4 weeks, 10,000 traffic tickets

I have nothing bad to say about red light camaras. Drive according to the speed limit and drive defensively (ie.If you anticipate light turning yellow, slow down to stop rather than try to speed through to beat the light). I have very little sympathy for people who complain after they are caught by the camara.

They won't have to raise taxes and caught alot of lawbreakers...

It sounds like there is more going on here than that.

Some places it was found that the yellow was too short (on purpose??). Other places, they were tagging people making a legal left turn after the light changed; in others they were getting people making a proper right turn on red.

It would be interesting to know how this turns out in the end.

The yellow light does not mean you should stop or not enter the intersection. The Yellow light just means that the signal is changing from green to red. When the red light appears, you should not enter the intersection, not when the yellow appears.

At least in Illinois according to the Illinois "Rules Of The Road" booklet.

Glad you have such confidence in the government, I don't. There have been cities caught creating short yellow lights to drive up revenue at camera intersections. My city, Houston, had the mayor get involved in "adjusting" a report about car wrecks at these intersections so it told the "story" he wanted told.

I've been driving for 37 years and have never had a ticket or a wreck, and don't plan on starting now. However, I prefer to have my GPS give me a heads up as I approach these revenue generating situations so I 1) avoid paying the tax in spite of questionable yellow light lengths and 2) avoid being hit from behind at the same time.

When San Diego first starting using the red light cameras, they were forced to withdraw 15,000 red light tickets. You see the vendors had shortened the yellow light to maximize income. In the end the vendor was forced to give up control of the devices, and turn control and timing back to city traffic engineers.

And still to this day they lose a high percentage of the cites because the vehicles are lawfully in the intersection when the picture is taken.

...but they say it's not about generating revenue, so it should have no impact on raising taxes....which will probably go up anyway.

Well, I'll bet no city would spend the money to install cameras if the cameras didn't pay for themselves and generate revenue.

It would be interesting to see the statistics on the particular intersections in regards to accidents, violations, etc.

IMO taxes are going to go up, no matter what. Government doesn't have enough brains to decrease spending when income decreases. They just raise taxes.

Very naive to think the only people getting red light camera tickets are violating the traffic code. There are numerous instances of light timing being changed and tickets given for non-violations.

Red light cameras generate revenue when people break the law... if the law is fair. Yellow lights should not be shortened, and in reality they don't have to be. Poor drivers don't have the brains to stop at red lights and the municipality will receive increased funds.

The real problem is that driving through red lights can kill people.

Cameras are use to generate revenue period. If they need revenue they should raise taxes or cut services.

Let those that break the law pay for the necessary increases. I think they are great...(until I get a ticket of course) Let us not forget it would be stupid to spend a considerable amount of money for the cameras and not have them pay for themselves. Law abiding citizens don't have a problem with them...It would be a lot simpler to have the police issue more tickets to get revenue if that was all they were installed for. Police use radar guns to catch speeders. Why isn't anyone complaining about that...I just don't understand why so many are up tight and worried about the cameras creating extra revenue...so what!!!! Don't run red lights and you won't have to worry...

I actually went through this area shortly after the cameras were activated, on a day trip to see some historic sites. So far, no ticket yet, but it is definitely set up as a speed trap. One of the cameras is getting the majority of hits. It is set up right at the edge of town where the speed limit changes from 50 to 35. The road is a wide 4 lane highway in a rural setting where it is not obvious you entered a city, aside from the small signs. The camera was not in the file at the time I went through so I had no idea it was there, but I may have lucked out since I was actually looking for a nearby historic marker and was going fairly slow all things considered. I normally don't try to speed, but the speed limit was not well marked and the road looks like the speed limit should be higher. It would be very easy for a reasonable person who trys to obey the law to get caught up in this trap. Knowing this, I feel very sorry for anyone who got a ticket in this area, whether it was photo enforced or otherwise.

Common sense tell me when I drive into a small town, I have to look for posted speed limit. If you don't get caught by camera, there can be still old-fashioned COP hiding somewhere. So, why blame this on camera?

What I can see is, there are multiple cameras along rt-79, that can explain multiple tickets if someone never reduce to legal speed when pass this town. They should change the driving habit, IMO.

My area (Seattle - Tacoma) despite tons of traffic cameras, cops riding on motorcycle hiding every corner, freeway ramp just for one reason: giving you speeding ticket!

Hmm . . . I wonder at the legality of issuing multiple tickets along a single stretch of roadway.

Certainly when stopped by an officer, you are ticketed for the offense of exceeding the limit. You have been informed and can then proceed. If you speed again and are stopped again that is a separate offense.

