Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

If they turned all the money collected over to designated charities and allowed voters in that city/town/county/state to vote on it I would be less hateful of these hidden tax machines. Since it's all about safety there should be no incentive to make a penny on them and in fact the city/group putting them up should pay all expenses and since it's all about safety there should be no problem with tax dollars being used to pay for this great safety and life saving mechanism. Unless of course it is about the money

I always do this on interstates.

I'm mixed on them.

The only good thing about RLC tickets are that they are not part of the driving record and would not increase your insurance rates.

The sheep is probably happy they only lose their wool and not their head (whole body) at Thanksgiving like the turkey. I'm not saying their isn't one but can someone point me to a single peer reviewed study done by any group that has NEVER received a single dollar from anyone or any group that has ever made a profit from installing or the use of these cameras that they improve safety or save lives?

But the people whom run red lights are worse.

NYC Police on a doughnut run?

Get the driver by penalizing them by suspending their license not getting their money

It's the way the authorities are using the cameras.
They are being used used to calculate speeds over 7 km or 10km /hr In my case it was 60km and one goes 70km because usually speed limit is 70km/hr never 60km/hr I obtained $150 ticket.

I usually hardly speed and never got ticketed even for last 7 years of parking never mind speeding or any accident in over 20 years.

I am human and sometimes when you come down a hill without pressing gas and take advantage of the gain to offset the over priced gas well are you to keep pressing the brakes to make sure you are not 5 or plus km/hr suddenly with a camera ready to snap at you at 7 to 10km hr over the limit is $150 really is it all that fair?.
Camera's are from intelligent but the people that install them are the judges just hand out you are guilty how does one argue that?. For the split second one persons car goes little high the ticket is instant non debatable practically.

The owner of the car gets fined not tickeded with a red light camera. No points are added to driving record. When a cop pulls you over the driver of the vehicle gets the ticket, points added to record, Drivers record is pulled up and other fines or jail might result. Which way would you have it? Can't eat your cake and have it also!

CONCUR

This is just a way of increasing tax revenue.

#1 There should be a law that the Yellow should be a set time at all red lights. (depending on speed of traffic)

It is not right that at one the yellow is 4 second and the next it is 1 second or less.

#2 There is growing evidence that Red Light Cameras INCREASE the amount of accidents at a given intersection!!!!!!

#3 I am against the goverment spying on people.

Amen to that. You are seeing more and more Cities turning off their red light camera programs. Yes, you still have Cities adding them, but more and more people are taking Cities to task as like here in Naples they find out that instead of the selling point that they will stop T-Bone accidents (running straight through red lights, they were issuing more and more tickets for right turns on red. It was comical to view a Deputy stating in a hearing that the "wheel of the car had turned 1/2 inch thus running the redlight."

+1

Red light cameras are not all that bad. However, lying about why you have them is. We have a number of places here in the Chicago burbs, with RLC's to ensure you wait the mandated 5 seconds before you turn right on red. A lot of people, myself included, simply wait unti the light turns green. Nobody has ever gotten bent over it, and I suspect if they were at the light they'd do the same thing. I don't see how this can't help but kill the profits from the cameras.

Huh? Where is this the law? I've been living and driving in the Chicago area since the mid-1970s, and I have never heard of this standard. I'm not doubting you, I'm genuinely asking, where is this the law? Do they have signs up about it?

Very interesting...............ignorance of the law is no excuse!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk

Need I say More?

Yeah, you should say more. What possible point could you be raising?

That is a crazy old video. It was posted here years ago, likely on this very thread.

The redlight camera sends out 150,000 unwarranted tickets for minor infractions between the egregious violations in that old video.

The money is mostly made by out of state vendors. If any fines are gonna be paid by people locally, at a minimum I want most of the money to go to defray my local taxes. Not to some out of state ticket camera vendor.

In Fullerton, CA the fine was something like $328. The city got $35. The courts and the vendor kept the rest. I told the chief and the city council how ridiculous I thought that was. They eventually took them out.

