Seattle RedLight Camera Illegal

Ae incorporated cities in Wash. exempt from state highway laws? I believe in MD cities can pass some laws that would not be in accordance with state laws, especially for roads that are not state highways. Anyone know actual legal limits?

I would think the best thing to do is leave the cameras in the data base until a decision is made from a higher court.
It's easy to say fight the ticket in court, but either way you loose. You have to figure what it costs to take off work to go to court sometimes it cheaper to pay the ticket just in cause it doesn't get tossed.

This is the kind of thinking that is encouraged by camera companies and greedy politicians. They want you to be inconvenienced to fight the ticket, so you are more likely to just pay it, even if you are innocent. It's a racket. I would fight any of these things just on principle.

Here's a revolutionary idea, stop for the red lights and it will be a moot point. Why are people more interested in the legality or illegality of cameras and don't seemed concerned about idiots who have no regard for the laws, blast through red lights and kill innocent people?

Red light cameras are a money grab. Independent studies have shown that they actually decrease safety and make it more likely that people are going to get hurt. Those who are grabbing the money just use safety as a selling point, using studies they financed (surprise, surprise). We need to ban them. As for idiots who blast through red lights and kill innocent people, I'm all for having a real live police officer arrest them.

thats nice

I couldn't agree more!

We all know it's wrong to run a red light already!

I was with a guy who was new to the area and was looking for his turn when he ran a light completely by accident, he just did not see it in time. No one got hurt, and he was much more careful after that, but it's not always intentional!

Now... for anyone who does run them on purpose... they already know it's wreckless and we just need to get them arrested by a real cop!

"We all know it's wrong to run a light already" in Atlanta you had better wait 3 to 5 seconds after your light turns green before you go, or you'll be T-Boned. There are plenty of idiots who could care less about running a light. With all due respect to your opinion, my opinion is do what ever it takes to enforce the law, whether it be with a camera, robot, cop or whatever.

See article below:
http://www.parade.com/news/backpage/craig-ferguson/100321-st...

Funny, but true...

so the bottom line is how do we stop the reckless driver who run a red light.

[quote=tomturtle
Red light cameras are a money grab. Independent studies have shown that they actually decrease safety and make it more likely that people are going to get hurt.

Even though this installation is illegal Seattle is still revenue generating with it...and will continue to do so.

This is the only camera I pass daily...always good to hear Emily remind me of it.

I would be interested in having links to the independent studies that you reference, please.

I agree!!

guy

My vote will always be with the real cop, and NEVER with the money-grubing, accident-causing cameras!!!

Just another tax. They (gov't) have no concern about anybody's safety. They are just in it for the money.

Thanks for the link to “independent” studies. I will point out that thenewspaper.com is a website which opposes cameras - both speed and red-light. In spite of their stance against cameras, this site has not provided studies that demonstrate that red-light cameras do not work. Instead, they have engaged in selective quoting from studies which might give a casual reader the impression that they have collected a number of studies that show conclusively that red-light cameras do not work.

This is far from the case. When a person does due-diligence and reads each study, that reader should conclude that the studies give a different impression. Indeed, the studies are at worst ambiguous or neutral and leave a careful reader with the impression that these studies might also be used by someone trying to support the use of red-light cameras.

Below are the citations from http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp with what the website selectively quoted, followed by excerpts from the executive summary or conclusion sections of the studies themselves, followed by my assessment of the study conclusions. If you disagree with my assessments, then let’s please discuss them.

thenewspaper.com reported that
•A 2008 University of South Florida report found:
"Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.... public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety."

but, in 2008, cameras were not allowed in Florida. This study was not based on any data about red-light cameras. The authors seem to be against cameras on principle. Also, it should be noted that, at the time of the study, 26% of Florida’s traffic fatalities occur at intersections (with and without traffic signals), in contrast to 18% nationally.

My reading is that the authors were selective in the “studies” they used. However, based on the studies chosen, call it against cameras.
************

thenewspaper.com reported that
•A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found:
"The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease)."

However - the conclusion of the study itself states:
“These results cannot be used to justify the widespread installation of cameras because they are not universally effective. These results also cannot be used to justify the abolition of cameras, as they have had a positive impact at some intersections and in some jurisdictions. The report recommends, therefore, that the decision to install a red light camera be made on an intersection-by intersection basis. In addition, it is recommended that a carefully controlled experiment be conducted to examine further the impact of red light programs on safety and to determine how an increase in rear-end crashes can be avoided at specific intersections.”

My reading of this study is that it recommends “intersection-by intersection” determinations of whether to install cameras. Call the study neutral.
************

thenewspaper.com reported that
•A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found:
"The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004.... Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value."

However - the conclusion of the study itself states:
“After two years of operation, it is too early to expect the Photo Enforcement Program to have achieved its long-term goal of reducing collisions and injuries. Information gathered from two sources on the number of collisions at monitored intersections is not consistent and would lead to contradictory conclusions. A comparison of activity between monitored and non-monitored sites is required, along with a detailed analysis of available collision and injury data. As the program matures, better performance information needs to be gathered and
analyzed to provide evidence that the program has achieved its intended long term outcomes.”

