lieu of tax increases.  The fact that most states collude with the driver to avoid reporting infractions to the driver's insurance company demonstrates that the state has exactly zero interest in traffic safety by way of red light camera enforcement.  Money, that's all it is.  Yes, it may save lives, but that's not why the municipalities that do it, do it.

It's a sin tax.  Drive through as many red lights as you like, just pay the fine each time, and no problems.  You won't lose your license, your insurance will not go up - although you're a provable menace on the road after a couple dozen red-light running tickets.  That's not concern for safety, that's concern for revenue.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 14, 2010)

Just skimmed the thread...

I agree that if the cities say they're doing this to save lives/prevent accidents, it's ********.

My town started installing these things about 1.5 years ago, despite a huge hissy fit from the general public and the fact that the city is in serious financial problems anyway.
Thing is, rather than installing them on the intersections which have the most collisions (which would be logical if it was intended as a life-saving/accident-reducing measure), they installed them on the intersections with the highest traffic flow (no, the intersections with the most accidents here are NOT the ones with the highest volume of traffic).

Thankfully the new mayor said that while they're going to leave the current ones in place, they won't be spending [wasting] money on more.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not believe there is an appropriate use for such things.  They are purely revenue-generation in lieu of tax increases.  The fact that most states collude with the driver to avoid reporting infractions to the driver's insurance company demonstrates that the state has exactly zero interest in traffic safety by way of red light camera enforcement.  Money, that's all it is.  Yes, it may save lives, but that's not why the municipalities that do it, do it.
> 
> It's a sin tax.  Drive through as many red lights as you like, just pay the fine each time, and no problems.  You won't lose your license, your insurance will not go up - although you're a provable menace on the road after a couple dozen red-light running tickets.  That's not concern for safety, that's concern for revenue.


Actually, the system that my jurisdiction had was never a significant revenue producer.  In fact, I think a couple of years, it lost money, after you figured in the costs to the vendor, the pay for the officer whose job it was to work it...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, the system that my jurisdiction had was never a significant revenue producer.  In fact, I think a couple of years, it lost money, after you figured in the costs to the vendor, the pay for the officer whose job it was to work it...



Then your jurisdiction is apparently doing it poorly.  That doesn't change what it was intended to do in all likelihood, just as it is everywhere else.

Without knowing what jurisdiction you are talking about, I can place a pretty safe bet that the vendor spoke to your local governing body, city council or the like, and presented estimates of, among other things, potential revenue to be generated.  Most operate on a revenue-sharing basis, so it's in their best interest to generate a large amount of it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...dlights_15met.ART.North.Edition1.468120d.html


> Dallas' red light cameras may face changes as revenue estimate drops
> 
> Dallas' system works too well, eating into revenues, fueling possible changes
> 
> ...



Oh no!  The red light cameras succeeded in making people slow down and stop for red lights - and now they cost the city money and they may have to get rid of them!  Hey, I thought it was safety and not revenue?  Why are they turning the cameras off if the issue is safety and not revenue?



> Council member Angela Hunt, long skeptical of the reasoning behind such camera systems, says she's not surprised Dallas is faced with altering its efforts to reduce red-light running.
> 
> *"The idea of the red-light cameras is that they'll be used as a revenue generator instead of being implemented for public safety purposes.* It's imperative that the council review this program, especially when the results don't align with the initial performance projections," Ms. Hunt said.


----------



## MJS (Feb 14, 2010)

seasoned said:


> Most crime done in large cities is usually caught on film somewhere. Some people call it "big brother watching", I call it got ya. If your on the up and up and you get detained, and asked a few questions, big deal. If your not trying to hide anything, you go on your way. Running red lights is a big deal and people die, and by the way you only save a minute or so, just make it up by speeding.


 
There are some cities around that have them mounted in the problem areas of the city, in hopes to catch crime.  Havent heard anything negative about them, so if it works for that, it'll hopefully work for the red light runners as well.


----------



## MJS (Feb 14, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think what the mayor is addressing are complaints that automated photographs of people in public are a violation of privacy. He's right, they're not. People in public have no expectation of privacy.
> 
> On the other hand, people who are accused of crimes have a right to confront their accuser. That's actually a well-defined civil liberty.
> 
> ...


