Florida House Committee Backs Repeal Of Red-Light Camera Law

 

This is pretty interesting. Now there is a push to repeal the cameras in Florida.

Florida House Committee Backs Repeal Of Red-Light Camera Law

By Jeremy Maready
NYT REGIONAL MEDIA GROUP

Published: Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 11:37 p.m.

TALLAHASSEE | A vote by a legislative committee to repeal the state's red-light camera law could have local implications for programs in Lakeland and Haines City, where the monitoring cameras have been the source of contentious debate.

The House Economic Affairs Committee voted 10-8 for a bill that would repeal the fledgling law, which sets statewide standards for the use of the cameras.

"It's very encouraging," said Henry Stowe, a red-light camera activist and spokesman for the National Motorist Association. "We are following this closely in Tallahassee and hoping it will pass the next committee."

The rest is here at this link:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20110317/NEWS/103175057/141...

That is good!

Repeal those red light camera. Have you notice those in favor of it call red light safety camera. I should call it red light revenue camera. My stand is that as long there are no point on the license of the driver and guidelines for suspension and revocation of license and incarceration for repeat offender. Take out the revenue component and have operator contribute their service for free and it truly for safety not profit.

--
Val - Nuvi 785t and Streetpilot C340

Nice precedent!

Lets hope other areas follow suit.

Hope you never wind up ...

gwapaval wrote:

Repeal those red light camera. Have you notice those in favor of it call red light safety camera. I should call it red light revenue camera. My stand is that as long there are no point on the license of the driver and guidelines for suspension and revocation of license and incarceration for repeat offender. Take out the revenue component and have operator contribute their service for free and it truly for safety not profit.

Hope you never wind up knowing the family of a person killed or disabled by someone running a red-light.

Read my entire post- Drive smart!

jgermann wrote:
gwapaval wrote:

Repeal those red light camera. Have you notice those in favor of it call red light safety camera. I should call it red light revenue camera. My stand is that as long there are no point on the license of the driver and guidelines for suspension and revocation of license and incarceration for repeat offender. Take out the revenue component and have operator contribute their service for free and it truly for safety not profit.

Hope you never wind up knowing the family of a person killed or disabled by someone running a red-light.

Read my entire post and understand it. Don't give me the guilt conscience argument. RLC is not for safety. All the red light camera are for profit. Let say, the city agree to remove their share from the fine. Do you think the City will allow the camera to exist? Prove to me that RLC profit is not generating money for the city. Then why in the world, the city will remove them when they are not making any money. Telling us that RLC already serve is purpose and blah, blah and blah. I was almost got hit a couple of month ago but I practice defensive driving technique. I look left and right before I cross the intersection and again when I'm in the intersection.

--
Val - Nuvi 785t and Streetpilot C340

Did I not quote the entire post?

gwapaval wrote:

Read my entire post and understand it.

I did read your entire post (and quoted it). I just reread your entire post and find (as I did the first time) that you are overcome by the revenue aspect.

I submit that - regardless of whether revenue is an aspect of the implementation decision - that accidents, in general, decline. As with most statistical compilations from a number of sites, we will find some instances of rear-end accidents going up but that is not the general rule. I suspect that you have been reading sites like thenewspaper.com which employs the "selective quoting" technique of citing only sections from a study which can be made to look negative and not quoting the overall conclusions of that same study which generally are favorable for the safety aspects of cameras. NOTE that in the past in other posts, I have detailed this selective quoting and overlooking the overall conclusion.

Are you of the opinion that, If a traffic camera provides a revenue stream to a municipality, any safety benefits should be disregrded?

Red Light Cameras

SnookMook wrote:

This is pretty interesting. Now there is a push to repeal the cameras in Florida.

Florida House Committee Backs Repeal Of Red-Light Camera Law

By Jeremy Maready
NYT REGIONAL MEDIA GROUP

Published: Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 11:37 p.m.

TALLAHASSEE | A vote by a legislative committee to repeal the state's red-light camera law could have local implications for programs in Lakeland and Haines City, where the monitoring cameras have been the source of contentious debate.

The House Economic Affairs Committee voted 10-8 for a bill that would repeal the fledgling law, which sets statewide standards for the use of the cameras.

"It's very encouraging," said Henry Stowe, a red-light camera activist and spokesman for the National Motorist Association. "We are following this closely in Tallahassee and hoping it will pass the next committee."

