Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

In my opinion they are good and bad. Bad yes because of them prone to be tweaked but also because some people will stop suddenly to avoid going through the light and causing a accident. I have seen this happen a couple of times. I think most of those times is because the yellow light turns really quickly and they just dead stop. In this instance it would have been better if there had just been a red light camera there. What that cop did in that story is inexcusable and pathetic.

If speed/redlight cameras were well regulated, and the financial incentives were sent to a impartial fund, not profit sharing with the town / camera company, I think they would be viewed in a better light.

The fact there are strong financial incentives for cities / camera companies to increase the number of tickets are in contrary to the stated objective of "safety".

Red light cameras should be truly about safety. Make them count towards license points (in many places they are just civil fines, no driving points), and make the fine heavier, but no portion of the money shall go towards the jurisdiction / red light camera running the gig. The money should go towards a national auto safety fund, where the funds should ONLY be used to improve road safety, and nothing else.

And there should be a strict regulation of the redlight cameras, no funny variances in timing or other factors. In one article a city generated so many tickets because they made the camera so sensitive that if you merely crossed a line at the stop, you would get a ticket, even though you did not run the red light! This is outrageous and crappy behavior, and needs to stop.

Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

Yes. Yes they are.

It's not the camera as much as how it is used locally. Am I in favor of the cameras - again it depends on how they are being used. If it is for revenue generation, then no, they are not good. If it is to stop accidents at intersections where there has been a history of accidents due to running red lights, then yes. It's not the camera that is to blame, it is the people running the camera.

Spot on, agree completely.

In this particular situation, this is a false choice. Our only alternative to poorly trained cops with a God complex should not be dangerous red light cameras that increase accident rates at intersections. Citizens need to demand accountability from police who believe they alone are the judge, jury, and executioner.

I was going to point out what yfsemtex said - I'll add:

It amazes me how quickly our government and your average citizen will sign on to make someone else a criminal with devices like red light cameras which don't stop anyone (like a drunk driver or someone driving crazy). They just make them pay the tax.

The government will do these things and spend money to do it but if you were to talk about fixing the traffic flow problem so people can get home quicker/less frustrated and possibly less likely to run a red light, they'll complain that there just isn't enough money. (I'm thinking of synchronized traffic lights here but there are other alternatives). Bring up red light cameras, though, and they're all over it. Oddly, with red-light cameras it suddenly becomes financially better for the government to make traffic flow less efficient. Frustrate enough drivers where 'they just want to get home but keep getting stopped at every light' and I bet your revenue numbers go up. Shorten the yellow lights is another game they'll play. They can also make the argument that with more cameras they can have less cops. All of these are contrary to their 'safety stance'.

I was told by the San Diego Police Department that one of their major purposes was to aide in keeping intersections free of vehicles for fire truck/engines to ply their way through traffic to emergencies/fires, etc.

I think that's bunk (not that they told you but what they said).

California, like most other states have ordinances on the books that prohibit blocking intersections. If the camera is being used to enforce this, then it's an improper use of the camera in my estimation. Over the years the role of police departments have changed in some areas, and the major area they have departed from is traffic enforcement.

Back when I was living in SD, and that is many years ago - I was a reserve officer with the SDPD. One of the metrics for a patrol officer was to make a "citizen contact" which meant the officer had to get out of their car and actually talk to a person. The most common way this check was met was to issue either a traffic citation or an equipment warning. Of course there were other way to make a citizen contact and on the weekends these usually involved noise complaints. The main thing is people saw the police car and the officer(s) patrolling their beats with their windows down and looking for any activity that needed correction.

Looking around now, when was the last time you saw an officer out of his steel cocoon or with the windows down listening and watching for problems?

I agree. From the stories I am hearing, the cameras are set so that they go off immedicately when the light changes to red. This is for revenue. It doesn't take into account human reaction times and other circumstances that may affect stopping.

So, can some one explain what the yellow means?? I thought that was the "warning" that the light was about to change red.

Suffolk legislators say 'yea' to red-light camerasBY REID J. EPSTEIN | reid.epstein@newsday.com
10:23 PM EDT, April 1, 2009
Suffolk legislators yesterday unanimously approved two home-rule messages designed to acquire red-light cameras at 50 intersections throughout the county.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-posuff02126097...

Suffolk legislators say 'yea' to red-light camerasBY REID J. EPSTEIN | reid.epstein@newsday.com
10:23 PM EDT, April 1, 2009
Suffolk legislators yesterday unanimously approved two home-rule messages designed to acquire red-light cameras at 50 intersections throughout the county.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-posuff02126097...

Who profits from the red light and speed cameras. The manufacturer seems to take a large percentage of the ticket fee in some locations. If a locality got 100% of the revenue, and the violation was adequately reviewed I don't have a problem.

