Why are we spending so much time on red light & speed cameras?

My original question has generated far more discussion than I anticipated. Some of the comments are extremely well thought out and it is nice to see some (not all) of the emotion taken out of the issue. When it seems the thread has died I will try and post a synopsis of the "findings".

I am however, becoming more convinced that the use of cameras is of some benefit but that most (in the US anyway) seem to be slanted towards revenue generation. On this basis and as a number of posts have suggested, I will download the cameras for my GPS when next I take a longer trip.

Thanks for the feedback.

Dentists surveyed dislike the cameras

I don't run red lights but like to be situationally aware.

While not a major speeder, I do sometimes find it hard to go 25 or 30, esp on roads that can clearly handle greater speed. It's nice to get a warning that a camera is upcoming, and many times trees have covered the warning signs that are posted at all Maryland cameras.

I am one of those is not speeding or trying to beat the redlight but to be aware of places that speed limit change that I missed the sign. There are places that going from 50-55 mph right down to 30-35 mph that they alway put the speed camera there.

If we knew of these places then maybe we could develop a special file that would provide an alert at a greater distance so there would be more time to slow down.

Can you cite a few?

It's funny to follow these threads with postings showing completely opposite points of view, and every now and then read an "I agree", "Exactly", "Me too"! Unless these postings are just to get the weekly cookie point, could we be a bit more specific what we're agreeing on?

batera: you got your cookie point.

(me too)

Me too. Exactly! Spot on. You hit the nail on the head!!!

Thanks, but that was not exactly my intention.

Questions with obvious answers:
1) According to the highway safety studies, would it be safer if everyone (notice...everyone!) drove within the speed limits? YES

2) Then our elected politicians turn into law the enforcement of such speed limits. CORRECT

3) Then we see a police car riding along, coming from behind, or parked ahead. We check the speedometer and notice: oops, I'm above the limit. It doesn't matter if it's 5, 10 or 30 miles above, doesn't matter if it was once in a lifetime or every day! Do we reduce the speed to match the speed limit (or some go even lower...)? YES
Why? TO AVOID A TICKET, DAY IN COURT, HIGHER INSURANCE...

4) If there was a gadget that could help you identify these traps, and it was free of charge because you already have a GPS in our car for other purposes, would you use it? YES

So, in essence, having eagle eyes to spot police cars on our own, or using radar detectors, or having POI files running on the GPS to alert of known speed traps, I believe that all these have essentially the same purpose: to avoid being caught, getting a ticket, day in court....and so on. Again, this is the same for the occasional speed extravaganzas, as for the regular "ofenders".

It's foolish to try sugar coating it for "safety" reasons, to be aware of my surroundings, etc. Let's be honest. It is to avoid running into trouble. If we were all driving at the speed limit, this wouldn't be necessary.

Starting with me: I use speed trap POI files because I'm always a few miles above the limit and like to be informed of where the cameras are.

Now, as to red light camera locations, I personally don't track them. Don't use this POI file. Never had an incident and am always careful when getting close to a light.

Not sure how to answer your question. Since this is a site dedicated to GPS units, one would think that the questions and comments would be about the unit and how to use them. However, there is a thread entitled "Traffic Camera" where this kind of discussion takes place. Since you have been around for some long and are a maintainer, I am not telling you anything new.

Maybe we could ask why people buy GPS units. I know I got mine because I wanted it for trips to Canada where I would need help navigating. I actually did not realize one could be alerted to cameras until I found this site.

I would suppose that there are people who bought the GPS because they heard from a friend that you could be warned about cameras in advance - just like the radar units people have bought for years. People bought radar units so they could speed and not get caught. i don't think it too far fetched to assert that such people think it is their "right" to speed when it suits them.

Most threads about cameras are started by opponents of Automated Traffic Enforcement. Most articles quoted (or links to such articles) contain statements that seem to indicate
(1) cameras are installed only to generate revenue
(2) cameras do not improve safety
(3) you cannot face your accuser
(4) cameras are an invasion of privacy
(5) cameras increase accidents

Rarely does an article (or link) actually state any facts that would support the implications of the article title. Many people have Confirmation Bias which is a tendency to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.

Being a statistician, I like to see if the facts and the conclusions are in sync. Rarely do I find that an article from thenewspater.com tells the story correctly. Because I object to disinformation, I usually challenge them.

People have a right to be one either side of the argument about cameras. They do not have a right to make false and/or misleading statements.

I can easily grant someone their objection to cameras on the grounds they are an invasion of privacy (although I do not agree with that position).