 
Hey Bill,

Thanks for the links.   I'll look at them when I have a bit more time.  Not sure if this question would've been answered by one of those links, but here goes anyways....regarding what you said about people having the right to face their accuser.  If someone is caught by the camera, and its clearly their plate on the picture, how can they dispute that?  Then again, I'm sure people dispute radar/laser guns used by LEOs.


----------



## MJS (Feb 14, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> From www.banredcams.com
> 
> 
> 
> The above was written by a researcher for the National Motorists Association, and activist for banredcams.com They have given permission to share this article so I am publishing the whole thing here. Independent traffic surveys here have shown that these cameras INCREASE accidents at intersections, and many of the local Illinois municipalities have been caught short-timing their yellow lights in order to increase revenue from these cameras. At least one local town (Schaumberg, Il) found that not only did these cameras increase accident frequency, they also dramatically cut back on revenue to local businesses and they promptly removed them. These cameras also have a history of generating a huge number of tickets to people making legal right turns on red: oddly enough, most of the cameras here are geared specifically twords that: they are right turn lane cameras. Because of these "oversights" Illinois law makers are now petitioning to change regulations on these cameras calling for standard timing to all Yellows, and a full time officer to review every traffic camera offense to determine if it was actually a ticket-able offense.


 
Unless I missed it somewhere, I'm not sure I understand how these cameras are causing more accidents.  As far as generating cash flow to the city using them....I'm sure that may play some part, but IMO, I'd think that if some officers were more pro-active, and pulled over cars for legit violations, that cash flow would be there.


----------



## MJS (Feb 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I'm not a fan of speed cameras; more on why shortly. I do support red light cameras, despite some problems. (For example, a lot of places have a rise in relatively minor rear end crashes at intersections as people begin stopping rather than trying to beat the red light.)


 
Well, IMO, there seems to be a simple explaination for that...people are following too close.  If the person is far enough away, then of course, the yellow is designed to serve as a warning to slow and stop, no?  If you're that close...well, I think its safe to say that we've all gone thru the yellow, again, providing you're so close, that to stop, would actually cause you to end up in the middle of the intersection, or come to a screetching halt.




> The right to confrontation is a different issue. I can't speak for every state, but every one that I am familiar with makes a red light camera violation an infraction issued against the owner, much like a parking tickets. Additionally, there is usually a way to either request a hearing, or to file an affidavit that you (the owner) were not driving the car at the time of the offense. For example, in Virginia, if you're issued a red light camera ticket, you simply have to file an affidavit that you weren't driving, and it is dismissed. You also have a right to a court hearing. Some states make this harder, and a few I've heard of require you to name the person driving. I don't agree with that.


 
Seems like its fairly easy to determine whether or not you were driving or not.


----------



## grydth (Feb 14, 2010)

MJS said:


> Unless I missed it somewhere, I'm not sure I understand how these cameras are causing more accidents.  As far as generating cash flow to the city using them....I'm sure that may play some part, but IMO, I'd think that if some officers were more pro-active, and pulled over cars for legit violations, that cash flow would be there.




I believe the claim that red light cameras cause accidents is based on 2 situations. The first is where people now stop too short and people following (too) close behind rear end them. The second is where cities significantly cut down yellow light time in order to increase the number of violations - in places where this is true, it convincingly shows that profit is the motive, not safety.

I despise these things..... though their use does not infringe the Constitution, they certainly run contrary to the spirit of the Revolution, It is difficult to imagine that the Founders, complaining King George had "sent a swarm of officers to harass our people and eat out ther substance", would approve of these infernal machines. 

Partnering cash greedy cities with cash greedy corporations is a formula for an Amerika I don't care for. The average folks get sponged while the actual bad guys run wild and free. Recently, we have seen multiple instances here where people are still out driving after dozens of unlicensed operations and up to 9 prior DWI convictions..... yet I'm supposed to believe these governments care soooooo much about my family's safety? Sure.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2010)

MJS said:


> Well, IMO, there seems to be a simple explaination for that...people are following too close.  If the person is far enough away, then of course, the yellow is designed to serve as a warning to slow and stop, no?  If you're that close...



I'd buy this except for 2 reasons:

In city traffic, when you are moving slow, (say 30 or less) you generally do not leave 2 car lengths between vehicles.  I never see it done, at least for long, because if you do, people pull in and cut you off.  You can generally judge that when the light turns yellow, based on the flow of traffic that the car in front of you will go thru or stop based on when the yellow appeared, and you act accordingly.  If they act unpredicatbly and either stop suddenly when it appears they were going to proceed or if they short-stop well behind the line to avoid triggering the cameras (which I admit I am guilty of, having seen a number trigger even when vehicles wheels are behind the line) then their behavior has become erratic and harder to judge.