I agree, it depends on the use. I hate when 5 cars go through a red light (even after it's changed from yellow) so they don't have to wait at the light, especially at an intersection with a 'left turn on light'. I think those cars deserve tickets.

However, if generating revenue is the primary reason for the camera, then I'm against it. I think that putting in the walk/don't walk signs with the number countdown on them would make it harder to use the lights for revenue only purposes. Motorists would be more aware of when a light is about to change. This would keep more people from going through reds because they know the light is going to change. Some people may still try to rush through, but they do that now anyway when the light turns yellow and even red.

The manufacturer (or other vendor supplying the cameras) do get a cut of the ticket revenue - I don't know the exact numbers, and it might vary between vendors/jurisdictions, but I've never heard any that take a "large" percentage. Their cut of the revenue is how they are paid for the cameras - typically, there is no upfront purchase cost to the municipality for the cameras, only a percentage of the revenue generated.

Even if they are used to generate revenue, the red light is still being run so it would have the effect of regulating traffic anyway. Don't run red lights and it won't be a problem. Of course my world is simple.

I have not problem discouraging red light running. The problem seems to be that many municipalities shorten the yellow light after installing the camera. This ensures more revenue as people misjudge how long they have to beat the yellow.

In fact, if all yellow lights were lengthened by a second or two that alone would probably reduce the red light running.

If a vehicle is a few feet from an intersection and a traffic signal turns yellow then turns red before the vehicle can clear the intersection. The driver would not have time to react to the change and stop befor the line. Myself, I try to look ahead and judge if the green is getting stale so I can be more prepaired to stop. With so many thing to distract a driver these days not everyone does that.

There does seem to be evidence that this is as effective as red light cameras. A couple of comments from previous posts. RL cameras tend to reduce cross intersection accidents and increase rear end collisions.
The timing of the yellow at intersections is supposed to be a certain minimum dependent on the speed limit. California has regulated this and seems to have set reasonable times. Don't know if all jurisdictions do this. Typically there is no allowance for entering the intersection after the light has turned red. My son recently got a red light photo ticket for entering the intersection .2 secs after the red (icy roads, tried to stop then realized he wouldn't make it) We talked about fighting it but were told they would just say he was driving to fast for the conditions. Lesson learned for him so maybe a good thing in the long run. Overall, like others, I would be more supportive if the money went to charity. Then I would know it really was about safety and not revenue generation.

Why should RLC fines go to charity? How about other traffic violations? Parking tickets too?

I'm fine with the money going to operate my local government, it means that much less I need to pay in taxes.

next the goverment will be useing Infared
cameras to look into are homes to see what
we are doing wrong just to tickit us because
they will need more money. When do we say enough!

As far as I'm concerned for exactly that reason. Need to generate more revenue, stick in another 30 speed cameras and set them for zero or very low tolerance. I'm not against these things, I just think if local municipalities are overspending, they shouldn't be throwing cameras in to cover it. Voters should know that they aren't controlling their spending. Don't forget, the politicians (at least in our area) or always saying this is about safety.
I appreciate your point, but I think we will probably have to agree to disagree

There's something wrong with the law/government when it tries to make people into criminals. The games they play to generate revenue are all about that.

Take speeding. Here in Atlanta the normal flow of traffic on the perimeter (beltway) is 65-70MPH. This is, of course, outside of rush hours. Thousands of people do it everyday and if you were to go 60MPH (5MPH over the 55MPH speed limit) you're going to look like a tractor lumbering down a farm road. So, are all of the citizens of Atlanta wrong in going what they feel is a safe speed without any noticable increases in incidents (really, has anyone heard about Atlanta being some kind of statistical death trap because of our speeding/roads - I've never heard it. I've never heard of cities that really clamp down on the speed limit being any safer, either) or is the law wrong? I'd pick the law. 55MPH is too slow for the perimeter but if you were ever to say that in a public forum (to protest it) I'm sure they'd talk about how you want to kill single women, the elderly, and children (that seems to be how they get most of this stuff passed).

It's wrong that they set the speed limit unreasonably low and have red-light cameras and play games with yellow lights or do nothing to improve the flow of traffic so that people can get home. I can't name anyone who thinks, "I'm gonna run me some red lights on the way home!" I can certainly relate to driving through thick traffic and literally hitting every light on a major road to the point where, "I just want to get through this one.."

Still, they'll put up cameras to ticket people a week after the incident but they won't spend any kind of money to improve the conditions which really could improve safety. Again, some areas go even further by making an area less safe (yellow light game) so that they can generate more revenue.

In the end, we're likely all criminals each day as we drive to work (I'm sure we each break some traffic law on the way to work and back) each day and, to me, that is wrong. That's setting it up so that the local authorities can go trolling for revenue.