I can see someone objecting to cameras as "only a money grab" (although that also does not seem to be supportable).

When they make a claim that cameras increase accidents, I have to step in and say 'show me".

I hope you read my response above called "It is cool, Isn't it" which dealt with your link.

I have been asking for a link to an article that would indicate that a city lowered yellow light timings to generate more revenue. This article did not make that claim nor should anyone have read the article to make that claim.

I can't figure out where the parts I left in came from, but if you were looking for abuse, you were not finding it.

Did you read the articles?

I will try to work on a synopsis of all the articles by pkdmstf, blake7mstr and The Reverent later this evening. Most of them are probably not what the posters hoped them to be. I have to go sing at an assisted living right now.

I wanted to respond to the rest of the links - I responded earlier to pkdmslf's final link in his list.

The following articles were in links furnished by pkdmslf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2180.asp
This headline is “Arizona Speed Cameras Expect $165 Million Annual Revenue
One-tenth of the Arizona state budget deficit will be covered by photo radar profit by 2010. Governor calls for HOV lane cameras”.

“Insurance companies such as the American Automobile Association (AAA) have backed Arizona's speed camera program. Each photo ticket in the state carries license points allowing insurance companies to raise rates on ticket recipients, generating hundreds of millions in additional revenue. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has also called for expansion of photo ticketing programs nationwide”

No statistics are given on safety. AAA is characterizes as an insurance company rather than the American Automobile Company promoting a reduction in accidents. The IIHS is not characterized except by juxtaposition to the AAA

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/newarks_red_light_c...

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/30075
This is a link to a post by alexanderrg citing an article about New Port Ritchey’s initial steps to implement cameras. The quote that inflame people would be
“Interim police chief Jeff Harrington said the city could, based on vendors' estimates, earn $500,000 a year per intersection in fines.”

The quote that no one will believe is
“Harrington pointed to state transportation records that rank New Port Richey among the five worst cities of its size for crashes resulting in injuries or deaths, alcohol-related crashes and crashes involving pedestrians. The cameras, he said, could reduce crashes and allow police a better use of manpower.”

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/29/motorists-winning-...
Aside from the title “Motorists May Be Winning Against Big Brother's Speed Cameras” which was intended to be inflammatory by the use of “Big Brother”, this article is a balanced history of cameras.

It seems to sum it up by saying
“Many motorists and taxpayers in the U.S. and abroad have complained that the cameras have become revenue generators, not the safety devices that were advertised. In the U.K., for example, the first cameras were placed at troublesome accident spots, but the rules were later relaxed so that they could be installed along sleepy stretches of road that proved far more lucrative.

But the payoff may not have been as big as politicians expected, which may be the real reason some cameras are coming down.”

No particular facts are given which would lead to one to support one side or the other vis-à-vis cameras.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/19/nation/la-na-traffic...
This article deals with Arizona motorists raging against the machines:

The article does say:
“But from October 2008, when the program began, to October 2009, the cameras generated about $19 million for the state's cash-strapped general fund, according to a report on photo radar released by the Arizona Office of the Auditor General last month.

As of September, only 38% of issued violations were paid, the report said.

This doesn't mean the program lacks defenders. The number of fatal collisions investigated on state highways in 2009 was the lowest in 15 years, a figure that Lt. Jeff King of the Arizona Department of Public Safety attributes to tough drunk driving laws and photo enforcement.”

No particular facts are given which would lead to one to support one side or the other vis-à-vis cameras.

http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_4fc4824e-1912-11df-837...
The headline of this article is “Traffic cameras net fewer citations, less revenue”

The article gives a history of the Quad Cities Iowa cameras and states:
“Alan Guard, Davenport’s finance director, said that in the last full year before the cameras were shut off, they brought in around $900,000 for the city. The amount sent to the vendor was unavailable.

The fact the cameras generated less revenue in 2009 is a good thing, he said.

“I think it’s fair to say that it has affected people’s behavior, people’s driving habits,” Guard said.

That is what the police officer who leads the program wants to happen.

“We’re getting a change in driver behavior, which is the goal of the program,” Davenport police Lt. Mike Venema said. “We want to issue fewer citations.” “

Much of the article talks about people who have gotten multiple tickets and don’t like that.

No facts about accidents were quoted.

http://www.wbaltv.com/r/19498347/detail.html
The title of this article is “Speed Cameras: For Safety Or Revenue?”

The article starts out telling about a woman who got two tickets in 4 minutes.

However the article says later:
“There are two fixed camera locations on Connecticut Avenue and two mobile units. A 3,000-foot stretch of highway is residential and there are no turn lanes there. Traffic lanes are only 9 feet wide, and the main artery in and out of Washington, D.C., hasn't changed since the 1920s.

