Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

Red light cameras going to court in Florida.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/22345716/detail.html

When I traveled through Tennessee recently I was surprised to see the local Sheriff candidates running and including red light cameras as part of their platform....for and against !!

Generally cops in Canada are pretty courteous, and don't come to your vehicle with their 9 MM drawn. However, all things considered, I don't have a major problem with RLCs, in Canada, since they haven't tweeked the yellow light to the point where you don't stand a chance. Quite frankly, the answer to both questions, is DON'T RUN THE RED LIGHT!!!

I see far too many people that think it's their God given right to run the Red, despite the fact that they had plenty of time to stop. When the light goes from Yellow to Red before their bumper crosses the Stop line, you know they had time.

There's also the driver that is at the Stop line or a foot past and still feel they can hold up traffic from the other side, by turning left when the light turns red, instead of waiting for the next light. No seems to realize that when everyone does that, we all lose.

The cop, actually. I don't run reds, but there have been a couple of times when it turned yellow when I was pretty close, but not quite close enough to stop (and not because of speed). Times like that, I've hated the disquiet of not knowing for *weeks* whether I actually did inadvertently, barely go through a red.

I actually prefer the cameras to a live police officer. The fine in my town for being caught by the camera is a good bit less than if a police officer stops you for the same offense. I presume that's because the camera citation is actually a civil action whereas the police stop would be a moving violation citation. Though they can be a nuisance in some cases, I'd like to see more of them because people are still rampantly running redlights at intersections where the cameras don't exist. I also wouldn't mind seeing some speed cameras here, although I'm not sure how they would be able to deal with that legally in my state, due to the language in the constitution.

You are quick to give up your rights to face your accuser.

I have the right to face my accuser in the constitution you mentioned.

I don't want some automatic machine run by a company working on commission to be sending out citations in the mail to make money off other people's misery.

If people are running red lights like you say, why don't the traffic engineers get out there and lengthen the yellow light time?

20 years ago that's what the traffic engineers would have done to solve the problem.

Then the government got the idea of switching to an enforcement basis rather than a safety and traffic engineering basis like it was before.

[quote=Steevo
If people are running red lights like you say, why don't the traffic engineers get out there and lengthen the yellow light time?

Yes yes and yes they are!!

Actually, you don't have the right to face your accuser for a traffic offense, except if that offense could result in jail time.

Well said. Unless the citation involves DWI/DUI, then, we would like to have offender faces the accuser.

You do in California, I thought all the states were the same. Are you saying there are some states where you can't fight a ticket?

If you get a citation from a police officer you get the officer standing there in front of you with the ticket for you to sign.

Then, if you go to court the officer has to be there or you win.

Face your accuser. I like that.

I have often read or heard this statement. However, I have never read any Constitution that guarantees such a thing. The State Constitutions that I have read seem to follow the US Constitution in that the right to face one's accuser is limited to criminal cases. I have not seen it extended to ALL cases.

I guess that the jurisdictions, that have enacted rlcs, take care to ensure the crime is designated as other than criminal.

Not in California. Red Light Cameras have license points. If you decide to go to court and the officer that signed the ticket doesn't show up you win. And a sworn police officer does sign each one.

I understand the speed cameras in Arizona are civil. That's the problem.

"Accuser" is more accurately "witnesses against him," though that may be a distinction without a difference.

From the Sixth Amendment: "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Still doesn't apply to traffic tickets, of course, unless the accused faces jail time.

Then you are for big surprise. It seems that increasing time of yellow makes less violations.

...city extended the duration of yellow lights in November. This engineering enhancement reduced the number of straight through violations to drop to near zero with the consequence that only citations for rolling right-hand turns remained...
...The number of left-turn violations dropped 80 to 85 percent from about 240 monthly violations to about 25 or 30 a month immediately after the change. Straight through violations were reduced 92 percent...
source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3055.asp

You have made a "selective" quote that happens to favor your position without giving the readers all the facts. The entire sentence reads "The council, on the other hand, was extremely pleased with the results of lengthening yellow lights by one second in November. The number of left-turn violations dropped 80 to 85 percent from about 240 monthly violations to about 25 or 30 a month immediately after the change. Straight through violations were reduced 92 percent."

I do not doubt what happened. What we do not know from the article is what the yellow light timing was before it was lengthened by one (1) second. thenewspaper.com makes a practice of selectively quoting from studies. Almost all of the studies they cite and selectively quote from actually concluded the opposite of what the website implied. Certainly, VIOLATIONS will - up to a point (in my opinion) - go down as timing is increased. If, for example the timing went from 1 second to 2 seconds, this is exactly what I would expect. For 2 to 3,or 3 to 4 same thing.