Just because you're against speed cameras and red light cameras doesn't mean you're for red light running or driving crazy. I'm simply saying that there's another way and that way often goes ignored.

In a word, yes. All the citizens of Atlanta, New York, LA, Baltimore, are wrong for going what they feel is a safe speed. What they feel is a safe speed is just their perception at a given time. The speed limit has to take in many more factors than just one persons perception at one specific time. It has to cover all drivers all the time and in all combinations of traffic and/or weather conditions.

I guess you're right though... the laws are too hard to abide by. They need to be changed so no one breaks any laws anymore.

I kind of agree but there is also a group consensus on what is reasonable. If you measured all drivers' speeds you would find that the average speed plus 1 standard deviation is probably a safe speed for conditions, as most drivers are interested in making their destination in one piece. The end of the bell curve is where the danger lies. Speed limit signs in most places are fixed speeds that cannot adjust to conditions like the drivers. Hence, speed limits are often set lower than what is often necessary for safety. The lower limit helps reduce the number of outliers at the fast end.

It's bad. I personally get nervous whenever I'm approaching an intersection with traffic cams. I speed up to avoid getting caught inside the junction when the light turn red. The quicker I get in/out of the intersection the better. All it takes is a tweaked timer to get me a ticket. Sure I may be able to dispute it in court but that means I'm going to lose my valuable time to fight it. Traffic cams are there not for the safety of drivers. The only reason they're there is to generate revenue.

I realize this is an international site but from my stand point as a citizen of the US I think they are unconstitutional. Some court somewhere must agree with me. In my research on the subject I have learned (at least here in Ohio) they have decriminalized running a red light. It is a "Civil Offense" which means no right to face your accuser, preponderance of evidence is enough. I'm sorry we in the US feel the need to give up our freedoms and liberties in the name of the almighty buck.

I do not believe in a surveillance society, especially where the government, which has a clear conflict of interest, can manipulate the system and the citizens have no viable recourse.

I believe in personal liberty and personal responsibility. If I break the law, the police need to pull me over and write the citation. If I choose to protest, I can go to court and have my case heard. It's not perfect, but it is a lot better than the alternative.

Red light cameras are too much like the middle ages and their highwayman tolls. Every little town would block the road and charge a toll. Ground the economy to a halt because of all the thievery.

I drive through Cleveland, Ohio on a daily bases and here is my take on Red light cameras...
If they truly used the camera for safety (based on traffic accidents and previous speeding ticket frequencies), then I would have less of an issue. HOWEVER in Cleveland they placed the cameras on roads that we suburbanites normally take and in some place on only side/direction of the road. Why...so the councilmen would not cheese off the residents/voters. It was added PURELY revenue targeting non-residents. It is in essence a 'road use tax'. To appeal a camera ticket, you have to pay $225 "appeal fee" in advance to fight $100 fine. Since when should you have to pay in advance for 'your day in court'?? The fee is just meant to make it cheaper to pay the fine instead of risk losing $225 more!
If you speed or crash a light, you deserve a ticket - that is not what I am arguing. If I get stop by cop for the offense, I might get off depending on the circumstance. For example, there are 2 cameras right by a major hospital – good idea…however a person got 2 tickets driving by them rushing to see his dying relative (this was a real situation). A cop would have understood the situation and let him. A camera no!
If it was about safety, why aren’t the cameras located in high accident areas? Because we suburbanites can not vote in the city of Cleveland! Nor do we don’t enjoy the benefits of the city collecting millions annually! Its money...pure and simple!

No, no, a thousand times, no. It is not fair to issue points to a driver when you can't be 100% sure who was driving the car. In Illinois, where these cameras are sprouting like weeds to raise revenue, it is a violation of state law for enforcement cameras to photograph the drivers' face. And even where it's legal, authorities will usually not know (or care) who was driving the car.

For me there is a fundamental unfairness to camera enforcement and that is, unlike when you are stopped by a cop, there is no immediate feedback that your behavior was wrong. Recently, thousands of people got tickets from Illinois' tollway authority for skip-toll infractions committed three years ago. As a state rep said, how are you supposed to defend yourself now against a claim that your car went through a specific tollbooth without paying the toll on July 18, 2006?

Of course, nearly all camera tickets arrive much faster than that. But still, you may be unable to recall the circumstances of the event and defend yourself, as you would if a cop stopped at the time of the offense.

I agree. A town next door to ours announced they're putting in red light cameras later this spring. I immediately went over and videotaped several light change sequences at each of the two affected intersections. I'm going to continue to do that, at the same time of the same day of the week, after and well after the cameras are installed. And we'll see if they shorten the yellows. If they do, I will pimp my tape and this story to any local newspaper or TV news outlet that will listen, because that would offer strong support for the idea that red light camera enforcement was all about raising revenue rather than promoting traffic safety.