"It's been a dramatic difference. Speeds have gone down, people are driving more safely and the easiest way to look at it is in the number of crashes," Kamerow said.

The village credits speed cameras with a 34 percent decline in collisions and a 53 percent reduction in speeding citations, and it's still a money maker.

"We got about $1.2 million. In the second year, we are projecting it's going to be a little over $2 million," Kamerow said.

Montgomery County said it expects to net $7.5 million this year from 66 speed cameras. Police credited the cameras with a 69 percent decline in speeding citations.

Gaithersburg said it expects a drop in revenue, saying the devices are making drivers slow down, and Rockville said it expects to generate $2.8 million.

In all jurisdictions, the money will be used for public safety programs.”

The article goes on to report that the woman who got the two tickets in 4 minutes isn’t buying any of it.

I was quite intrigued as to why this article would have been given for me to report on since it is so clearly supportive of camera safety.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/03/speed-trap-camera...
This is a march 2009 article about Automated enforcement of speed limits would be allowed in the Chicago region and certain other areas, under a proposed state law.

The article says:
"The reason people speed is because they can,'' said John Ulczycki, vice president for research at the National Safety Council. "When people perceive that a law is not being enforced, speeding increases. When you have a visible enforcement going on, speeding, crashes and deaths all go down.''

In Arizona, where stationary speed-enforcement cameras are being deployed on a broad scale, speeding on highways has been cut by 9 miles per hour on average, according to the state. Speed-related crashes along U.S. Highway 101 near Scottsdale have decreased 44 percent since the cameras were installed last year, officials said.

The speed cameras have also been used in Oregon and the District of Columbia.

Last year, then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich announced a plan to put speed cameras on interstates in Illinois. He said the plan could raise $50 million a year and allow the state to hire hundreds of more state troopers.

Ulczycki acknowledged that red light and speed cameras generate millions of dollars in ticket revenue, but he said the technology saves lives and allows police departments to assign officers to other work.

"We somehow have this view that some crimes are more important than other crimes and that our cops should be out chasing violent criminals,'' Ulczycki said. "But when someone is out speeding 20 miles per hour over the limit and toasts some individuals, isn't that a crime?'' “

Once again, I wonder why this article was given in response to my asking for links. It clearly conveys the impression that cameras reduces deaths. I guess it was cited because it will also raise money. My position is that is cameras result in more safety and also produce revenue, then great. Note, however, that some of the above article indicate that revenue is decreasing precisely because the cameras are doing their job of slowing people down.

http://www.squidoo.com/Chicago-Red-Light-Camera-Locations
This article is actually a collection of mini-article on Chicago cameras, one of which was to use your GPS to know about them.
“What does the City of Chicago think of GPS Red Light Camera location Warnings?
Jennifer Martinez, spokeswoman for the city's Office of Emergency Management, said the main goal of the cameras is safety, not revenue. Martinez said the city has no opinion about red light camera detection devices. "Whether it's a device or a sign, we just want residents to pay attention at intersections," Martinez said.”

No comments about whether or not safety would be a result were offered.

http://www.motorists.org/press/revenue-drives-red-light-came...
This article’s headline is “Revenue Drives Red Light Cameras, Not Safety” so I understand why it was included in the links. However the article is date July 2001 so may be a tad dated.

The article did not offer any facts to support its headline.

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...
I discussed this article in a separate post.

These links were better than most I am presented with.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/29.asp
This article gave details from Burkey-Obeng Red Light Camera Study of 2004.

The article quotes from the authors conclusion:

“The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”

The PDF from which this quote was taken also says:
“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.”

Another quote is:
“The results do not support the conventional wisdom expressed in recent literature and popular press that red light cameras reduce accidents.... 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. We did find a decrease in accidents involving a vehicle turning left and a vehicle on the same roadway, which may have been included as an angle accident in some other studies. However, given that these left turn accidents occur only one third as often as angle accidents, and the fact that we find no benefit from decreasing severity of accidents suggests that there has been no demonstrable benefit from the RLC program in terms of safety. In many ways, the evidence points toward the installation of RLCs as a detriment to safety.”

This study would clearly be one that opponents of cameras would want to quote except that it is quite old.

http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-acciden...
This article references five studies

(1) A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents Melbourne, Australia
Quotes from the article are:
“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”

“There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.”

