Red Light Cameras

[72ronin]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jks9199]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.