Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

Have any of you been in a situation where because of driving conditions you had to go through a yellow and stoping wasnt the safest option? Well that would result in a ticket.... I know! Why dont we just keep giving up our freedom in the name of generating revenue and the illusion of uncle sam keeping us safe. What next? Cameras on all corners to make sure your watering your grass on the scheduled days? Or how about cameras for J walkers?
Sorry for the sopa box but it's time to wake up.

Yes, they are bad. They are installed primarily to generate revenue and they tend to increase accidents at the intersection. More accidents mean higher insurance rates for everyone.

A large portion of the revenue generated goes to the equipment supplier. If the local government increased taxes to generate the same revenue, many citizens could deduct these taxes from their federal and state income taxes - but fines come from after-tax funds right out of the citizen's pocket. So the citizens pay maybe 3 times as much as a tax increase would generate.

This is the kind of thing that makes you wonder if the politicians care at all about the average citizen - or just want his money any way they can get it.

Yes it's about revenue, but the added revenue from red light cameras does not help to prevent higher taxes. The increased revenue allows the government to run a larger government.

Government agencies always expand to use every last cent that they can find, spending extra money at the end of the budget year to avoid a surplus (which would be taken away from next year's budget). I worked a government job for a couple summers a few years ago, it was always funny to see them buy crap they didn't need. My favorite was a computer purchased one summer and never even got taken out of its box until the next summer I was there. (the value had of course plummeted by then)

At least in the case of red light cameras, you can legally avoid paying tickets caused by them. It's not legal to avoid paying taxes in a similar fashion.

Yes. When there is dump truck behind me. I would not exercise a sudden brake regardless.

Here's a story on it:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/05/04/am.costell...

In Georgia a state representative pushed through a bill to extend the yellow lights at red-light-camera intersections by 1 sec. Since that has passed three cities have stated that they will stop using them because they're no longer cost effective. What? I thought this was about safety.

I'm not defending the cameras, but there is a cost to installing the cameras many politicians and law enforcement agencies overlook. They are looking for the "free lunch" revenue without digging into the actual costs listed in their contracts. The typical contract, from my understanding, has a minimum revenue clause. If a camera does not generate a specific amount of revenue for the installing company, the city must make up the difference and this can amount to thousands of dollars per camera per month.

The camera companies require each camera to return enough revenue to pay for the camera, its installation and operation, the cost of administrative people to review the photos, the cost of maintenance and service, and a guaranteed return on their investment. This sets a minimum monthly revenue figure for the camera. Changes to driver habits because of the cameras and increased notification of camera locations through such things as the POI-Factory's files all reduce the revenue from a camera over time. Once a camera's revenue falls below the threshold, guess what - those that put the camera in to generate revenue find that it now is a cost item rather than a revenue item.

Now, if the city wanted to make the investment to buy the cameras to begin with, then the changes of lengthening yellow signal times wouldn't have the impact they are seeing when the camera is required to generate a specific amount of revenue - or tickets. The camera then truly becomes more of a safety device than a revenue device.

Plus insurance coverage for contractor running camera inside camera van.

It was never about safety - this is proof. The increase in the yellow light duration decreases the violations to a small fraction of the number with the shorter yellow. This is proof that a large majority of the violations were not blatant dangerous acts, but simply folks who got caught on the short yellow and the light changed a fraction of a second before they cleared the intersection. That's what happened to my wife about a year ago.

Statistics on this issue are very difficult to analyze. A major factor in the numbers may be that drivers avoid these camera intersections and use other routes. I do. So although serious accidents may decline at the intersection, the rate may increase at other nearby intersections due to the changes in routing. I know one thing for sure - when I am in an area where there are cameras, I will slam on brakes to avoid a red light violation at ALL intersections. Therefore, I suspect that this change in driving habit can lead to rear end collisions at lights where there are no cameras.

In the 60's and 70's this kind of scam was personified by an overweight sheriff wearing mirror sunglasses under a cowboy hat. Its the same scam.

Dont'be naive, after you get the ticket you will realise what is it all about...safety is as a good excuse to hide the real reason. Those, who didn't get the ticket yet might believe untill they receive one...

All too often the yellow light is too short to provide adequate time to react. If the yellow light times were longer and standardized, I would agree with you.

We have a local town that now has put them on every light on the only major road that goes through this town. All of the lights were also changed to have very short yellows at roughly the same time. it is abuses such as this that is causing the state to consider either banning camera's or at least capping the number (on a % basis) that a town can employ.

Whatever benefit the technology might have had has be lost due to abuse.