However, if the officer chose to follow you and THEN stop you it is only a single ticket, even if you drove in excess of the limit for a half hour.

In the case of speedcams, it is a single offence for which you would have been ticketed multiple times.

Sounds like double jeapardy to me.

This is a set up. You would not know you were even in a town at the location where the camera is. It's nice countryside, but the city limits must extend outward. Since you obviously aren't getting it, I will repeat, any reasonable person who was trying to obey the law could easily get caught by this the way it is set up, especially if you are from out of town and don't know about it. It is no accident that there were that many violations. The signs are poorly done. I came into "town" from a side road and saw NO signs, ie. speed limit, photo enforcement is here, you are in this town, etc. I happened to notice the cameras after I went through an intersection, so I looked it up online when I got home. Also, I agree that there are alot of cameras on one small stretch of road.

10,000 tickets in 4-weeks comes to about 15 tickets an hour, 24-hours a day.

(10,000 tickets/28-days = 375.1 tickets per day.)

(357.1 daily tickets/24-hours = 14.875 tickets per hour.)

That's one ticket every 4-minutes 24-hours a day.

(If you remove the mostly untraveled wee-hours of the morning, say, from midnight to 5AM; it works out to a ticket about every 3-minutes. I'll bet that's close to a ticket issued at every full, red-to-red traffic light cycle.) WOW!

I no longer turn right-on-red at posted red light camera intersections. I wait through the entire red cycle for the green light before turning right. I feel right-on-red turns are too much of a liability at those intersections equiped with enforcement cameras.

The option whether-or-not to turn right on red is completely at the driver's discretion. Right-on-red turns are not mandatory.

Yes, at busy intersections waiting through the red cycle causes more congestion as a line forms behind me. Some times quite a bit more. And, yes, I am usually honked-at. (I have - on a few occasions - later gotten the finger.) But, that is better than contesting a $100 ticket given in error. What indication or assurance do I (or you) have the camera is functioning properly?

Sorry to my fello drivers...I'm just not willing to take on that kind of liability just to help the traffic move faster.

As they say...eventually, no good deed goes unpunished. So, best not to even take the risk.

Get a photoshield protector from PhantomPlate... they work great... make sure you get one for the front and back...

Many intersections have countdown timers so pedestrians will know how much time they have until the traffic lights begin to cycle. I think these visual timers should be mandated at every intersection that has a redlight camera. Trying to anticipate when a light is going to turn yellow is ludicrous especially with the intersections that have shortened yellow lights that cause people to potentially drive erraticially because they are fearful about a light that may become yellow soon.

It's drivers like you that are selfishly following some misguided principle that affect other more aggressive drivers to challenge you to a traffic altercation. Follow the rules, but cooperate with society and you will stay under the radar of OCD drivers too. I think your behavior is unacceptible.

That is true countdown helps drivers and pedestrians, but is not good for revenue.
Many people are okay with increase fines for traffic tickets, because they don`t drive, but sooner or later they find themselves as drivers and they don`t like the the fines!
A couple of people I know sold the cars because they leave in the city with transit at the door.Since they don`t drive they are for increase in fines, because they see fines as individuals punishment for bad behavior and help slower the increase in property taxes.
Last week one of them was in need of a car for some delivery and ask a friend to borrow the car. What do you know he was stopped by the police in a 40 kph going 60 kph. We wouldn't`t know he had been caught if the car was his,but his friend was speechless knowing what he was saying about fines. He talk the talk but did not talk the talk.
Priest what you want, just don`t get caught doing the opposite what you are feverous about!

The entire population of Heath, Ohio is a little more then 8,000 people. I would assume that a few thousand of those are too young or old to drive which at best leaves about 5,000 drivers. And they get 10,000 tickets in 1 month.

Dear Redflex/Cash strapped communitys I would like to suggest you now install anti-social offender cameras to catch and fine people who will not turn right on a red and cause traffic congesstion. Please for the sake of the children think of the revenue and lower taxes you can leave for future generations.

If I am hiking in the mountains and come upon a rattlesnake lying across the trail; I don't care how narrow the trail, or how many people are waiting behind me - I am waiting for the snake to get off the trail (e.g. a green light) before I continue. Selfishness (or being anti-social) has nothing to do with it.

I believe my driver's manual says to leave those emotions at home when you get behind the wheel...

BTW...I am following the rules. Right-on-red turns are not mandatory. The option whether-or-not to turn right on red is completely at the driver's discretion. When I exercise that option I take ALL KNOWN RISK FACTORS into consideration. That includes the installed enforcement camera.