Nothing is cited about ACCIDENTS in the article.

This brungs me back to the question that I was asking. At what yellow light timing will the situation reverse?

Let's use Botox as an analogy. According to Wikipedia "Botulinum toxin is a medication and a neurotoxic protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, and is known to be very toxic. Despite its deadly toxic effect, it is sometimes used in very small doses to treat muscle spasms.Popularly known by its trade name, Botox, botulinum toxin is now commonly used in various settings for cosmetic procedures." A little is good, a lot is deadly.

I would like to have one of those doggy shock-collars to use every time a chief of police or mayor says the red light cameras are for "safety" and are in no way intended to generate money.

C'mon you government people. Tell us the truth for once. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

How's this:
"We need to generate more revenue and can't pass a tax. So we are gonna take your picture and send you a bill. Just maybe there will be less T-bone accidents but the rear-enders are probably going to go up. But we want your cash and don't have enough manpower to personally accuse citizens in the way the founding fathers intended."

So according to you, violations are not correlated with accidents? I have to understand, that creating situation where it is less possible to get red light violation doesn't - according to you - have influence for number of accidents? So why bother with yellow light, just go straight to red (or red only) as it doesn't apparently affects number of accidents, but can bring nice money). Seems like those people got to be suicidal, and cause those accidents no matter what.
Sorry, but for me is seems that you are the person who very carefully select facts to serve his own agenda.

Why would violations be directly correlated with accidents? I have to assume that mathematically there would be some correlation with straight through violations. But the article never mentioned accidents. But rolling-right-turn violations would not likely be correlated with accidents, would they?

I feel certain that, had there been any comments that could have been made about any correlation with accidents, thenewspaper.com would have reported it.

I do not think my comments should have been interpreted to mean that I thought that violations and accidents would not have some correlation. i am sure that there are correlations. However, I would be willing to wager that such correlations would be co-dependent on a number of factors - including speed limit, sight lines, time of day, level versus inclined roads, rural versus city, weather, and I am sure your could add more co-dependencies if you thought of it.

I quoted no fact - other that the article not mentioning accidents. I can not agree that I " the person who very carefully select facts to serve his own agenda."

With regard to red light cameras, Bill O'Reilly said, "Who wants to live under THIS!"

dobs108

Yep. It was something like "Who wants to live in a country where the government is grasping at our money any way they can get it."

They make sense for the city because they cause increased income but in the end they seem to cause more problems than good.

I thought this was the knock on those socialist countries (also known as the rest of the developed nations who take all their citizens money) so where is the commentator going to go?

So you say, that there is no correlation between accidents and violations. That is very interesting, as every accident is a violation of some traffic law. But not every violation case accident, true.
But in this case it seems that - according to your theory - all those laws were made to create violation of o running or turning are purely made to give authorities reason to make money on made-up "safety issue". How then this law can stand, unless we accept that it's only fair for government to make bogus laws just to increase revenue? But if we agree, that they made us into "criminals" because they just need money than all this discussions about laws is moot. They can just made up whatever rules they want, and there is nobody who should ask any questions. Gov. needs money, so let's criminalize something that people do and we all happy.
And as for cherry picking fact I see you are doing this all the time, accepting. So let me ask: if there is no correlation between violations and accidents what is the point to ticket people for violations? If this doesn't prevent accidents, than it must be done as purely money making shakedown.
But if violations are correlated with accidents than why cities opt against simply extending duration of yellow light, as it seems to eliminate most violations and - in consequence - accidents? And most of those other factors you mentions as accident prone (and I agree with you on them) can be offseted by proper yellow light timing, as it simply gives driver more time to react. But shortening yellow light to or below bare minimum of residential road can hardly be called anty-accident practice. But surely can make good money for interested people.

grzesja,

Let’s go back a step: I asked the question “Why would accidents be directly correlated with violations?” because that seemed to be what you were assuming. I supported this by asking about rolling right-turn violations which, to me, would have very little correlation with accidents.

I do not see haw you could impute to me that “all those laws were made to create violation of o [sic] running or turning are purely made to give authorities reason to make money on made-up "safety issue".

Let me discuss traffic laws a bit. Starting with most parking tickets on expired meters, I think that we can agree that safety is not the issue. What likely is the issue is that merchants want some limited amount of parking time on the meters near their establishments so that potential customers can get access to the store. I do not discount that making money might be something the municipality thinks about, but given the very large number of citizens in the town in which I live who have accumulated over one thousand dollars in unpaid parking fines, that might not be a reason. Turning to other traffic laws, consider the speed limit in school zones. The municipality is surely not on a “money grab” here - the response is to the teachers and parents who are concerned for children’s safety. Consider “no parking fire lane” violations. is this a “money grab” or an attempt to make sure that a fire truck can get close enough to a building to quickly put out a fire? Consider DUI tickets - aren’t drunk drivers a safety hazard? Surely you will agree that someone driving ninety miles an hour in a thirty mile an hour zone is a safety hazard. They would be unlikely to stop for a red light.