Clearly this article would be favorable for red-light opponents except for the fact that a conclusion not quoted from the article said:
“The original choice of the RLC sites must be questioned. Three-quarters of the sites had annual frequencies of two or less reported “adjacent approaches” accidents. Low frequency sites are not good candidates for testing the effectiveness of accident countermeasures.”

(2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia, June 2007, which concluded:
“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.’

Selective quoting makes the article seem to oppose cameras when it does not.

(3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader U.S. House of Representatives May 2001

One of the quotes from the article says
“But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear-end collisions associated with red light cameras as “non-significant,” despite evidence to the contrary. Second, they do not actually look at red light intersection accidents. The latest accident study in Oxnard, California, for example, only documents accident reductions “associated with”—not caused by— red light cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal if you don’t look too closely.”

Note that the date of this article is 2001, so the report also says:
“To date, the only case studies of red light running and camera use in the
United States have taken place in Arlington, Virginia, City of Fairfax, Virginia and Oxnard, California.”

No statistics are discussed in the PDF referenced by the article. There are implications made that - because the same individual was involved in the three US studies - that there must be conflicts of interest. The article questions the methodology and disapproves with the concept of accidents “associated with” rather than “caused by” red-light cameras. No data was given such that I could understand exactly what the distinction they were trying to make was.

Because the article involves our congress, one might say that it favors the opponents view except that the article is very old and it gives no statistics.

(4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas

This is the Burkey-Obeng Red Light Camera Study of 2004 study which was discussed above.

(5) Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
I want to include the entirety of this article so that I can contrast it with what the study actually said:
“This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions. The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).

In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category.
Quoted from the study:
“Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:
* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.
The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.” “

When one reads the study, it concludes as follows:
“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.”

The full quotes from Exhibit 2 are as follows:
“Exhibit 2 indicates that red light running treatments have
for all collision types
* Contributed to a 6.8 per cent decrease in fatal and injury collisions; and
* Contributed to an 18.5 per cent increase in property damage only collisions.
for angle collisions
* Contributed to a 25.3 per cent decrease in fatal and injury angle collisions; and
* Contributed to a 17.9 per cent decrease in property damage only angle collisions
for rear end collisions
* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.”

This article is an example of selection quoting in action

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/cameras/qas...
This link is to a site whose first statement says
“Automated red-light enforcement using cameras has proven to be effective in reducing the incidence of red-light running and the number of red-light running crashes. This section provides resources, and research and publications, regarding camera technology, implementation examples, and frequently asked questions on the topic of red-light cameras.”
Please see this link
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/cameras/

The problem is that with rapidly growing numbers of cameras people are going to act crazy at every stoplight. I see this happen on North Ave in Chicagoland's Western Suburbs where there is a camera every mile or so and people act stupid at every stoplight, probably "just in case".

I am convinced that these cameras are meant to bring dirty revenue at the cost of decreased safety on the road. It's *dirty* revenue because it doesn't come from growth in production or commerce. This article says 80% of tickets come from rolling right turns,
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/19/local/me-redlight19
I read somewhere else that rolling turns result in 98% of tickets.

I know an elderly person who never got a traffic violation ticket in her life, until recently a red light camera caught her making really slow right turn on empty intersection.

You don't need to pay. Just send the government a picture of your money

Municipalities view the cameras as paying for themselves. ATS, etc. get their cut from the tickets. Municipalities pay out of pocket only if the tickets are not generating sufficient revenue. That is one of the reasons that some jurisdictions make adjustments such as shortening yellow lights.

It is axiomatic that the cameras are for revenue. Speed bumps could be used to slow people down near schools (speed cameras) or near intersection (red light cameras). The obvious reason is that the cameras give you revenue and speed bumps do not.

Please stop saying that redlight cameras have something to do with speed. The redlight cameras relate to people turning on red, and running red lights. That has little to do with speed and more to do with awareness and the proximity of other cars.

Finally, most jurisdictions treat these camera offenses as parking offenses. As a result, it does not add points or affect your insurance.

Although it is stated that the primary purpose of redlight cameras is for safety, it is undoubtedly to generate a revenue stream for local government. Politicians know that redlights are being run and generally there is no one there to write the ticket, so the cameras monitor the activity and tickets are issued to offenders. As for safety, it may make more people conscious of the redlight intersections, but many people are stopping short and this is causing rear end collisions. Help or hindrance, the redlight cameras are most likely here to stay.

The subject sparks as much passion as religion & politics.

Exactly!

That is also why nobody will be able to change anyone else's views about it either.

...and why I don't even get into the discussion. It is, what it is and I'll just move on with my life.

