Police Department Budgets

Assuming that the camera is already operating, I wonder how they can "make up" revenue without a change in the way it determines violations.

I guess the only conclusion we can come to is, they're NOT for safety, but rather for the MONEY they take in.. but, but, but.. that's NOT what we hear from the various city's and Police Depts as the reason. How could we be so wrong..!!..?

Nuvi1300WTGPS

I think most spokespersons usually say they are for both. I am not sure I have ever heard anyone from a municipality who was responsible for Traffic Cameras say that they were ONLY for safety.

The "safety only" claim is usually made by opponents of Automated Traffic Enforcement as a way to cast doubt on the whole ATE process. Most reasonable people would be able to determine that the municipality would make money. So, those repeating the claim that officials claim "safety only" is usually intended to create a negative feeling without having to cite facts.

I have read statements from Police Chiefs justifying the revenue earned on the grounds that this revenue paid for more officers on the beat (of course, some municipalities use the money for driver ed, etc - which depends on the wishes of city councils)

I would be interested if anyone knows of an official who has made the claim the ATE was 'safety only"

The mayor of Opelika, Alabama was quoted in the local "fish wrapper" as saying: "There would be signs posted around town notifying citizens that intersections were subject to red light camera enforcement, and the tendency would be that since drivers may not know which intersections were being monitored with cameras, that they would be more careful at all intersections, which is exactly what we want...I would hope that we’d never collect a nickel from this.”

I'll bet the vendor eventually selected to intall the cameras won't feel the same way.

http://www.gazette.net/stories/08262010/collnew154817_32541....
Click on the video and pay attention at time point 00:54

IMO, if a jurisdiction has no requirement to post a warning sign or at least the camera locations then they haven't shown that safety is the primary concern. If safety isn't the primary concern then it makes no difference to me what is. I assume its revenue.

As for the ones that must or do post, then IMO every cent collected needs to go directly to traffic safety. Otherwise, I assume its about revenue.

Edit: Oops. Did not fully read part about video. Sorry!

2nd Edit: Watched video. Good story, but...Maybe you do need to check your link, after all.

Hmm. That was odd! I Checked it just before I copied/pasted the link. Try this:

http://www.gazette.net/stories/08262010/montnew170924_32558....

(But since we mentioned it.. how about that Senior Olympian! )

If everyone only knew what was happening in Florida...some law enforcement officers havent received raises in almost 6 years and our new governor is proposing a 5% contribution to our pensions, making cops work an additional 12 years and reducing the amount the state puts into the pensions. Don't get me started on messing with retirees' pensions either!

I would interpret the comment as hoping that safety was the "hope" rather than the Traffic cameras being installed for "safety reasons only".

Did you really read her as saying "safety only"?

I tend to agree with your analysis but, as you say, you choose to assume it is revenue ONLY when an assumption that it is both revenue and safety would be just as logical.

1. I never said revenue ONLY. ONLY an idiot would deny ANY safety gain.
2. No implementation of ATE has ever convincingly demonstrated implementation for safety primarily
3. Many implementations have (prima facie) demonstrated implementation primarily for revenue gain
4. All implementing jurisdictions downplay revenue
5. All promote safety primarily
6. All mention revenue disproportionately (infrequently) compared to safety

The problem is that because of 1, 4, 5, & 6 above, people have the incorrect opinion that the revenue that they know IS generated, is actually making a proportionately large positive impact on traffic safety when it is not. And, IMO the real 'balance sheet' is purposely never mentioned.

Your comment that "The "safety only" claim is usually made by opponents of Automated Traffic Enforcement as a way to cast doubt on the whole ATE process." is as disingenuous as you accuse people of being by not knowing and expecting ATE to be about revenue as well as safety.

I realize that my criteria for worthwhile endeavors of my government for public benefit differ from yours.

I also consider the total amount of money paid from a fine to be the amount of money that my government has required from me and which thereby they have an obligation to spend wisely and for maximum public benefit. I don't consider the fees paid for ATE equipment and management to provide cost effective public safety improvements.

The very first sentence says it all.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/provdrs/red-...

Here's another one,

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/email_push/news/article_46c7a7...

“'From the police department’s standpoint, we’re looking at public safety,' Cloyd said. 'It isn’t an issue of finance, it’s not an issue of fines, it’s an issue of making Aurora a safer place to drive and holding drivers accountable for running red lights.'”