Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

If so, then is is not about revenue for the municipality, is it?

If the services I listed are fully covered by those you list (which, of course, is far from a complete listing), then why has the public sector had to lay off so many teachers?

In most places (like Florida) the Schools expenditures are covered by property taxes and that includes teacher’s salaries.

As you well know we are having a crisis in the real state market, foreclosures galore and abandoned houses in every block, less homeowners = less taxes collected = less money for schools

That is the excuse given to teachers, property tax collections are down therefore we can’t give you a raise or have to lay you off.

Lately the word TAX has become very unpopular and politicians know it, savvy that they are and interested in being re-elected is one reason they have switched to fees, tolls and fines to generate revenue, they can waste that money however they wish (stadiums, new roads) something they can tell their constituency come election time “look what I built for you”.

I wonder how much of Florida's total school funding is covered by local property taxes.

Assuming Florida is similar to other states, funding for schools comes from local, state and federal sources. Does Florida still have a lottery that contributes to school funding?

States are required to balance their budget and I believe this fact and the recession have reduced revenues.

Interesting that you would categorize "new roads" as something that politicians can "waste" money on.

Schools here are funded by property taxes of which we get a Homestead Tax exemption of $25k and if you are a senior $50K, the lottery also kicks in money, in fiscal year 2010-2011, the Florida Lottery transferred more than $1.19 billion to the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund

As far as wasting money on new roads perhaps I should had explained what I meant, most politicians will rather have a photo op cutting a ribbon on a new road that may or not be needed http://bit.ly/wJkx7G opposite fixing pot holes or widening existing roads.

Do I sense a tinge of disappointment on your part with regards to States being required to work with a balance budget?

Wisconsin does not have RLC. Gov Scott Walker is controlling budget by reducing spending. I think the Wisconsin citizens like that.

There is a bit of disappointment, but since I do not know of a way to ensure that deficits in state governments would be limited to extraordinary circumstances (say, natural disasters) and would last only for a very limited time, the balanced budget model is my choice.

I have seen and heard of people making an unsafe stop just to avoid the red light cameras

I have a strong issue with that blanket statement. It is not true in every state. It is the way the agreement is written by the municipalities and the camera company.
In Iowa the agreement is that the owner of the cameras puts them up for free and maintains them and gets a set fee for each violation approved by an officer of the law and the MAJORITY of the money goes into the municipal fund.
NO TICKET NO MONEY.

From the Des Moines paper

My understanding is that Walker balanced the budget entirely by spending cuts. We will have to see whether the fact that Wisconsin teachers got de-facto pay cuts has long term impact on Wisconsin.

In my opinion, the country as a whole should be doing what is necessary to pay teachers more (and work toward getting only the best). The statistics about how the United States ranks in education throughout the world is cause for alarm. If we do not properly education the next generation of workers, then we will lose out to those countries that do.

A camera is NOT the single best way to improve safety at intersections.
When the gov't talks about safety, they rarely talk about the design of the intersection, commercial density, traffic levels or light timing.
Who designed this hazardous area? How about a fine for them, or get them to re-design a safe roadway?

I'd be all for a valid study of items that make for a safe intersection. I doubt if "camera" makes the top 10.

Are you stating an intersection designed over 150 years ago should have anticipated the growth of the city, horses being replaced by autos and the very nature of the area surrounding the intersection changing from primarily residential to commercial is the fault of the designer? And just where do you expect to find the money to purchase the right-of-way to do a redesign and reengineering of the roadway and its intersections?

Box Car has already commented on the design aspect.

I just find it interesting that governments are being faulted for using cameras for revenue and at the same time being faulted for not using what revenue they have to re-design and re-work intersections with all the cost of land and road work which that would entail in order to avoid putting in cameras.

It is only about the free money and NOT safety, period.

I wish the studies were statistically stronger in their conclusions but most of the recent ones have shown marginal safety improvement.

Are many installations of cameras primarliy about the revenue? Yes.

Do they improve safety? Depends on the municipality, but for most reports that I have read - even from thenewspaper.com - there were some safety improvements.

If you are able to point to a recent study that says that cameras always reduce safety, then I will withdraw my objection to your unsupported "NOT safety, period." statement.

Each of us are entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. Can you support your statement with facts?

Yes it is. Just name one community that would agree to pay thousands of dollars a month to Redflex if Redflex would keep all the money.

There may be some but that is not the discussion. The question is whether or not there is a safety element to the cameras that are also generating revenue.

There have been several municipalities recently (as reported by thenewspaper.com) that did not renew their contracts because they were having to pay too much money for them. The budget crisis got to be too much for them, I suspose. Still, they had cameras.

Save someone from getting hurt by not running one. Too many people have been hurt or worse: maimed or kill by a vehicle running a red light. Enforcement has been lax. Ticketing vehicles for blatant abuse should be enforced by cameras or police. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it.

Good luck to all.

Looking at the posts on this page, safety is barely mentioned in this discussion. (Except your posts)

There is to much talk about safety when using cameras when actually one should be saying " Cameras are replacing police officers in catching traffic violators".
There is no difference in a police officer stopping a speeder and giving the person a ticket than a camera filming a person breaking the law and then sending him/her a ticket.
There used to be a fuss about how the police used radar several years ago but everyone got over it and now it is cameras so "GET OVER IT". They are here to stay.
No matter what they use to catch violators it is still police officers catching violators. I think that the word "safety" should be eliminated from the talk and "law violators " be substituted.

agree ...