The second reason... it has increased the number of vehicle-to-pedestrian collisions at intersections they have been installed at.  That can't have anything to do with following too closely. 

Plus, my big beef with them is has been mentioned on several occasions: Cities are short-timing their yellow lights to increase violations at these intersections, and the claims that these cameras are for saftey has been proven in numerous independent studies across the U.S. (including the ones in AZ and our local Suburb of Schaumburg: both places that pulled the cameras based on their findings) to be fabricated.  

Now... Chicago uses Crime Cams and Gunshot detection systems and I have no beef with those.   And FWIW, I'm not even all that opposed to the Speed Ticket cams they use on the expressways.


----------



## 72ronin (Feb 14, 2010)

Absolutely nothing wrong with them as far as im concerned.

As i have stated before regarding hazards to our families, we can take all the security measures in the world to protect our families and then it takes only a car accident to lose them all..

Whether its drunk drivers, drug drivers or vehicle miss use ie speeding, running red lights, the penalties should be as severe as possible.

After all, the most law abiding, safety first type family can be wiped out by these idiot people.


----------



## grydth (Feb 14, 2010)

Well, 72, that's another reason I am *against* them...... let's suppose we have a drunk deranged nut weaving and flying through an intersection.

With a cop... he may be pulled over and arrested in time to save some lives (of course, the injustice system will likely let him off).

With a camera.... all we have is a cute picture of him a few minutes before he kills a family.

These things have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with money gouging.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2010)

72ronin said:


> Absolutely nothing wrong with them as far as im concerned.
> 
> As i have stated before regarding hazards to our families, we can take all the security measures in the world to protect our families and then it takes only a car accident to lose them all..
> 
> ...



So wait... Im confused.  You are against things that hurt people, but FOR these cameras, despite the fact that all INDEPENDENT evidence shows that they INCREASE accidents at the intersections where they are installed and that cities that install them also take specific measures to make the intersections MORE hazardous by short timing lights to generate more revenue from these devices?

Did you read any of the research or the links provided?  

It's been demonstrated that a 1 second increase in the timing of a yellow light decreases accidents at an intersection by 70-80% as opposed to increasing them by adding these cameras and you are still for them?  

Madness I tells ya!

On a happier note, I just read that based on these findings the Illinois Traffic Safety Commission is going before the state senate to attempt to get these cameras outlawed here this week.  I'm sure based on the number of alleged Bribes and Kickbacks that Redspeed Inc. are accused of, the ban will not go thru, but its nice to see that _someone_ is paying attention to the research.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 14, 2010)

My only issue with these camera systems...I personally know 2 people who received summons in the mail for running cameras in Cities they were never even in. These cameras are accurate but not infallible. It looks like the camera misread a digit or two on the actual violator's vehicle and matched to my friends cars.

It looks like it's so common that all they had to do was call and say WTF??? and the ticket was dropped.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 14, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> My only issue with these camera systems...I personally know 2 people who received summons in the mail for running cameras in Cities they were never even in. These cameras are accurate but not infallible. It looks like the camera misread a digit or two on the actual violator's vehicle and matched to my friends cars.
> 
> It looks like it's so common that all they had to do was call and say WTF??? and the ticket was dropped.


Absolutely; it happens.  In fact, speed or red light cameras discovered that either MD or DC (I'm pretty sure it was DC) had issued a good crop of duplicate license plates to different people and different cars...  

I'll describe how our system worked:  The camera's sensors triggered the camera to record the intersection when it sensed a car approaching at a speed that suggested it was unlikely to stop.  (Don't know whether it was radar or pixel counters or what...)  An officer reviewed everything the cameras captured, and would try to identify the tag and state, and would run the tag.  If the vehicle return was consistent with what they saw, and they felt that it was a violation, not mis-judging a yellow (there was an arbitrary threshold as well as the officer's judgment) or road conditions that made stopping unwise or unsafe, then they would issue the ticket.  The owner would receive a ticket that showed the date, time, and two pictures of the vehicle in question; I think one showed it going through the intersection, red light visible, and another showed the tag.

As I said before, you had the right to a hearing, if you wanted.  You had to make the affirmative step of requesting it -- just like a parking ticket.  And, if you turned in an affidavit that you weren't the driver, the ticket was dismissed.