Now, there will be situations where “violations” will be correlated with ‘accidents”. You indirectly mentions some. let’s take a situation where a municipality decides to SHORTEN yellow light timing to below that recommended by associations of traffic engineers. There is surely some timing that even a cautious motorist runs a higher risk of being in or causing an accident.

I have in my various posts always backed proper yellow light timing as well as an “all red” timing for every light at an intersection. I hope I am not reading your comments to imply otherwise. I also have stated that it is improper when municipalities “play” around with timing with a goal of increasing revenue.

Like this thread, I try to point out where it is, or is not, proper to make correlations between the various factors involved in the issue of photo cameras and claims of safety.

My posts (and this whole topic) were about red light cameras and violations correlated to them ONLY. I didn't mention any other form of violations, so I don't know how parking, DUI or any other violations are related to this topic. So I don't really see reason, why you bring examples totally unrelated to the topic that is discussed here.
And if turning on red is not that dangerous (I agree with you on this) like gov. is saying, then what it is even a violation? Because it is best money generator. And that was question about cameras in this topic. And yes, they are bad, and are bad because of way they are being used and because of tendency in cities to create more dangerous crossing, but with nice revenue for city and RLC companies.

I stand by what I said earlier: if instead of proper engineering road crossing gov. put cameras and often goes against advice of traffic engineers, than for me it is purely only money grab and nothing else. And when they on purpose making crossing into more dangerous just to increase revenue from tickets it is simply criminal.

As example: The city of Alexandria has shortened the duration of the yellow light at a busy intersection. This scheme risks lives in a shameless attempt to increase profits from red-light cameras...

Timing is in par with minimum federal limit. But:
...In its first dalliance with robotic ticketing in November 1997, Alexandria placed cameras at the intersection of South Patrick and Gibbon streets with the yellow time set at three seconds, the shortest time allowed under federal regulations. Tickets piled up, with about 80 percent of the violations taking place less than a second after the light turned red. By March 1999, there had been no increase in safety, and the yellow timing at this location was quietly increased to four seconds. That extra second gave drivers the time needed to clear the intersection, and violations immediately plunged 80 percent. (...) The Washington Times verified that Alexandria officials have now shortened the yellow time at the intersection back down to just three seconds - the timing that produced so many violations in 1997. Worse, the Virginia Department of Transportation, under Gov. Tim Kaine's administration, certified this reduced timing as appropriate...

even when
...The Virginia Transportation Research Council exploded the red-light-camera safety myth by documenting a 29 percent increase in collisions following Alexandria's original camera experiment...

source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/04/alexandrias-...

[quote=grzesj
I stand by what I said earlier: if instead of proper engineering road crossing gov. put cameras and often goes against advice of traffic engineers, than for me it is purely only money grab and nothing else. And when they on purpose making crossing into more dangerous just to increase revenue from tickets it is simply criminal.

While I still ask the correlation question, I generally agree with your statement above. On the assumption that the editorial cited has given all the pertinent facts, then it would appear to be a money grab by Alexandria. Three seconds is a minimum yellow light timing and is inadequate for certain speeds.

OK, there it is again: I don't understand how that can be. How is it possible to avoid entering an intersection on yellow? You drive towards a green light, traveling the 40mpg speed limit. Twenty feet from the intersection, it turns yellow. It would be utterly impossible to stop in time, even if you have lightning-quick reflexes, a Porsche, and you stand on the brakes. Nothing the driver could have done, even in preparation, could prevent him from entering on yellow.

Further, what if you enter the intersection on a green to make a left, then complete your turn when it turns red and the intersection finally empties?

about the traffic laws in DC being logical? What is written doesn't cover all situations hence, what is enforced may or may not comply with the law as written.

i say yes. there seems to be more accidents in areas where red light cameras are just because drivers who do know the red light camera are there tend to stop short on yellow while the newbies of the area tailgate and end up hitting the car. you could always fight a police ticket..... some times u win most times u lose red light camera = lose lose lose

the camera that someone stops for or the idiot following too closely?