I would think you could derive from the video:

Increasing the yellow light by 1 second causes red-light runners to decrease so much that it kills the revenue stream. I'd also think that, because red-light runners are reduced by this one simple act that the intersection is safer.

So, it would seem to me that if you were a government official and really concerned about safety and cost that just having your yellow light timing extended by a second would be an easy and cost effective way to make your intersections safer. You could do this at all lights in your jurisdiction at minimal cost (send a guy out to change the timing).

That's the one thing that really bugs me about all of this: they'll go to the extent of installing red light cameras all in the name of safety but they won't do other things that would, presumably, increase flow and safety (just timing the lights to help the flow of traffic). That's never even considered - just the 'we need more cameras to ticket people for safety' is all you ever hear.

...and well said, Brad ^

This question was answered directly by a field study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Six intersections were tested sequentially with an increase in yellow light timing test running first. The results seemed an impressive 20-63% reduction in red light running. However, when the cameras were installed a further reduction in red light running occurred by 87-100%.

At the worst intersection where 251 vehicles per 10,000 ran the red light. Yellow light extensions reduced the red light running to 198 incidents per 10,000 vehicles. Once the Red Light Cameras were installed at that intersection red light running dropped to 2 incidents per 10,000 vehicles. Yellow light timing adjustments do not solve red light running and injury crashes, photo enforcement does.

Source: Insurance Institute of Highway Safety Vol. 42, No. 1 January 27, 2007

Myself, I believe that the longer yellow would do the trick!

I would rather not be in a position to receive a ticket at all.

I personally love the red light cameras or the speed trap cameras. My car is done up. So the front facia(sp?) is not standard. The front plate is mounted about 1 foot under the lip of the car on the grill. And the rear plate is mounted about 8 inches under a lip, attached to the rear grill.

You can see the plates if you're sitting in a car, or chair. But if you're standing, you're not going to see them.

I like red light camera as well since I am not a regular red light runner. Do you have a picture of you car?

LOL, I think that pretty much goes without saying but as we all know LIFE happens.

Before you believe anything the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says about red light cameras you should read this. It appears that the IIHS may not be impartial on the subject.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2593.asp

but i think we just have to putup with them and stop at red lights. but is that bad?

I do have a picture of the car. But it's from the side and it's in a shadow.

The sun is goin' down right now and it's a cloudy day. Tomorrow will be a sunnier day. I'll get one from the front and one from the back.

To quote an old saw - Figures lie and liars figure. The field of statistics is based on assumptions and everyone knows what it means when you assume.

This means that for every study done using statistics, there are at least 2 or more that will refute the findings because they interpret the same data differently. If you pin a statistician to the wall they will admit the studies are flawed as not all variables are always taken into account. Because not all are taken into account when the base study is published, someone always uses one of the unused variables to refute the assumption.

The first pic was taken from 60 feet away. I'm kneeling on the deck, about 2 feet above the driveway.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2123ir.jpg

The second pic is me 12 feet back and standing (5'11").

http://i41.tinypic.com/1zmcb5z.jpg

A good reason why they can co-exist.
Just drive safely.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5212884244563...

In the state of Illinois (and I'm sure others), someone else can be driving your car, and if they go through a red light camera equipped intersection on a "red". Guess who gets the ticket? You do. What is even more ridiculous is that you can't contest these tickets in a court of law. This is America, right?

That happened in Vancouver if I'm not mistaken. The guy who got hit lives. He walks away with minor injuries. The car rolls over him and he's under the crumpled part. Otherwise he'd be a smear on the road.

Oddly enough I have received one. Funny thing is I had b***s enough to admit I ran the light and was wrong in that, and paid the fine.

Running lights isn't something I' make a habit of, but things happen and I was in a situation where I felt I didn't have a choice but to go through. Of course there were things I could have done differently to avoid being in that situation and will try to aviod having to run a red light in the future.

You're right. We shouldn't be naive. Don't like the government making money off of you running red lights? Don't put yourself in the position where they have the opportunity. But if you do, at least be big enough to admit you were wrong, pay the fine and get over it.

Only to those that race the yellow...

Red light cameras have virtually everywhere been used for revenue generation. Governments have often attempted to justify them by showing statistics of accidents, and there's probably some truth to that, but the real reason they're there is because it's an incredibly easy way for governments to make money. No investment, no payroll, no risk, lots of money. Why not do it? Especially if they can be placed in places that cause the locals least difficult. Which, you'll notice, is where they are.

The law was changed in California a couple years ago, but I investigated the business relationship between the City of Fullerto, CA and Nestor Traffic Systems, the Delaware based vendor that city uses for their enforcement cameras.

I went to the city clerk and reviewed the contracts between the vendor and the city.