I want to face my accuser. If the cops want to write me a ticket I will sign it. I don't want any machine run by a vendor sending me a ticket in the mail.

I thought we had established all this.

if the machine was owned and operated by your municipality, then you would have no problem with cameras, especially if the revenue went to defray local taxes.

Here are some conclusions recently released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/red-light-cameras...

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html

Your thoughts?

They're an annoyance to many drivers but the evidence is indisputable....they save lives.

I for one find myself being much more cautious due to them. They broke me of a bad habit.

Nothing but a revenue generator for the local government.

Let us all pass the word not to run any bloody red lights, so the bloody politicians will squirm until they can find some other source of income. It seems to me if we don't run the stinkin red lights in the first place, there is no problem. Except for the money hungry politicians.

I never have gotten a red light ticket. Though I have made up for it by earning my fair share of speeding tickets. And guess what, I WAS speeding, every damn time. And to think of all the times I never got caught. I really can complain all that much. Just slow the *&^&* down and don't blow and &*%&^ red lights. If you do, oh well shit happens.

If an accident occurs the red light camera can identify the vehicle or vehicles that was speeding or went through the light.

Good luck to all.

Red Light Cameras Are All That Bad. My opinion.

In today's Orange County Register, an article appeared stating Red Light Cameras are helping drivers remember that "RED" means stop and are saving lives according to a new study out on Tuesday by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The study reported a reduce rate of fatal crashes by 24% in 14 cities

I'd certainly feel better about it, yes. I am still against automated enforcement. I still like to face my accuser. But with most of the money going to a private company, that's just wrong.

Why should the government give access to the legal system to a private company to make money? I am against that.

you are cought by them!

When I learned to drive, years ago, a YELLOW light meant to slow down, and that a RED light would follow. I still remember that, and try to follow that every day. I have never gotton a ticket for running a red light...in 50 years oif being behind the wheel, and that's in California!

When we are cought by a "red light camera" who/what do we blame...why we blame the "camera" when it is really our own fault because we were texting, speaking on the phone, reading the morning/evening paper, eating a burger/taco, or even, believe it or not, a bowl of breakfast cereal in the morning. People it seems are always late, late to work, late for an appointment, etc. Oh, I forgot, we also assign blame to the state/city/county for installing these damned things in the first place!

I'm not saying they're not a pain in the arse, they are, but be more aware that you have a deadly weapon in your hands, an automobile, and it can kill. Are we all so important that we have to speed through a yellow light so we won't get cought on a red light...and have to wait an additional 90 seconds? I don't have the answer, but it appears many of you do....this was just my opinion, I speak for no one else, that I know of...

cameras are simply a replacement for expensive police officers. You can't have the latter on every corner but you can the cameras. Should work very nicely for catching indiscreet adulterers

if you don't run red lights in the first place.

Some old and some fairly new. Favorite is the fire trucks.
SCAREY !! Kind of makes you want to stay at home !!! WOW!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk

Some really nasty stuff there.

But I'm glad the cameras are there to make it all "safer"..... wait.... no. That was the patrol car pulling one of those morons over after running the light. I think we need more cops

Yeah, you aren't kidding. That video's an eye opener. But what I take away from that video is the reminder to never assume that just because I have the green light or the right of way that every driver coming the other way recognizes that I do. A lot of accidents were avoided or minimized in that video because good drivers were paying attention.

Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

No, I guess not as long as your GPS gives you advanced warning . At least in GA there is a 4 second yellow requirement and any intersection that has the same or higher incident of accidents after the RLC, the RLC goes. GDOT has to approve all installation plans and they are getting picky.

in addition to the 4 sec yellow, is there an all red for some seconds?

we have 4 sec yellow and then and all red (both ways)for 2 sec

The tickets generated by red light cameras can not have demerit points attached because they can not prove who was driving (usually).