In my village, a suburb of Illinois, there is currently a strong discussion of red light cameras. The local paper did a 3 day expose on their use and reason for being. The majority of the tickets are written for right turn on red. No danger involved, simply any movement of your auto without a complete stop behind the painted bar. In my opinion, it is nothing more than a revenue or tax on the drivers at that intersection.

I agree many times a rolling stop for a right on red is OK, but what about the driver that comes up to a red and blows through the light to make their right "to beat the oncoming traffic." Is this a rolling right turn?

The issue with the camera is it can't tell the difference. For the computer it is a binary decision, either the speed was zero and the line had not been crossed or it wasn't. The issue would have to be resolved through visual review of the camera evidence.

Now, assuming you put guidelines in place, would you say a rolling right is OK if the speed is less than 5? How would you address someone at 6? What about the car that sticks its nose out so far into the intersection that oncoming traffic has to swerve around it because it wanted to turn right? The argument could be made it stopped before turning. There are just too many variables to say well, this one is OK, but that one isn't. You are back to the binary "the law states..."

Well said. We just need to agree to disagree on this one. Endorsers of the cameras like jgermann are not going to convert anyone here and the opponents are not going to change his view either.

I believe that while speed cameras in a straight stretch of highway can do better (but not perfect), RLC systems are just not smart enough to fairly assess what went on with a car tripping its sensor. It only knows it did. Reviewing a video (if they do take one) means going to court and try to sway local officials that may not want to decide on your favor because they have a contract with a private company and this makes them money or may cost them money if they don't collect from you.

And here is where I see the conflict of interests. Companies law #1 is to make money for their shareholders, no matter what. Towns in economic distress won't be interested in being fair either, specially if it will COST THEM if the "number" isn't met. I know our "elected officials" are supposed to have our best interests in mind, but I can't remember when was the last time it happened

pkdmslf, I was hoping, by following, reading, and responding to all the links you sent to at least make less hard your apparent opposition to cameras.

With budgets under pressure in almost every state and city, most citizens do not want the police force to have to take cuts. While there may be some, I know of no one who complains that their city has too many police officers.

I hope that even the most ardent opponent of traffic cameras would admit that speeding and running red-lights (as opposed to rolling right turns on red) results in accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Many opponents say that these traffic violations should be stopped by police, but having police try to catch and stop a red-light violator is very inefficient and often dangerous. Cameras are a much better choice.

In my city, the budget cuts have resulted in having to pull School Resource Officers out of the high schools and put them back on the streets. Yes, it is unfortunate that our culture is such that police officers are required in schools to stop fights and protect teachers, but that is how it is.

I would hope that you would help direct some of your energy to making the issuing of violations caught on cameras more forgiving for rolling right turns. many jurisdictions are requiring that a trained police officer be the one responsible for reviewing the video and pictures for violations and making a judgment as to whether to issue a ticket - just like they might if they had been on the scene. While this reduces revenue for the city, it also reduces the anger at what many call minor infractions. To be clear, I do think that nose of the vehicle over the white line even though a full stop was made is improper.

maybe you and some friends ought to show up a a city council meeting (or other appropriate forum) and make the case that eliminating some reasons for traffic camera tickets would make the citizens more supportive. For example, it your city gives tickets for a right turn violation where the nose of vehicle was over the white line BUT a full stop was made, you might suggest that this practice be eliminated.

At a minimum, you might find out how the officials on your council react to such a suggestion.

I agree, but do you think you'd deserve a ticket if your car slipped on the snow, even though you were doing 15mph and ended up crossing the line a bit? A cop wouldn't give it to you, cameras do.

Then it would be easy to find out if they are out for money or they really mean it when they claim it is for the safety of the people.

Assuming that - as my city does - a police officer reviews the video and snapshots, I would expect that a slippage violation would not have resulted in a ticket being sent.

the following links are from The Reverent

Search Results
Illinois Strengthens Oversight Of Red Light Cameras | Gov Monitor
Jul 12, 2010 ... “It is important that we protect consumers by putting an end to abuse of red light cameras. This new law is a step in the right direction by ...

http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/illino...
This article discusses a new law signed in Illinois that will go into effect Jan. 1, 2011. It has a number of excellent provisions - one of which is requiring “municipalities or counties with red light camera systems to conduct and post a study on the Internet to determine the safety impact of each camera.”

This article should be read by everyone because it deals with many complaints that opponents of traffic cameras articulate.

I assume that this article was presented to me because it contained the word “abuse” in it. For example, the statement “Governor Pat Quinn today signed a bill into law that will cut down on abuse of red lights by dramatically reforming oversight of red light cameras in Illinois.” However, there were no citations of any abuse. Since one of the provisions was allowing “nose over the white line”, perhaps this is one of the “abuses” (and I would agree).