Seems the only rule for 'dave817' is "Get out of my way". Otherwise your not "cooperating with society".

Personally, I like a society that gives me options...I guess not everyone does.

If you're going to do that you'll need at least 3 cameras and some more equipment. But it's do-able...

You'll need a camera monitioring oncoming traffic from the driver's left to prove the driver was waiting for the light and not oncoming traffic. You will also need to define how long is too long to wait for oncoming traffic, and I would suggest somekind of marker (or lightbar across the road) downstream of oncoming traffic informing the right-turn driver of what is a safe interval of oncoming cars to merge. Not merging right, into traffic, with no cars within that marked distance is "anti-social" and subject to fine. (As a side benefit this arrangement allows one to also auto-ticket driver's for turning right without a safe interval of oncoming cars, too. A careless and reckless offence, also subjet to fine.)

"Congestion" will also need to be defined. (Let's say 5 or more cars waiting to turn right constitutes congestion.) A second camera will record the number of cars waiting to turn right. An illuminated counter display, visible to the right-turn driver, which informs the driver of the number of cars behind him/her, not be visible from the seated driver's position, will also need to be installed at the corner . (More than 5 cars waiting constitutes "anti-social" behavior and is subject to fine.)

The third camera will monitor the vehicle actually making the right turn and will be programed to recognise any other "anti-social" movements (also subject to fine).

All this should be sufficient to keep the driver within "social norms" without overloading the driver.

I would bring this up at your next city council meeting. All it requires is a little equipment and engineering. If implimented you will no longer have to worry about the likes of me...

Right on Red, where permitted, is optional, not mandatory.

I had a nutcase tailgate me for at least 5 miles when traffic was congested, all were close to the speed limit and there was no place to go. Turning on my flashers didn't back him off, nor did flashing my brake lights. Eventually in town, I turned off the main highway early to follow a local road home. This jerk turned at the next street to catch up with me and follow me to the next redlight. He got out of his car, but I didn't notice him until he slammed his hand on the roof of my car, backed up and was motioning for me to get out. I turned right on red and made a beeline for the police station. He followed me there. When I got out and headed for the entrance, he did too, with taunting calls all the way. As I touched the station door handle, I heard his truck door slam and he sped away. While I did nothing wrong, I ask myself, what if he had a gun? I'm just saying, keep a low profile and try not to PO other drivers with YOUR stubbornness.

No, right-on-red turns are not currently mandatory, but with a little equipment (and a simple change to the civil code) you can easily engineer it to be mandatory.

So what?
Get a ticket for breaking the law, just pay it and learn from it. And remember to update you POI-Factory Camera file poi often, Slow down, Stop on red and don't roll on right hand turns.

10,000 tickets should make that city a little safer.

Yes...You're right! In the future I'll try to accept more personal responsibility for the actions of those around me.

Thanks!

Huh, And?

Huh, And?

What don't you understand? ...A camera that enforces the mandatory right-on-red rule.

See my post above titled, "Move Along THX 1138". The hardwear and cameras would be easy to engineer, program and install on any street corner. Just make a simple change to the hosting community's current civil code making right-on-red turns compulsory instead of optional and you're good-to-go.

It's a win-win. The possibility of a little more revenue and moving traffic along faster.

(Installing these "enhanced mandatory right-on-red cameras" would create jobs, too.)

You should like the idea not having to wait behind someone at the red light.

If you like the idea mention it to your city councilman.

Is that so you can run red lights and not get caught?? It is amazing what people will do to beat the system...I think all crooks including bank robbers should have them so there vehicles can't be identified. Give me break.....

With a litte courtesy and common sense, this would NOT be a problem.....now would it ??

If you make very sure that you are complying with the laws regarding right-on-red, then you won't get cited......and if you DO, then you can help fix something that is broken.

Being "anti-social" is never a good thing.

so i guess your the same type of person that would have no problems with the government putting cameras inside of your home either.. that attitude of 'i have nothing to hide' or 'if you abide by the law' then you have nothing to worry about.. you are totally missing the concept of Liberty and freedom in this country. sounds like you are a Fox and Friends fan and you drink your floridated drinking water dont you.

So would you say you are an anarchist?

That is the only way to be truly free.

Which of the people participating in this thread are you referring to ?? A short quote would help a LOT.

If you are going to start playing personalities instead of issues, the least you could do is make it clear where your arrow is pointed !!

Sure, we can all get along. Problem is our ideas can not. What I consider "common sense" (not turning right-on-red at enforcement camera intersections) "dave817" considers "unacceptable, selfish" and a "misguided principle".