...if the jurisdiction running them doesn't tinker with the timing of the yellow signal. I think it's OK even if the primary purpose is raising funds. After all, thats what radar traps were for, as well as was the old fashioned cop car behind the billboard. It's only when they manipulate things to cause "law breakers" that I find objectionable. An example that comes to mind is where stop signs are intentionally placed where they're difficult to see until you're actually on them. I was ticketed long ago for running a stop sign at a highway intersection while passing through a town. The sign was hidden by a large tree next to the highway some 20 feet in front of the sign. The cop was hiding on the other side of the intersection behind a sign in a parking lot.

In the meantime, jurisdictions find all sorts of ways to fund their operations, including property taxes, fees, and licenses, that some find excessive and objectionable. "You can't please all of the people all of the time..."

Only bad if there main purpose is to generate revenue.

This was an interesting comment - and one with which I would without a lot of thought have probably agreed with. However, in recent days a number of us have been debating conclusions drawn from incomplete or unknown facts, so I had "facts on my mind" when I read your comment.

Would you be willing to allow photo cameras where the primary purpose was to produce revenue but the follow-on data gathered over a statistically long enough period indicated that safety had improved sufficiently that most citizens would agree that it (safety) had done so?

Here's an article just listed in Illinois.....

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/2216018,n...

Law seeks to monitor red-light cameras
Comments

April 29, 2010

From Submitted Reports
Legislation sponsored by state Rep. Darlene Senger, R-Naperville, aimed at protecting against potential abuses related to red-light cameras, has passed the Illinois House and is headed to the governor's desk.

"I'm pleased this legislation passed, and we'll be able to see if there is a reduction in the amount of innocent people burdened by the nuisance of having to deal with undue red-light convictions," Senger said in a press release. "Our intent is to curb the ability of local government to use red-light cameras simply as a revenue stream."

RELATED STORIES
• Boosters of red-light cameras hear from critics
The legislation sets mandatory criteria for awarding red-light citations by requiring that all citations be reviewed and verified by a law enforcement officer employed by the municipality or county issuing the citation. Currently, state law does not require that a sworn officer be involved in the process.

The only exception will be in Cook County or the city of Chicago. While there will still be visual confirmation required for verification there, the restrictions are a bit more flexible on the individual making the determination, Senger said.

The bill also eliminates the ability of a municipality to require an additional fee to be charged for an administrative hearing. The legislation further requires:

• That counties and municipalities using red-light cameras make a recorded image of the violation accessible via the Internet.

• That the municipality or county provide notice to drivers by posting the locations of the cameras on their website.

• That the cameras not be used to issue a ticket in instances where the vehicle comes to a complete stop, but does not enter the intersection.

• That an intersection equipped with a camera must have a "yellow light" change interval that conforms to the Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (three to six seconds).

• That information collected by a municipality or county using cameras to conduct a statistical analysis to assess the safety impact be made available to the public.

yes they are bad, just an easy way for municipalities to make money.

I agree fv, and I wouldn't trust any statistical information that is collected by the municipalities. Our safety is secondary to the bottom line of a balance sheet.

Sometimes the infractions would not be infractions if they were seen by a police officer. Red light cameras only see black and white.

I just saw this on youtube and decided to share with everyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk

Did you notice how many of the accidents were left turn on green?

Ouch!
Interesting how more than a few of the accidents were exactly what I objected to: a person stopping properly only to be rear-ended by some idiot.

I think I saw what seemed like the flash of a RLC on some.

ouch

Shocking! There must be several dead people in this bunch of accidents. This is too much for red light cameras to take care of; we need red light bazookas!

dobs108

The more people stop, the more pollution and wasted fuel burning contributes to the Global Climate Change problem. Simple steps, like allowing rolling right turns on red with yield signs keep traffic moving better than vehicles idling away, drivers too afraid of the red light camera to turn, blocking everyone behind them too. And the momentum lost by a complete stop has to be used up to get back to the rolling speed where a driver can safely merge with cross traffic.

At times they are, but at least they aren't everywhere just yet...

When is enough enough, when it comes to raising revenue in the name of traffic safety? It's pretty conceivable that it it is now or would soon be possible to set up a way of automatically monitoring speed along roadways every quarter-mile and issuing tickets to speeders. Is that okay? Do you want to be getting tickets in the mail every time you commit a minor traffic infraction?

Sure, we've all seen people who blew through a red light two seconds after it turned red. Maybe many of us have had to take action to avoid having an accident when someone else made a bonehead move like that, and wished that the driver had gotten a ticket for such a stupid move. But for every one of those, there are 20 or more drivers who have a very minor stop line or not-quite-kosher right turn on red violation that endangered no one, and that's what leads traffic light camera opponents to believe that the real issue is municipal money and not safety.

So the myth of global warming now gives us an excuse to run red lights. Incredible!!!

Even worse, the other day the myth of "gravity" gave someone an excuse for why my coffeemaker was on the floor, shattered. The things people come up with!