Therefore it is a just a tax and not a deterrent. I know many officers and the deterrent is being stopped by an officer, waiting for your ticket and the delay this causes. The demerits that are incurred are also a deterrent. This hit to your time and pocket book over the longer term due to the demerrits will change behavior. Plus the actual process of being stopped may uncover other things like unsafe equipment, illegal activity etc.

Increasing the Tax on an item (like cigatettes, or soft drinks) is often touted as a way to reduce usage. Is that not a deterrent?

I see too many drivers ignoring red lights. I think RLCs will decrease the number of drivers running red lights.

Local politicians considered red light cameras. Their conclusion as reported was: “Our statistics don’t show a lot of accidents where running a red light was responsible, and just balancing that with the expense of red light cameras, the assistant city manager’s recommendation a year ago was that we don’t have a compelling reason to install them in Auburn.”

yea man, they're bad, real bad.

A local NJ mayor is pushing to install cameras at 3 bad intersections that I know of, and I have to agree.

Of banning rlc's thanks to the state legislature switching to Republican control for the first time in 120 years. Cities, like mine, that violated the ban would be charged with a misdemeanor. That would be a great victory - locking up the money grubbing bureaucrats for a change. Let's hope for this change at least.

GC

I am in favor of the cameras, IF, a reasonable profit is allocated to the supplier with a gradual decrease in their revenue and that increment going to driver education. I see 2 - 3 cars a week accelerate through the intersection when the light turns yellow. THEY had time to stop.....It is always in the morning when school buses are running and more times than not it is a driver with a cell phone to the ear. So here is my idea, if the picture shows the run with a cell phone in hand the driver looses a license for 30 days. Cause the bigger issue here is the cell phones!

Another article to prove red cameras sole purpose is to generate revenue. http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/news/local/westminster-off...

Of course, everyone is free to intrepret articles as they please, but to infer that this article "proves" that "the sole purpose is to generate revenue" seems biased.

What I got was that the red lights were working as intended - reducing accidents - but this small town would keep them only if the revenue covered the cost of the program. No question that revenue is a big part of their decision but to claim sole purpose can in no way be inferred from the article.

The accident reduction was impressive but not statistically significant based on the limited time frame and only two cameras.

Decide for yourself:

"Westminster's red-light camera program will continue as long as fine revenue exceeds the cost to run it, officials said.

"We hope the word keeps spreading and people don't run the lights," Frischkorn said. "But, with people being people, they are in a hurry to go somewhere and they think they can beat the light and that's how they end up getting caught."

...in an article today, about NC being one step away from banning cameras across the state. Local bureaucrats primary lament: 'what about all the $ we'll lose?' As an after thought they briefly said, 'oh yeah, safety...'

Throw the bums out at every chance you get.

GC

I looked for articles that matched the earlier post

http://www.carynews.com/2011/04/13/31569/red-light-cameras-i...
This one seemed to be quite positive with the numbers presented. However it did have this statement “Critics say the cameras cause rear-end collisions when drivers slam on the brakes to avoid a ticket. East cited an N.C. A&T State University study that blamed cameras for increasing crashes. ”
I could not find the N.C. A&T State University study but will keep looking.

http://www.wwaytv3.com/2011/04/06/nc-senate-considers-red-li...
This article was also positive although it cited no statistics. This was about the only statement “we've seen a great reduction in traffic accidents in those intersections where we have those red light cameras.” Wilmington Police Officer Craig Melville said”

http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/2011/04/06/bill-introd...
This article was critical but cited no statistics nor did it mention revenue.

http://banthecams.org/201104071070/NC-Red-light-camera-ban-z...
This article was critical but muted. It said for instance that “some studies show the cameras don't prevent accidents at intersections and may even increase them” but that is hardly a statement on which to make decisions.

This article also said “Banning cameras from Wilmington would impact funding for New Hanover County Schools, as most of the revenue from the cameras goes to the schools.”

http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=14399388
In this article, the New Hanover County Schools Chairman Don Hayes is concerned about the school system's budget if the red light cameras are no longer used. He says they're expected to receive at least $600,000 from the program this year.