The only problem is the current laws provides that right-on-red turns are optional.

So, given that the option to turn right-on-red was unacceptable to "dave817"; I suggested a camera that not only compels motorist to stop at red lights, but also compels them to "GO" when making a right turn. All such an enhanced camera system would need is a little bit more equipment and a small change to each community's civil code making right-on-red turns mandatory. (I don't think anyone will fight an amendment making right-on-red turns mandatory...I even spelled out some added side benefits to such an enhanced enforcement system.)

Then, if everyone makes very sure they are complying with the laws regarding right-on-red, as you have suggested, there would be no problems. Correct? You MUST stop and - after doing so - you MUST go, if a clear space allows . If you don't do either (or both) you are sited and fined.

"Unacceptable" problem is solved. Right?

(Personally I don't like any of the cameras. I find them intrusive. But, it is as you say. I should lay those personal feelings aside. I should try to "help fix something that is broken". So, if the current right-on-red option is unacceptable then an enhanced camera enforcement system like I have described should be looked into.)

I want to help...I don't want to appear anti-social.

You know a government "safety camera" in the home is not such a bad idea. It would definitely cut down on domestic abuse, theft and the like. Make them voluntary. With a little engineering I am sure you could tie them in to the local cable system provider's infrastructure, or make it internet based. I'm sure accepting such a system into your home would dramatically cut your home insurance premiums.

I'll bet with the ability to activate it with the push of a "panic button" by the resident (or by the local police station) law enforcement could handle most police calls remotely, and not even have to drive out to the location. That would enhance safety and dramatically cut costs on manpower, equipment and the like.

Many people (mostly the affluent) already have cameras in their homes, and parents often use a baby monitor for their children...

Wow! What a story!

But, let me ask you this...If you did nothing wrong, how did you know he was following you for 'what you did not do'?

I agree somewhat, but slowing down to anticipate a light change really ticks off the gut behind you.

Feel so sorry for them!!!!

Let's see. I've never been caught by a redlight camera, got caught by a speed camera in Denver, got speeding tickets in Houston, TX, Denver, CO, and Boise, ID.

I've lived in a small town, and driven through many. Never got a speeding ticket in any of those.

During a citizen's academy in my small town, the police chief said that his department never sets up a stationary speed trap. The uniformed officers patrol the town, and check for speeders as part of their tasks. He claimed his resources are used better in patrol than in a stationary speed trap.

Come to think of it, the only place I've gotten a ticked from a speed trap was in metro Denver and Austin, TX. Everywhere else had been by a cruising patrol.

Public and private, there is a huge difference. what you do in you own House I could care less, what you do outside of it becomes public domain especially if your breaking the law.
And as far as Fluoridating community water supplies goes, at optimal levels, it's an effective and safe method for preventing tooth decay. Unlike Southern California, here in Cleveland we have all the water we want to piss away in any form we like even adding Fluoride to it then put it in the sewer or slash it out or swimming pools or even water our lawns everyday all day and even wash our car with it.

So slow down and stop for red lights, then don't be worried about the camera's spying on you. They are only there because of the elected officials of the majority have legislated them to be there.
Don't like the cameras, get off your BUTT and get people elected that will remove them, until then obey the law.

OBTW
sheeple Me? Not at all, and far from it.
I watch CNN & FOX and figure it out for myself, and above all obey the laws. But what I really want to know is, do you suffer from tooth decay or have false teeth?
I'm just curious.

One word comes to mind, ____ the guy behind me that it might tick off. However I can't say it or even type it in an open forum.
Wait I just did!

Poor Bob is brainwashed by the American Media!
You need to add some perspective to your diet, I would suggest a little BBC if you can get it. It is really interesting at times.

Now if I could only come up with something to write that is on topic......

Poor Bob, that's funny

Hey newbie, your not going to win so don't even try! But if you must try bring it on!

Now if you had been actually been reading the thread, you would have seen every thing I wrote was in this topic, so I was following it.

Seems to me you have envy! otherwise you would have said brainwashed by the media, because I got some NEWS for you, The BBC is pretty corrupt as well. But I guess your Media brain washed as well.

http://tinyurl.com/metq4k
Just a few BBC Bias sites for those interested.

As far as staying on topic:

This is what nansoutey had to say,
"sounds like you are a Fox and Friends fan and you drink your floridated drinking water dont you."

Fluoride added to water is a effective and safe method for preventing tooth decay

you can be one of the first to have the cameras installed thruout your house.