Here is how it worked out. The fine was $328. The city got about $35. Yep. $35. The court kept about $118 (as I recall, this might not be exact) and Nestor got the rest.

The really bad part is the court sends the revenue to the city as a lump sum. No way for the city to know what part of the money was from enforcement cameras, and the court refused to break it out.

Nestor sent the city a bill. A blank bill, with only an amount of money which the city was to pay. There was no way to tell why it was that amount, what citationa it covered, whether some of the citations had been dismissed (very likely) or otherwise not paid for any reason. Or even had the amount reduced by the court. They couldn't have that information on them because the court wouldn't provide it!

I went upstairs and talked to the accounting manager for the city and he said he knew the bill was essentially blank and didn't like that the city was paying it. I told him he should stop paying it until it is completely auditable and it could be determined why it was that amount rather than some other amount. I said as a taxpayer I couldn't support that contract with the city getting such a minor amount. Those cameras should be jerked out unless the city got at least 80% of the fine to defray our taxes.

He agreed. I doubt anything was done.
But a couple years later that law was changed in California making contracts with pay per citation now an illegal way to contract with vendors.

Can you imagine, the city actually gave a private company access to the legal system for $35 a citation? Why would they do that?

Only if everybody drove like that, there would be no accidents at all.

Cities make lots of money on this so they have something for later to spend on . : )

To get $35 per citation.

It adds up eventually.
10% of millions or 50% of hundreds. Which would you prefer?

No, it doesn't add up at all. As a taxpayer, if the city is going to give a private company access to the legal system and the lawbreakers are going to pay $328 for their fine, I want the city to get most of that money.

If they don't get most of the money they shouldn't play.

What is the red light camera equipment company going to do? Pack up their cameras and go home?

Without the city helping them they couldn't make a cent. It's a strong bargaining position the city was in and they gave it all away.

Stupid. Completely asinine.

Sensibility is not a factor here.
We all know it's asinine to sell out citizen's rights and to risk abuse of driver's information.
The camera company probably presented the contract in a way that highlighted the bottom line. "Look, you can make a million dollars a month with our system." Then they gloss over the fact they're making 4 million themselves. "We have expenses, we're taking all of the risk, etc..."
There's also the ploy of "Pay us most of it, or we won't install the cameras." The correct response to that is, "OK. Good bye."
This is a sweeping generalization, but I'm going to say it anyway. Most government officials probably aren't the best negotiators. You really only have to be popular to win.
The best place to hurt them is in the election booth. Tell your friends and neighbors about the problem and that they should vote for the alternative. Even if there's no change in leadership, a close election would send a strong message. Of course, there may be no alternative if there is no opposing candidate.

Sensibility among government officials is like the oft-quoted oxymoron "military intelligence."

Most long-term government officials have lost touch with the reality of conducting business. Government, as an institution does not have a bottom line and is not responsible to anyone. As such, they do not know how to negotiate and will accept almost anything that is put forward with two themes - increased revenue and citizen safety.

Having worked in and with government for more years than I care to admit, I have yet to see a salesman tell a flat out untruth. Most are very good at relating half-truths and not disclosing all the details (and this is not a slam against salesmen calling on government accounts as the same tactics are used no matter the customer). It's just the average bureaucrat is unsophisticated enough to not ask the right questions or discern when key information is missing.

Decision makers in government aren't the ones that look over contracts - that's below their pay grade. Often a decision is made without a complete review and the contract specialist who can and does know how to read contracts has no say in the decision.

And a lot of my response is generalizations as well. Take it for what it is worth.

The problem is that the residents are the ones who pay the majority of the tickets locally. The management companies for those cams take in 1/2 of the ticket price, and the sad thing is they lower the time the yellow is on to catch more drivers going on the yellow.

Many drivers went to court and won because the yellow was was not conforming with traffic laws imposed by the states regulator of traffic enforcement. Yellow should be at least 4 seconds and in some towns they reduced to 3 seconds putting drivers and pedestrians at risk. 1 second seems to be insignificant but can increase the number of tickets for that intersection on a 24 hour period.

After driving around today doing errands, I found that the Red light Camera alerts were just plain annoying and unnecessary.

I don't run red lights and don't normally put myself in a position where I would. Just because one intersection has a camera and another one doesn't would not change my driving behavior.

And we have a ton of red light cameras around here in the Phoenix metro area.

Speed Cameras are a totally different matter as many times it is hard to know what the actual speed limit is as it changes from 40 to 45 to 35 etc... with little notice. Also while driving on the freeway the speed cameras seem to be placed on purpose where the speed limit changes for no apparent reason.