Law violators yes. Points charged to DL no.

I have no problem with them. Maybe, just maybe, they might just make people think twice about running a red light. Of course, that's just IMHO... YMMV.

I agree that the money collected by these cameras do not benefit the community to the extent they should. The camera companies take the real profit.

Also agree with the safety pros and cons expressed as well.

This happened to me about 6 or 7 times last year alone, RLCs should be banned for this reason alone. I am currently in debt of about $34,345. This scenario happens ALL the time. Couldn't have said it better myself.

This happened to me about 6 or 7 times last year alone, RLCs should be banned for this reason alone. I am currently in debt of about $34,345. This scenario happens ALL the time. Couldn't have said it better myself.

@shrifty - are you saying that your car was stolen and got tickets?

If so, were you still held liable when you contested the tickets?

Even if so, why should these kinds of situations be cause to ban cameras?

I had the same thought - and should have just asked if you were tweaking the thread.

By the way, in some recent post, I saw a really good mitigating defense against running a red light. I meant to comment on it but didn't do so then so will do so now.

The circumstance was following a truck with lots of height - preventing the driver following the truck from seeing the traffic lights ahead. I found myself in this very situation (and I did not feel that I was driving too close to the truck)

I've been behind trucks and didn't feel it was too close, but as I was approaching a light, I was unable to see it. My theory is, if I can't see the light, I don't go through it. I think most people assume that if the truck is going through, then they can too. Problem is, when the truck passes through on yellow/red, you are as well.

There are other indicators that can be present such as ped crossing signals and the actions of other drivers. That's not to say they are always there, but if you notice the other drivers slowing when the truck keeps moving - or gathering speed...

You are defending yourself from running a red light because you were following the truck too close?

I'm never going to go through, or near, an intersection w/o being able to see the light before I go. Even if it's green, I always do a scan for the idiots that might run a red light an Tbone me. Years of motorcycle riding taught me look left, right, left and never assume that because opposing traffic has a red light they will stop.

I agree with you on this 100% and I will always say you need to stop at red light, stop signs, etc. I have been driving now for 48 years and got one speeding ticket at 18, but since then NOTHING.

Maybe if everyone isn't in such a hurry to get from one place to another then they do will slow down and have no problems. But that will never happen.

Yes indeed. Me too. There are lots of motorcycle riders in the cemetery who were in the right.

A good friend of mine has been a cop for a long long time. He gives out tons of tickets every day. He always say, "by receiving this ticket, it does not mean you have a fault, it is just my complaint against you, if you don't feel guilty, you can always seek legal advice from attorneys and go to the court." By the same token, It is very easy to get red light camera tickets dismissed. I have successfully done it few times.

I see in posts above some quotes attributed to me. When pwohlrab above used several embeded quotes, what I had said earlier got mixed up with shrifty.

My quote started with "By the way, in some recent post..." and ended with "... (and I did not feel that I was driving too close to the truck)"

Somehow, my quote got "shifted" to "shrifty"

What shrifty actually said was
"I've been behind trucks and didn't feel it was too close, but as I was approaching a light, I was unable to see it. My theory is, if I can't see the light, I don't go through it. I think most people assume that if the truck is going through, then they can too. Problem is, when the truck passes through on yellow/red, you are as well."

So what got into the post became

The words starting with "At least in California that example is a specific reason..." and ending with "...But from the picture I saw there was no way he could see the light." belong to Steevo

I think the words "You need to be in control of your vehicle at all times..." which are attributed to Steevo are actually the comments of pwohlrab.

Boy - keeping all this straight is hard!! I hope I myself got it right.

That all seems about right. Does get confusing doesn't it? Too bad the lines around each quote is not darker, it would make it easier.

And when you are answering in 'quote' mode, it is often difficult to keep track of who said what.

I know I am just starting to get old, but I was confused and asking myself, did I type that? I don't remember...

The thing is, we want to face our accuser.

I don't want a computer sending me a citation in the mail with purported evidence I am to accept at face value.

Evidence that was in most cases only gathered because a private company gets significant money from those violations. Without that money, they would not have been there in the intersection taking pictures that day.

Fortunately that was stopped in California.

No red light camera vendor can be paid by the citation in California. They cannot get a piece of the action.

Which keeps their hands cleaner and makes it much more difficult to run and pay for those systems.

So many of those have been taken out. And good riddance.

If you want to cite me, be prepared to hand me the citation and I will sign it. Then I will take pictures of the intersection, measure the whole thing if necessary and gather whatever evidence I feel necessary before I leave.

IMHO, the evidence was gathered in every case because someone ran a red light... not just because a private company gets money.

The same logic applies to parking tickets. There is no accuser to face then... the owner of the car is responsible to pay the fine. They have been around since 1936 and I haven't heard the same outrage about them. Of course, YMMV.

Yes they are. What's next from big brother?

Big brother is watching and is going to charge you for it

Not me, but I am saying that my understanding is that this is specifically covered in the California law as a reason the ticket should be dismissed. It might be similar in other states.

And watch your attributions, I didn't say that, someone else did.

Sorry. While answering a post with more than one quote in it, it is easy to get lost.

YOu can get carry away sometimes and read multiple posts and not know where to start off at.