*********************************************
City hates red-light cameras; will voters agree? | city, cameras ...
Apr 14, 2010 ... city, cameras, anaheim, red, light, vote, cities, council, put, pringle. ... We were unable to report abuse at this time. ...
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-243949-cameras-anahe...
This article starts:
“ANAHEIM – The City Council wants to set a new rule: No red-light cameras in Anaheim – ever.
The council on Tuesday expressed unanimous support for an amendment to the city's Charter that would prohibit automated traffic-enforcement systems from being installed on city streets.”

The article contains a link to another article that gives statistics indicating that safety has improved.
“"We've seen at least a 50 percent drop in accidents since we implemented our program," said Timothy Murray, Garden Grove's program manager.
Costa Mesa has seen similar results, said Allum, the police sergeant, who conducted a study of each intersection comparing crashes of the year before and the year after red-light cameras were set up. At every intersection, the number of crashes has gone down.”

I was struck by the extra detail from the search results (see above) where the comment was “We were unable to report abuse at this time”

Not being sure which side of the traffic camera debate The Reverent is on, I wonder why this article was included.

****************************************
Harlingen gets rid of red light cameras | harlingen, rid, cameras ...
Jun 2, 2010 ... Local: Harlingen gets rid of red light cameras | harlingen, rid, cameras, gets, light, red. ... We were unable to report abuse at this time. ...
www.brownsvilleherald.com/.../harlingen-112796-rid-cameras.h... - Cached
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/.../harlingen-112796-rid-ca...
On this one I only got
“404 Not Found
The content you are looking for is unavailable.”

****************************************
Ban the Cams | Stop Red Light Camera and Speed Camera Abuse | Stop ...
Aug 9, 2010 ... Redlight Cameras and Speed cameras lead to abuse, and turn citizens into ... Like speed cameras and red-light cameras, Mr. O'Malley's ...
http://www.banthecams.org/
This appears to be a blog with articles. It is worthwhile noting this statement:
“WE ARE NOT ALONE! Ban the Cams is but one group OF MANY FIGHTING PHOTO ENFORCMENT! People all over the US ARE RISING UP AGAINST THE PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SCAM!”
There were many links to similar sites opposed to cameras like the national Motorist Association and thenewspaper.com (which have, as I detailed in previous posts, the inclination to selectively quote only the negative aspects of statistics)

I concluded that this site would not provide anything other than negative comments, but I read it anyway. The latest study cited was the 2007 Virginia study which I have commented on in another post. There were comments about an increase in accident at a particular traffic camera intersection in Baytown TX. one article made the comment “A growing body of research nationwide shows red-light cameras do not improve traffic safety. Public officials have ignored this evidence to chase the revenue these devices bring” but did not cite anything from the purported growing body of evidence.

On the 4th page of articles was one that did give statistics:
“Murfreesboro’s intersections are safer, but not necessarily because of photo-enforced red lights.
Murfreesboro Police Department has released data taken in relation to the number of crashes occurring at intersection in the city since implementing an automated red light camera enforcement program.

The report compares statistics from a span of time over 2008 and 2009 to one over 2009 and 2010.

Data shows, in the second year of use, intersections not using red light cameras saw a significant decrease in the number of crashes reported. A decrease of 255 crashes total, nearly 14 percent, was reported.

This includes nearly 20 percent fewer side-angle crashes, down from 677 to 542, and just over 10 percent fewer rear end crashes, down to 1052 from 1172.

Intersections using the red light camera enforcement system, however, saw nearly no change in the total with an increase of only one crash reported.

Side impact crashes decreased by nearly 13 percent at these intersections from 63 to 55, but rear end crashes saw an increase from 126 to 135, just over seven percent.”

The data is interesting but without injury data, I would not attempt to draw a ‘safety” conclusion.

Because opponents will like this article about Georgia, I will quote it:
“In January 2010, the provision for adding one additional second to the yellow light times at photo enforced intersections went into effect and the results were immediate. Within 90 days of the law going into effect, red light running violations dropped 72 percent at red light camera intersections. Some local governments reported that violations dropped as much as 81 percent. With such a significant drop in violations, also came an equal drop in revenue. Many local governments began removing the red light cameras, as they were no longer profitable to operate.”

Lots of the articles were about petitions to ban camera, comments from enraged citizens, and myriad claims that cameras were only for revenue.

If someone else is willing to spend the time reading all the blog articles and finds that I have left some statistics out, please let me know. By the way, it takes about an hour to read.