My reading is that the study is calling for the collection of more data. Call it neutral.
************

thenewspaper.com reported that
•A 2005 Virginia DOT study found:
"The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."

However - the conclusion of the study itself states:
“In terms of operational feasibility, there are indications that Virginia’s programs
potentially improve safety. The number of crashes attributable to red light running
has decreased, although the number of rear-end crashes has increased. These two findings are consistent with those in the majority of the literature surveyed. The number of citations mailed has also decreased. Thus, the cameras do appear to be affecting driver behavior. The unresolved question, however, hinges on the injury crashes: the cameras are associated with an increase in total injury crashes and a decrease in red light running injury crashes. As discussed in this report, the injuries associated with red light running crashes may be more severe; this evaluation, however, did not encompass crash severity (except to classify crashes as injury or non-injury). Thus, it can be said only that Virginia’s programs potentially improve safety but that additional data are desirable.”

My reading is that the study is calling for the collection of more data. Call it neutral tending toward positive for cameras..
************

thenewspaper.com reported that
•In 2005, The Washington Post found:
"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."

But, the article said:
“D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said citations for red-light running have dropped by about 60 percent at intersections that have the cameras. (By Gerald Martineau -- The Washington Post)

…

Seventeen of the 45 intersections now covered by red-light cameras were ranked among the 50 most accident-prone locations in the District last year.

…

Gang-Len Chang, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Maryland, said cameras can be useful in reducing serious crashes if deployed properly.

Chang and the other traffic specialists said the city should not abandon red-light cameras. Rather, they said, the mixed results indicate that D.C. officials should conduct a thorough review of camera sites.

"They definitely should look at the locations and find where the cameras would be much more effective," said Nicholas J. Garber, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Virginia who studied the use of red-light cameras in Fairfax County”

My reading is that the study is calling for the collection of more data. Call it mixed.
************

thenewspaper.com reported that
•A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found:
"Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."

A fuller version of the executive summary said:
“RLCs have a statistically significant, positive impact on rear-end accidents,
sideswipes, and accidents involving cars turning left (traveling on the same roadway).

The one type of accident found to experience a decrease at RLC sites are those involving a left turning car and a car traveling on a different roadway. When accidents are broken down by severity, RLCs were found to have a statistically
significant (p<0.001) and large effect (40-50% increase) on property damage only and possible injury crashes. There was a positive, but statistically insignificant estimated effect on severe (fatal, evident, and disabling) accidents.

These results run contrary to the many studies in the RLC literature. Previous studies have sometimes found an increase in rear-end accidents, but often find offsetting decreases in other types of accidents. While this study incorporated many advances in methodology over previous studies, additional work remains to be done. Because accident studies rarely use a true experimental design and data are not perfectly observable, additional careful study of RLCs is warranted to verify our results.”

My reading is that the study is calling for the collection of more data. Call it mixed tending in favor of cameras..
************

thenewspaper.com reported that
•A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found:
"Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period."

Hoverer, the study concluded:
“Based on the results presented in this report, the Red Light Camera Enforcement Pilot Project has been shown to be an effective tool in reducing fatal and injury collisions, thereby preventing injuries and saving lives. For these reasons, it is the opinion of the evaluation study team that the pilot project has been worthwhile and would continue to be of benefit to any participating
municipality.”

My reading is that the study is in favor of cameras..

How about our elected officials who are elected to uphold the law actually do this? Seems advocating cities and town using illegal methods to fine and punish people is worse.

You can read into it whatever you want. For me, the studies are not a big deal. I bring them up, only because someone else was concerned about safety and there are a number of studies that appear to say that the safety issue is not clear cut or decreases with the cameras, depending on how you read them. I find the whole concept of the cameras offensive and wrong, so it wouldn't matter to me if they showed a clear evidence of an increase in safety (which they do not). There are some things you shouldn't do regardless. You could increase safety so there are no accidents at all if you take away everyone's cars, but that doesn't mean you should do it. The cameras fall into the same category as something that should not be done and should not be allowed.

[quote=tomturtle I find the whole concept of the cameras offensive and wrong, so it wouldn't matter to me if they showed a clear evidence of an increase in safety (which they do not). There are some things you shouldn't do regardless.

Yes.

AMEN!

Jimcaulfield and jhmorseiv,
Do you have any facts that would support your statement (and Amen)?

I know that many people are - for a variety of reasons - opposed to photo cameras. However, I would hope that those on this site would be committed to as high a level of accuracy in comments as we expect from the POIs we download and expect to get us to where we want to go. It is one thing to support a comment with facts. It is another to throw out a deeply held belief that cannot be supported.

While I am well read, I am not very organised these days. The accuracy of that which I base my point upon is surely there, yet, alas, it's not showing by leaps & bounds, due to my own disorganisation. I read it... I understand it... I move on.

I have perused too many stats (based on follow up research) to count, before forming my educated opinion on the subject. I can only apologise for the fact that my statement does not read like a well defined bibliography, but I know the operative part of what I've read in my travels, which absolutely bears out what I see as the very predictable outcome of the farce called Red Light Cams.