The rest is here at this link:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20110317/NEWS/103175057/1410?p=1&tc=pg

In St.Petersburg yesterday in their City Council meeting the mayor and council talked about the red light cameras and soon they will have hearings on adopting red light cameras.This law may change everything,if they would put timers on the light poles telling when the light will change like they have at some of the intersections in St Petersburg I would go along with allowing red light cameras.

Cameras

Just had a wreck here in FL where a driver ran a red light with kids in the car.A bus broad sided the car causing injuries.That driver made the decision to run that light.Maybe knowing a camera was there it may have prevented this driver from making that bad decision.

--
Charlie. Nuvi 265 WT and Nuvi 2597 LMT. Android Here WeGo - Offline Maps & GPS.

>

jgermann wrote:
gwapaval wrote:

Read my entire post and understand it.

I did read your entire post (and quoted it). I just reread your entire post and find (as I did the first time) that you are overcome by the revenue aspect.

I submit that - regardless of whether revenue is an aspect of the implementation decision - that accidents, in general, decline. As with most statistical compilations from a number of sites, we will find some instances of rear-end accidents going up but that is not the general rule. I suspect that you have been reading sites like thenewspaper.com which employs the "selective quoting" technique of citing only sections from a study which can be made to look negative and not quoting the overall conclusions of that same study which generally are favorable for the safety aspects of cameras. NOTE that in the past in other posts, I have detailed this selective quoting and overlooking the overall conclusion.

Are you of the opinion that, If a traffic camera provides a revenue stream to a municipality, any safety benefits should be disregrded?

I think the point gwapaval made is valid. Since towns, cities, counties, municipalities that install red light cameras are not interested in affecting anyone's driving record, and go for the pocketbook of the legal owner of the car, are indeed not interested in safety, but in a new driving tax. It's more like a lottery, only you don't win anything, the government does.

Logic?

twix wrote:

I think the point gwapaval made is valid. Since towns, cities, counties, municipalities that install red light cameras are not interested in affecting anyone's driving record, and go for the pocketbook of the legal owner of the car, are indeed not interested in safety, but in a new driving tax. It's more like a lottery, only you don't win anything, the government does.

On the other hand, it might be possible that the reason that Automated Traffic Enforcement does not affect the driving record is a accomodation to reduce the public outcry about the citation not being given by an officer.

Still, whether or not the cameras were instigated for revenue or not, I fail to see how one might infer that the municipality was not interested in safety.

As to the lottery point, if I, as a citizen, am safer and avoid being killed by a red light runner, I would certainly feel like I had won the lottery.

revenue percentage

I think there probably is a benefit to safety at some level, but I have a major issue with the process by which private companies come into a municipality and offer them "free" revenue to put the cameras in. Where I live, one company has a monopoly on the state and the split is 60-40%. So last year one of these guys came into my mayors office with a detailed proposal of what intersections would generate X number of tickets, and basically promised the Town a guaranteed $150,000 a year to put these in. The company installs, maintains, operates, sends tickets, collects - does everything, and the Town just sits back and gets a check every month. The whole process of privatization of law enforcement makes me very uncomfortable

Safety/Revenue

Florida law makers don't seem to worry that much about safety when it comes to making laws & repealing them.
Every law will have some people who like them & people who hate them. It depends on how it affects them. If you got caught by a camera it stands to reason you will not ike it. But they do make drivers think twice about tying to beat the light. (it could cost them money) But you could be the driver going the other way, The reason given about getting rid of the cammeras was it was costing the counties too much money in court when drivers contested the tickets. (instead of police in court it was lawyers being paid)
Florida had a helmet law for motorcycles and repealed it. It has been proven that they prevent head injuries. That makes me believe they werent worried about safety but riders rights.
Whats next? Anti seat belt laws?
I myself am not a big lovers of cameras but I didn't like seat belts at first. Now I never move the car without it being on. At first it was about not getting a ticket, If the worry about getting a ticket for going passed a redlight will stop this practice, it will be worth it. Do that long enough and it becomes second nature.
Sorry for the long answer, but most of the people I know who complain abou the cameras are the ones that always try to run the light.

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

Revenue with a safety hook

I can tell you that at least one city that I know of introduced the cameras with an eye toward revenue. The safety aspect is a great secondary effect and a great hook to sell the system to the public.

Frankly safety is a hook for a number of governmental activities that are motivated by other or additional reasons.

>

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

I think the point gwapaval made is valid. Since towns, cities, counties, municipalities that install red light cameras are not interested in affecting anyone's driving record, and go for the pocketbook of the legal owner of the car, are indeed not interested in safety, but in a new driving tax. It's more like a lottery, only you don't win anything, the government does.