****************************************
Civil liberty vs red light cameras | Bottleneck Blog | Los Angeles ...
Mar 23, 2007 ... Red light cameras violate the 14th amendment in the area of equal protection. ... often use and abuse these cameras to generate revenue, ...
latimesblogs.latimes.com › Blogs › Bottleneck Blog - Cached - Similar
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/03/civil_lib...
This was strictly a small blog but the reason it was presented to me was likely the part about the 14th amendment and with included word abuse. No statistics given or studies cited.

****************************************
Revenue from red-light cameras welcomed | Ultimate Clear Lake
You don't have to like red-light cameras to like the money they can bring a city. .... away your money to the city, stop at red lights. reply • Report abuse ...
http://www.ultimateclearlake.com/2010/06/red-light-cameras
Another blog. The thing that tickled me about this link was that the word ‘abuse” appears only at the bottom of each comment where posters can “report abuse”.

Here in Nassau County, Long Island, NY, all the red light cameras are video cameras. When the program was first announced, the elected officials said that the violations would be reviewed by police officers.

It was just published in the local newspaper that the violations are actually reviewed in Arizona by employees of the Red Light Camera vendor, an Arizona company.

Most violations are due to "right on red," not running the red light straight through. I don't feel these vendor employees are impartial because of the structure of the contract with the county - the more violations found the more money the vendor makes.

I believe they are putting an impossibly high standard on rolling past the stop line because if you stop behind the line in many cases you do not have the visibility to proceed safely. I agree that many people do not stop at all, and they deserve summonses, but many people stop ahead of the line where they have good visibility. A police officer there in person would not serve a summons in such a case.

dobs108

I hate to disagree but there is no reason other than laziness on the driver's part they couldn't stop behind the limit line and then roll forward. That's what I was taught many years ago in one of the many defensive driving courses I was required to take in order to keep a commercial license.

The problem is the camera may catch legal drivers (right on red or going through and it turns quickly. It's good to know which cameras are which

But we are talking NYC here, island of Manhattan, one of the most corrupt cities in the US. I was in that car when my boss got the ticket. He showed me the picture the camera took and I could see myself on the passenger side. Cops don't bother reviewing anything here, they mail you the ticket and the judge just tells you to pay the fine (unless you are a lawyer)

My boss learned his lesson. He bought an SUV and he had no more troubles with winter driving. He only drives the Porsche in good weather now.

I download the files because they're available, and free. I've never been caught with a camera and don't expect to.

However, whether the lights were intentionally changed to reduce the yellow isn't my issue with the cameras. It's the fact that in intersections where there are no cameras, quick yellows won't be debated--no one knows or cares. But, when cameras are used--and erroneously cites drivers, then that seems like a problem.

After all, whether you're shot dead intentionally or accidentally, you're still just as cold. Unless how you were shot still matters to you.

It's a money making for the city. Especialy Jesey Village city, Texas.

I live in queens ny and when i drive to my sisters house in howard beach about 4 miles, i pass 7 red light cameras. They go off like crazy. I would love to know the revenue on these.

Why worry about red light cams. I am not interested in running a red light....it is a very dangerous situation if you try. I really believe that the cams are to catch "idiots" and the deserve it. They are a menous on the highway and should be caught. Plus I just don't like the continuous alerts. So there....that's my opinion and I am sticking to it.
aztanglefoot.

You are entitled, enjoy the posts though...it is fun to see the diverse views and the "facts" used to back these views!

Deliberately shorter yellow lights and tickets for rolling right on red light are what most people have problem to accept as fair.

It is a fact that shorter yellow brings more revenue from tickets but causes more accidents, and then why not make it a Law to extend yellow by additional 1 second on each intersection with red light cameras.

Tickets for rolling right on red are pure and simple robbery of the taxpayer. You get $100 penalty near Chicago for rolling right on red at 0.5 mile per hour speed and the same penalty for shooting straight thru red 45 miles per hour. So it is the same penalty for two very different violations with completely different degrees of endangerment to the safety of other drivers. And great majority (estimated up to 98%) of revenue comes from the rolling right "violations" while many times it is easier and even safer not to come to a full stop while smoothly entering traffic from a side road. On the other hand you have the idiot driver who comes to a perfect full stop, then waits another 2 to 5 seconds, only to enter the traffic right in front of your nose. He will never get a camera ticket for wrong right turn.

My vote is to extend yellow by an extra 1 second wherever there is a camera involved and abolish right turn on red cameras altogether.