Interesting poll showing strong national support for red-light cameras. I wonder why that is? Is it because:
1) They are a legitimate mechanism to improve safety
2) People don't really look deeper than the surface of issues.
3) People believe whatever government officials say
4) People have seen dangerous drivers cause accidents running red lights
5) Other

http://blog.pos.org/2009/05/poll-shows-strong-national-suppo...

That's scary and the car that got the worst of it is the driver who was obeying the law.

While the debate rages over the use of traffic cameras and their being a "money-grabbing ploy" it is interesting to see the other side of the picture. Here is a report of various state laws regarding Aggressive Driving and what constitutes a driver being considered as an aggressive driver.

AZ, and the Phoenix area is seen as being particularly aggressive in the use of cameras to catch people all for the revenue. The Aggressive Driver laws in AZ show another reason for the cameras. Look at what the law defines as aggressive behavior:

Speeding and least two of the following: failure to obey traffic control device, passing on the right out of regular lanes of traffic, unsafe lane change, following too closely, failure to yield right of way; and is an immediate hazard to another person or vehicle.

http://on.dot.wi.gov/wisdotresearch/database/tsrs/tsraggress...

Now, the question is does the use of the cameras cause people to change their agressive driving tendencies?

Any way you look at it, the cameras are modifying driver habit.

Thats why no point are issued.

My issues with red light cameras are the following. Yes, I'm generalizing across all installations, but these are the red flags:

1. Lack of due process
2. Citations issued by a private company instead of a sworn officer
3. Citations issued upon programmatic analysis of fixed variables. The stupidest example here is of funeral processions being ticketed because the camera is incapable of determining that.
4. Financial motivation commingling with safety concerns
5. Shady contracts with vendors (quotas, seriously?)
6. Distracting flashes
7. Consideration of altering light timings to increase citation revenue
8. Psychological effect encouraging drivers to stop abruptly in cases where it might have been safer to run the light
9. Delayed citation -- being pulled over on the spot is much more likely to curb reckless driving immediately than getting a bill in the mail weeks later. Another example in the forums here of someone receiving two tickets in the mail for egregious speeding for a few blocks -- an officer could potentially have arrested him on the spot. Which would work out better for safety?
10. They're ugly. I'm serious, they're a blight.
11. Applying technical solutions to social problems. Addressing the underlying problem generally works better.

Then just drive like the light is always ready to turn red, and be ready to stop before the stripe.

Do you think in states where a Funeral has the right of way, the ticket stuck? I think not.

while your out and about and come to a ugly camera, try this, pay attention to the traffic light instead and prepare to stop and don't be concerned about the beauty of the camera. when you think about it the traffic light isn't so pretty either.

Why is it that people go out of their way to find fault in everything but themselves?

This could be you or a family member, use the POI's and be aware that a enforcement camera is there, then you have no excuse.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=5212884244563...

Why not go all the way and put in all cars (at owners expense of course) device that will register all the time how you are driving. And, let say monthly, you will connect it to central police computer and it will give you tickets for all "crimes". This will be even better and everybody will be 100% safe on the streets

Governments do things for only two official reasons;

1. To generate revenue
2. To garner votes by spending that revenue to the benefit of the majority of voters.

and there's a third, unofficial one;

3. They won't admit it, but it is to benefit themselves personally. Whether directly (through immediate perks or cash kickbacks) or indirectly (through jobs and perks provided at the end of tenure).

For almost 70 years downtown parking on the street in Montreal was sparse. One side of the street at a time, alternating by day, 2 hours max. Secific times for street cleaning. To allow the free flow of traffic, the "streets had to be kept clear".

Enter parking meters;

Now they park EVERYWHERE, all the time, (daytimes and evenings and they pay up to $6 per hour for the priviledge) so long as they pay.

Enter 'smart parking systems'. Now if you pay for a spot and leave before your time is up, the next party cannot benefit - he has to pay for the spot from the moment he parks; Lots of double-dippng going on.

Not only that, but the system is networked; The meter maids (called 'Green Onions' in Montreal because they wear green unforms) get computer reports of which parking spots are about to go into violation, to allow them to more efficiently ticket the public.

We couldn't get the police department to hire new law enforcement personnel, yet they managed to add 300 sworn officers, with cars and computers and lasers and such to be the 'traffic squad' - and now they're eveywhere; not solving crimes (they don't carry guns), but lasering people in areas where the speed limits are set way too low for the prevailing conditions.

And now some municipalities have lowered their limits to just 18 miles an hour and put stop signs at EVERY intersection. This is NOT for safety.

And they're very proud that these officers generated $135 million in revenue for the city last year.