Don't get me wrong; there are plenty of places using speed cameras and red light cameras as revenue.  I don't agree with them in that sense.  But, if the site is selected based on reasonable traffic studies (not just number, but severity of accidents, and whether they're linked to the traffic light), and the process for issuing a ticket has reasonable safeguards, they serve a purpose.  As I said -- I'm almost afraid to start across an intersection where I live because I've routinely seen 3 to 4 cars cross after my light has turned green.  Which means that they not only entered after the red... but significantly after, since most intersections have a period of 1 to 3 seconds where it's red in all directions.

It's easy to abuse them -- but it's no harder to abuse a uniformed officer.  I know of agencies that require as many as 80 tickets a month from some officers (dedicated traffic units), and others that greatly restrict an officer's discretion.  There are plenty of speed traps and other traffic gimmicks that are used when a place decides that traffic enforcement is about revenue generation, not getting voluntary compliance.  Should we eliminate all traffic enforcement because of that?


----------



## 72ronin (Feb 14, 2010)

I admit i didnt read the info on the shortening of the amber light, Instead of outlawing the camera's why dont they outlaw the shortening of the amber light??


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> There are plenty of speed traps and other traffic gimmicks that are used when a place decides that traffic enforcement is about revenue generation, not getting voluntary compliance.  Should we eliminate all traffic enforcement because of that?



No... but it also sounds like you have a reasonable system in place for their use.  Here, Its almost impossible to fight those tickets, further, the policies in Cook County (I'm unsure about elsewhere) state that the Owner is responsible, and if another driver runs the light its the owners responsibility to collect the fine from them.  (This has led to an interesting dilemma, btw, as CTA bus drivers have been routinely running those lights claiming the city owns the buses, they can pay themselves) There is only 1 township here that I am aware of that has mandatory police review of the camera footage, and that is because the tickets were being triggered almost exclusively on LEGAL turn-on-red situations, as the cameras here have a sensor that turns them on when the light is red and detects if a vehicle has crossed the field that cannot discriminate between a legal turn and an illegal running of the red.  (Redspeed has claimed that cannot be changed, a local suburb who subsequently pulled the equipment proved that wrong BTW) Which is also interesting since most Camera intersections here only have cams facing 1 of the 4 ways, and often sensors only on the Right Turn Lane in places where turn on red is legal.  Then there is, as I have brought up numerous times, the short timing of the lights... There are also allegations, as I said of kickbacks and bribery from Redspeed Inc.  

All in all, NOT the same kind of enforcement you are used to in your area.  Not surprising then that we have different opinions of their use.


----------



## David43515 (Feb 14, 2010)

Toledo tried them for a while when I lived in Ohio. I don`t know, they may still have them up. But I do recall that they had to buy all the cameras and only hire a company to service them. The company recieves a set fee, not a share of the ticket proceeds, because the Ohio Supreme Court determined that otherwise it was an illegal conflict of interest because the company would be policing for profit......and as we all know, the government doesn`t like any competition for thier monoplolies.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 14, 2010)

David43515 said:


> The company recieves a set fee, not a share of the ticket proceeds, because the Ohio Supreme Court determined that otherwise it was an illegal conflict of interest because the company would be policing for profit



They need to do that here.  Redspeed gets a fixed amount AND a %.  How is that for (heh heh, pardon the pun) Highway Robbery?


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 16, 2010)

I'd rather see more of this instead of the cameras:


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 16, 2010)

Y'know... Cryo's pic does raise a good question.

Why not "stop sign cameras"?  If it's about money -- stop signs outnumber red lights hugely... and are more often disregarded.  If it's about safety -- stop signs outnumber red lights hugely... and are more often disregarded.  And more often in residential areas...


----------



## MJS (Feb 16, 2010)

grydth said:


> I believe the claim that red light cameras cause accidents is based on 2 situations. The first is where people now stop too short and people following (too) close behind rear end them. The second is where cities significantly cut down yellow light time in order to increase the number of violations - in places where this is true, it convincingly shows that profit is the motive, not safety.
> 
> I despise these things..... though their use does not infringe the Constitution, they certainly run contrary to the spirit of the Revolution, It is difficult to imagine that the Founders, complaining King George had "sent a swarm of officers to harass our people and eat out ther substance", would approve of these infernal machines.
> 
> Partnering cash greedy cities with cash greedy corporations is a formula for an Amerika I don't care for. The average folks get sponged while the actual bad guys run wild and free. Recently, we have seen multiple instances here where people are still out driving after dozens of unlicensed operations and up to 9 prior DWI convictions..... yet I'm supposed to believe these governments care soooooo much about my family's safety? Sure.