It is easy for a blogger to make a claim that "it is estimated" and then people take that estimate as fact. I've seen some high estimates (never supported with statistics), but yours is the highest ever and it is only for "rolling right". that means running the light and stopping over the white line are 2%. Very interesting!!!!

bc they suck?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/4/alexandrias-d...

exactly

Baumback, this article is as close as I have seen to supporting a contention that a city has shortened yellow lights to raise more revenue.

You will likely debate this with me, but I do not think this rises to the level quite yet. As time passes, it may, but not yet. Let me explain.

We are dealing with an instance where one yellow light (out of a total of 3 as best I can make out by reading other stories) has had its timing lowered. It also seems that the cameras are not yet operational. Please read this link
http://www.alextimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/red-lights-camera-...

Finally, the article says
"A Washington Timeseditorial earlier this month insinuated that city officials shortened the yellow light time at the intersection of Gibbon and South Patrick streets to accrue more ticket revenue from the camera system, but Rich Baier, the city's director of Transportation and Environmental Services, said that was not the case.

Baier said the city calculates the yellow lights at all of its intersections using a national standard formula based on the width of the intersection, the speed of the traffic and other factors.

"It's a standard formula that my staff uses that is passed on to [Virginia Department of Transportation] and they review it and approve it as well," Baier explained.

The city's cameras are now inactive because the contract from last year has expired, Donaldson said. It can resume as soon as the city opens bidding and approves a new vendor."

Just a general search,

The problem is not cameras but freedom from oppression.

There is a reason why it is illegal to record a conversation, of another person without them knowing about; "Freedom of speech" and "expression".

One could damage and convict a person on the basis of their conversations; even if that person was not acting in a manor of malevolence.

For this reason, even if someone commits a crime, and you intentionally without them knowing about,record them saying what they are going to do; the recording is inadmissible in court. as it should be.

This prevents the government from becoming an oppressive overseer, because the reciprocation of a law allowing secret recording; could be used to convict a person, because of their rights of freedom of speech.

The same goes with Speed cameras, and red light cameras with 1 second Yellow lights. Radar from law enforcement is not always right, this is with human use as well, let alone trip cameras.

I have been bagged for a speeding ticket before, and I was not speeding, and I was and I was young and inexperienced at that time, and should have contested it.

How often are they Calibrated?

Is there independent, unbiased, research showing how camera use can be accurate/inaccurate?

What is the recourse to challenge a a picture if one believes that they were not to blame?

"Easy Pass" has wrongfully fined, both my wife and Me before and we had to fight to to get the state to admit they were wrong. Another so called full proof system.

The other problem is "the where does the camera use stop" realization, Orwell comes to mind; and if you think that this is paranoia, then God help you!!

Our civil and constitutional rights are being slowly watered down to impotence; this camera thing is only part of.

My questions is this, what happened to "My right to face my accuser"

Everyone that runs a red light is not doing it on purpose or becouse they are scofflaws or evildoers. Depending on the traffic at certain intersections it is quite possible to get stuck in the middle when the light changes. I have seen it happen many times. I think our tax dollars would be better spent on research and development to reduce traffic congestion than trying to take more money out of our pockets every time they can..

I happen to live in a state where it would be legal for one person to record a conversation without the other person knowing it was being recorded.

Here is an article that discusses this subject.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/the-legality-of-record...

Confrontation Clause
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English common law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye. According to Acts of the Apostles 25:16, the Roman governor Porcius Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner Paul, stated: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges."

Many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed the right of the accused under the Confrontation Clause to have a face-to-face confrontation with the accuser, and an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser

***************************
The text of the Sixth Amendment says:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
***************************

In the case of a traffic ticket coming from Automated Traffic Enforcement, your “accuser” is the prosecutor for the jurisdiction in which the violation took place. The evidence is the video and picture of the violation.

Contrast this situation with cases in which circumstantial evidence is all that the prosecutor (the accuser) has to offer because there were no witnesses to a crime - but (1) the accused could be shown to be in the area of the crime at the time that the crime was committed; (2) the accused had a motive to commit the crime; and/or (3) forensic evidence ties the accused to the crime scene.

My $.02:
I have the speed and Redlight camera POI's....
No, I don't speed, and quite frankly, I don't believe I've ever heard the speed camera warning go off....

But I've heard the Redlight Camera warning go off, and though I don't try and sneak through the red light, I DO want to be informed where they are, so I make sure I don't want to do anything that could be construed bad in those intersections.....

This, of course, could be construed as a potential rear end situation at those intersections... but I'll accept that....

I just don't want to pay any fines... I feel that these are more likely a revenue creation tool masquerading as a safety device....