My vote will forever be with real cops out doing a real job!!!

My hearty AMEN to this hearty AMEN!

Nickjr has it right, if you really are against forward progress then stop the upgrades. This the digital age we are in now. This is part of the normal progression of man.

Q) Are the traffic cameras Under handed?
A) yes!
Q) Are they money makers?
A) Yes!
Q) Would I rather have a officer have a job instead of a camera?
A) Yes!
Q) Is there a chance that I can talk my way out of a ticket from an officer?
A) Yes, but also there is a chance he will write you for more than a camera would have.
Q) Hmmmmmmm What can I do to combat all the above?
A) Drive responsibly, then the technology of the traffic camera doesn't even come into play.

jimcaulfield,

I take it that you have no facts to support your opposition to red-light camera.

In my opinion, that is an ok position to take as long as one does not participate in discussions in a way that would lead others to believe that your position is supported by facts.

Talking about emotions, it’s similar to the abortion issue. I’m against abortion in principle but per Roe v Wade legal abortion is the law of the land. The centrist position is to keep it legal but apply limitations to keep it from being common practice, i.e., relatively rare.

In somewhat similar fashion, if the implementation and application of law enforcement cameras are reasonable, limited and equitable, e.g., no shortening of yellow lights, then my objection lessens. If, on the other hand, cameras proliferate like weeds, evidence of yellow light tweaking continues to emerge, and fines continue to be set too high then you will have opposition.

Is the opposition justified? You claim that emotional appeals are not justified, that the only justifications are based on logic. I disagree. It’s my understanding that emotions touch on the deepest beliefs of the individual. To discount the emotional basis of other individuals is to deny the identity of these individuals. You can bludgeon someone over the head with logic but all you’ll do is succeed in driving them away.

I suggest more citizen input in the process and that process includes more transparency in government. Open up the books and while you’re at it, force the private companies to share information with the public. Provide a forum for more public input into the process along the lines of the public comment period of the Notice of Intent. As long as the public is shut out, opposition is justified.

I agree with the court decision. RLC are a money grab

Could you agree with the premise people need to take responsibility for their actions?

Well said.

I hope I did not imply that emotional opposition is not justified. I was hoping to leave the impression that emotional opposition should not be a basis for making statements not in keeping with known facts (or selectively quoting such known facts).

I also agree that "As long as the public is shut out, opposition is justified." I think that the action of the opposition should be in finding out the facts, not in making them up.

Once again - well said.

Town that scrapped 'motorist tax' speed cameras sees no increase in accidents

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268392/Town-scrappe...

I agree!!!

I followed the link - as i usually do - to see whether or not the conclusion of the provider of the link would be supported. In my opinion, the article lacked statistical significance. Readers of this thread should follow the link to see what they think.

I was interested in one comment that approached the article from a mathematical standpoint. the commenter said:
"What a very unscientific study. I hope Swindon Council does not rely on such shallow data for everything they do.
You could argue that there has been a massive increase in fatal accidents since the cameras were switched off as it rose from zero to one!
I am not saying that the government has not used this method of spped enforcement for raising revenue but if the people who are against them had any guts they would call for all speed limits to not be enforced. The next logical step for Swindon is that they remove all speed restrictions on their roads as there is no point in having limits if they are not enforced.
On the other hand, just remeber who it is who creates the speed limits in the forst place - the council! How ironic that these incompetetents should admit that they are creating speed limits for the fun of it!
Or could it be that their current lack of support was due to a prominent council member getting caught too many times?
I think I may be getting warmer!!"

Interesting... how presumptuously and incorrectly you decide on my behalf that I have NO FACTS supporting my position after I stated quite the opposite to be the case, while I also chose to display absolutely no interest in re-researching enormous data AS IF I would be willing to let you decide the tune I dance to so that you can order a custom made bibliography drawn up to your own liking!!!! Who are YOU to judge each one of us and then pontifically determine the standard which everyone must adhere to? Just because I rightly exercise a reasonable opportunity to post an educated opinion which does not conform to your own self-righteous standards does not mean that you should paint me with your erroneous conjectures AS IF you were there to guarantee that I drew my opinion out of thin air! Does it really come that natural to you to be this reckless and insulting, or do you just work real hard at it?

I'm disorganized, not uninformed! Right now I'm even less interested in regathering the large mass of sufficient data to comprise a bibliography than I was in my last post... I just don't care to pet your huge ego.

I am an "over one million mile" CDL (professional) driver with a crystal-clear driving record, and as stated in my previous post my position is absolutely supported by well researched facts (research published by others, not by me) which I have read over the years. I know what I've read, and I well understand it. All the info is out there in spades, go find it! It's not really hidden!

OK guys this is getting a bit personal, lets keep the tone friendly.

Miss POI

jimcaufield,

You say you have facts. I ask you to cite them so they can be checked.

Selective quoting from articles can give the impression that the "fact" quoted supports a particular position when the article from which the quote was selected actually arrived at the opposite position.