If they really wanted to promote traffic safety, they would add a second or two to the yellows at these high speed intersections.

Agreed. I am ok with fines since it is the car owners responsibility for whatever happens in his/her car, but it shouldn't affect their driving record.

From what I have heard about a red light camera ticket is that you only get fined. No points are added to your driving record.

I completely disagree with this. Just because its your car doesn't mean you committed the crime. Worse, the onus is on them to prove that you committed a crime. Your stance, and the stance of the states with these red light cameras, is, 'guilty until proven innocent.'

They'd probably be right. If it was so icy he couldn't stop for a red light, he also couldn't stop for a little kid that wandered into traffic either.

Someone I used to work with always had the rant about Red Light cameras not being able to get a drunk driver off the road, whereas a real cop is sure to not let them keep driving. In that sense, a cop would be a better choice.

Maybe we should just stop on red and go on green. All that said, I would not be happy to get a ticket a week later when I couldn't even recall the situation.

When there is no cop at scene, I would expect a red light camera is doing the job.
What I feel not fair is, they only install redlight camera on selected judiciaries instead of everywhere.

My sentiments exactly.

--

it's the dog's fault

sorry. duplicate post ...
--

it's the dog's fault

sorry. duplicate post.

--

it's the dog's fault

You can always give up the driver of the vehicle, and your ticket goes away. I mean if you didn't do the crime why pay the fine?

Not that I would do the above, Just making sure you understand you don't have to be guilty. It's you choice!

It's not up to me to give up anything. It's up to them to prove it. They have to figure out who was driving all on their own.

The huge difference between this and when a cop stops you is that the first thing he does is ask for your license which has your picture, your address, etc. He doesn't just take your license plate and a snap shot of the car as you drive by to save a few steps. There's a reason that he pulls you over - this goes back to having 'the right to face your accuser'.

If you go to court after being pulled over by a cop he has to show. He can't just 'phone it in' with a picture and your tag number. The guy who pulled you over has to be there.

I think that the only reason this photo-ticketing passes is because governments are hungry for money and most people say, "OH, don't run red lights - you deserve a ticket," and that's the end of their thought process. The whole due-process part is thrown out with those two pieces for most folks.

You refuse to pay parking tickets too, don't you?

One of the benefits to the red light cameras is when there is an accident in the intersection and both drivers claim they had the green. The camera definitively shows who ran the light. In these cases there is no question. If the other guy ran it (and he has insurance) then their insurance carrier can't make the argument that their policy holder was not at fault. Granted the insurance companies are the leaders in screwing over the public but that is a topic for another forum.

In the end, I have less of a problem with the red light cams than the speed cams. The formulas for yellow light durations are simple equations based on the size of the intersection and the posted speed limit of the roadway. They are just stopping distance formulas. Some jurisdictions have made the lights cycle to a four way red for 2 or more seconds before cycling the cross traffic light green. While this won't prevent a mid-cycle running, it does give more time for the intersection to clear before traffic starts into the intersection. If you find your jurisdiction is altering the yellow lights to shorten them, then fire them up. I guarantee that your local news station will run with it. They love to "expose" things.

Yes, they are bad. They are causing accidents and these cameras are just another way to technologically control our lives. You can't drive 30 minutes to work without being on 15 cameras. Where do you think all this is leading? No where good!

We keep hearing red light cameras cause accidents but the simple truth of the matter is that it is the driver that is at fault. Most of the rhetoric is based on a study done in northern VA when some of the first red light cameras were installed in the DC area. The study did state that there was an increase in the number of rear end collisions BUT THE NUMBER OF SERIOUS ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY INTERSECTION INTRUSION DECREASED.

The rear end accidents are caused by two factors, one being a cautious driver knowing the camera is present and slowing or even rapidly stopping when the light first turns yellow and the impatient driver that wants to "beat the traffic" by increasing their speed to be in the intersection when the light changes. Couple this with the tendency of most drivers to follow too close and you have all the ingredients for an accident. Once the cameras have been in place for a short period, often just a week or two the number of accidents of all types at the intersections decrease to far below any previous count. This was borne out in the same study from which people quote "red light cameras cause more accidents."

Now, am I in favor of red light cameras? It depends on how they are used. Are they there as a deterrent to reduce accidents caused by people "trying to beat the traffic" or are they there to raise revenue because you didn't come to a full and complete stop behind the limit line? It is a true fact that cities, counties, parishes, boroughs, tribal authorities and even states will increase their revenue through more strict enforcement of traffic laws in proportion to the amount of revenue shortfall from other sources.