Does it have ANYTHING to do with safety? Nope. It's ONLY about revenue. But it is DISGUISED as a safety initiative.

One of the new photo radar cameras installed by the province is on a stretch of 2-lane highway where I was ticketed 2 years ago where the speed limit changed abruptly from 90 kph to 50 kph for no obvious reason.

The law requires that there be two signs announcnig the limit.

As I rode along on my bike - at 89 kph), parked within 30 feet of what I took to be the first sign was a Radar equipped police vehicle. Note that in Quebec we cannot use radar detectors . . . another kick at the revenue-evading device.

I was chased down and stopped and ticketed. I had noticed only one sign. I went back to check after the officer insisted there was another sign.

Sure enough, there was. And it was all but invisible for the leaves and vines covering it.

So I ripped out all the foliage, but could not fight the ticket because it required an appearance in court and the prosecutor would not accept a deposition - it was simply too far to go to fight.

Last summer I was back in the area and, knowing what to expect, I slowed down - sure enough, that first sign was overgrown again and sure anough, the officer was back to hiding after the second sign.

I went back, cleared the brush from the sign, then stopped and told the officer what I'd done - and he threatened to arrest me for 'obstructing justice'!!!

More like for removing his quick and easy way to reach his ticket quota.

Quota? You ask. Police officers have no quotas! That's just a silly urban myth.

No, it is not. Montreal police have in fact reported that there is indeed an 18 ticket-per-officer-per-shift quota. Think about that. They work 8 hours and have to issue almost 3 tickets every hour . . . or else.

When would they have time for 'real' police work?

So, the answer is red light cameras and photo radar.

Interesting enough, they are not targetting dangerous left turners at intersections with serious problems and a history of accidents (that would be a noble matter), but solely people who run red lights - or, in the case of a light at the corder of Decarie & Pare in Montreal, for blocking an intersection.

And, of course, instead of revenue for the 2 hours per day (morning and evening rush hour) when police were on site to issue tickets, this system wil catch EVERY offender, 24 hours per day. Talk about Return on Investment!!!

The cops are getting too expensive, so it is being farmed out to an automaton.

And, does it make drivers more careful? Not really. They don't think of getting stuck in an intersection the same way as running a red light . . . and with a 3-4 week delay, the impact is lost.

Someone mentioned 'incidents'. The reality is that it shouldn't be about 'incidents' of running the light. It should be about accidents and whether the camera will help with that.

The reality is that most Photo radar is in areas where speed limits are slow enough that it becomes a danger to drivers . . the 85th percentile free-flowing rate for many of Quebec's new cameras has been posted - and it is usually 10-25 kph higher than the posted limit.

This doesn't call for cameras, it is a call to raise the speed limit to the safest rate.

But that won't happen, because it is only about the revenue.

Some people think these cameras are a good idea. I suspect that the large majority of opinions on this issue will tend to follow political leanings. Folks who think government control and power are good, are more likely to support things like red light cameras.

But where do we draw the line on electronic monotoring? should we put a monitor in every car that tracks the speed and issues citations automatically? And why stop at monitoring cars? How about a chip imbedded in each citizen that keeps track of location, all financial transactions (for tax purposes and crime control), proximity to certain persons or places (to inforce restraining orders), and real-time health condition.

The same arguments used to support the red light cameras will work just as well for these other systems. You lose your freedom a piece at a time, so slowly that you do not notice it is slipping away.

That is the way of the future. Politicians are going the easy way, They are taking freedoms away to implement ways to cash in. I see those companies managing red light cameras with a big percentage of the price of the ticket. Contracts are given to those who show how they increase revenue and disregard safety. Many of these companies temper with the time yellow is on to issue more tickets.

[/quote]
You refuse to pay parking tickets too, don't you?
[/quote]

Parking tickets can be really funny think too. Years ago, when I was working for company in Chicago we were hold at work until about 1 am. When we finally went outside to go home we met cop writing parking ticket for my friend's car. It was a parking ticket. As it happens there was no parking signs for this street (due to street cleaning) from 9am or something around this time for this day. On ticket cop of course put violation time for... 10am. When challenged he just said "honest mistake" and tear up ticket.
On other occasion I was ticketed for parking without feeding park meter. Funny thing was that on parking meter was sign that paid parking is from 6am to 9pm. I was ticketed at midnight. When I challenged ticket I was told that I had to pay anyway, because from 9pm to 6am I can't park on this street or I can park if I feed meter. Funny thing is that there is no signs prohibiting parking in any way.
So how about "honest" parking ticket? That's the reason you cannot basically challenge them. I don't know about you but since then I look at parking tickets differently.