 


Cryozombie said:


> I'd buy this except for 2 reasons:
> 
> In city traffic, when you are moving slow, (say 30 or less) you generally do not leave 2 car lengths between vehicles. I never see it done, at least for long, because if you do, people pull in and cut you off. You can generally judge that when the light turns yellow, based on the flow of traffic that the car in front of you will go thru or stop based on when the yellow appeared, and you act accordingly. If they act unpredicatbly and either stop suddenly when it appears they were going to proceed or if they short-stop well behind the line to avoid triggering the cameras (which I admit I am guilty of, having seen a number trigger even when vehicles wheels are behind the line) then their behavior has become erratic and harder to judge.
> 
> ...


 
If they are in fact shortening the yellow, just for the sake of getting extra $$$, then IMO, thats wrong.  Regarding the accidents, well, I'll admit that I dont leave the 'required' distance all the time, but IMO, I think that its passing the buck, if we solely blame the cameras for the crashes.  I mean, thats kinda like seeing the "Caution: Wet Floor" signs, and still being careless.  If you land on your ***, people blame the store, yet what about the person who ran in, disregarding the sign?  I dont want to drag this off track, by talking about wet floors..lol...but its the same thing here...if someone crashes, well, why did they crash?  Could they have done something to prevent that crash?

Regarding the car vs. pedestrian accidents...I work in a city that is home to a University.  On any given Thur, Fri or Sat. night, I see some dumb *** ****.  These kids, who're supposed to have something in their head, besides a pea, dont think anything of walking right in front of you, while you're turning.  They assume that the driver will stop.  IIRC, the driver has the right of way as long as the ped. is not already in the cross walk.  So, these dumbasses, see me in the process of turning and walk in front of me.  Were I to hit them, its their fault.  Keep in mind, I'm not trying to hit them, and of course I do stop, and yell a few things out the window , but again, people need to use common sense.  I say this, because every time I go to NYC, once that walk sign changes from walk to do not walk, the cars go..and God help you if you're in the road. LOL.


----------



## MJS (Feb 16, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Y'know... Cryo's pic does raise a good question.
> 
> Why not "stop sign cameras"? If it's about money -- stop signs outnumber red lights hugely... and are more often disregarded. If it's about safety -- stop signs outnumber red lights hugely... and are more often disregarded. And more often in residential areas...


 
Now thats not a bad idea.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 16, 2010)

State laws may vary.  There's a few issues.  First, often right-on-red is prohibited when pedestrians are present, or at least the driver is required to yield to the pedestrian.  Second, right-on-red is generally only permitted AFTER stopping, and looking to be sure.  Third, pedestrians crossing at an intersection generally and broadly have the right-of-way, but may not "carelessly or maliciously" cross.

In my experience and observation -- most pedestrian/vehicle crashes are the fault of the pedestrian more than the driver.  Especially at intersections and crossings...


----------



## MJS (Feb 16, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> State laws may vary. There's a few issues. First, often right-on-red is prohibited when pedestrians are present, or at least the driver is required to yield to the pedestrian. Second, right-on-red is generally only permitted AFTER stopping, and looking to be sure. Third, pedestrians crossing at an intersection generally and broadly have the right-of-way, but may not "carelessly or maliciously" cross.
> 
> In my experience and observation -- most pedestrian/vehicle crashes are the fault of the pedestrian more than the driver. Especially at intersections and crossings...


 
This was my point exactly.  I stop if I see someone in the roadway.  I've stopped when I see someone standing, waiting to cross.  What these people fail to take into consideration though, is the fact that a) they are not using the cross walk signal and b) they are crossing, when the traffic has the right of way.  Again, it comes down to assumption, and these people are assuming the cars will stop.  Its almost like they're hoping they get hit.  Sorry, I dont want to gamble with a full size SUV, because they may not win. 

There have been many times, when I'm in the process of turning, and these dumbasses will walk right in front of me.  Again, they're disregarding the traffic control signals that're in place, and should I hit one of them, its their fault.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/Chap249.htm#Sec14-300b.htm

See sec. 14-300,14-300a, b, c.


----------