On the other hand, it might be possible that the reason that Automated Traffic Enforcement does not affect the driving record is a accomodation to reduce the public outcry about the citation not being given by an officer.

Still, whether or not the cameras were instigated for revenue or not, I fail to see how one might infer that the municipality was not interested in safety.

As to the lottery point, if I, as a citizen, am safer and avoid being killed by a red light runner, I would certainly feel like I had won the lottery.

I infer it because as soon as the revenue goes down, so do the cameras. If it's really about safety, why doesn't every intersection have them?

If a person blindly enters an intersection just because they have a green light, and don't look both ways too make sure there are no red light runners, they shouldn't be driving. A red light camera is not going to save them. It's not like a red light camera has a force field that stops cars.

I for one do look both ways

I for one do look both ways when the light turns green and count at least two to three drivers going through the red light before pulling out.You would be crazy not to in FL.This problem has gone on so long that it appears to be acceptable here to go through them.Cameras may not save you but when you see a sign saying red light cameras for that intersection you most likely will stop.Knowing it will hit you in the pocket.

--
Charlie. Nuvi 265 WT and Nuvi 2597 LMT. Android Here WeGo - Offline Maps & GPS.

There is NO question

charlesd45 wrote:

Cameras may not save you but when you see a sign saying red light cameras for that intersection you most likely will stop.Knowing it will hit you in the pocket.

If it is the sign that counts, then put up a sign and leave it at that. People aren't cowed by a sign. Witness the thousands of signs everywhere that say 'speed enforced by . . . .'. There are too many signs. People are inured to them.

Accident rates are statistically unaffected by RLCs, though the type of accident trends to shift to a rear-ender from one of side impact. And because fender-benders aren't fully reported, the statistics are likely wrongly skewed in favor of RLCs, as was proved in Winnipeg . . . twice. AFAIK Winnipeg is the only place where the insurance industry stood up and called the police chief a liar and presented evidence that refuted his claims that RLCs reduced accidents.

And everyone in the safety business will tell you that the real problem at intersections is not red light runners (who likely would run the light, camera or not because it isn't as if most people do it willfully, but rather because they are not driving with due care and don't notice (or can't time) the red light in the first place) - you really think they'd drive differently if they also don't see the sign that says there's a camera?

An RLC is a 'pay to play' license. You want to run the light? The only impact is the fee you pay for the privilege. Do you REALLY think that there is significantly elevated danger from a sober red light runner at 2 AM? Why bill him for running a light when there's no one coming down the other road at a 3 minute stop?

There is NO substitute for officer-based law enforcement. RLCs don't stop drunk drivers. RLCs do not stop dangerous or reckless driving. RLCs do not enforce 'no turn' signage. RLCs do not enforce pedestrian rights of way. RLCs are used simply to send invoices to people who dare cross the line while the light is red. And because justice delayed is justice denied, the long term impact of a ticket from an RLC is often completely lost on the driver, who likely does not recall the incident where he dared do the deed.

Virtually all of the real evidence points clearly to the fact that RLCs are about revenue and only about revenue.

And when they start to use RLCs to enforce seat belt rules . . . is THAT about revenue? Of course it is.

--
Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T

while some of what you state is true

bramfrank wrote:

There is NO substitute for officer-based law enforcement. RLCs don't stop drunk drivers. RLCs do not stop dangerous or reckless driving. RLCs do not enforce 'no turn' signage. RLCs do not enforce pedestrian rights of way. RLCs are used simply to send invoices to people who dare cross the line while the light is red.

ALL of the evidence points clearly to the fact that RLCs are about revenue and only about revenue.

And when they start to use RLCs to enforce seat belt rules . . . is THAT about revenue? Of course it is.

While some of what you state is true, I have never seen where a officer's presence or not stopped the drunk from getting behind the wheel. I have never seen where an officer's presence stopped a reckless driver from doing reckless or dangerous behaviors. People are people, and having been behind the wheel of a cruiser I can speak from my experience. Drunks will always get behind the wheel and having a cop on overy corner will not stop that from happening. Dangerous and reckless drivers neither care nor worry about an officer. It's because those people will do that behavior whether an officer is present or not. When working traffic - back when traffic laws used to be enforced, you didn't have to look for an infraction, they happened all the time in front of you. So don't claim having an officer present would stop the behavior, it won't - just as a camera doesn't stop the behavior. Seeing an officer may affect your behavior but for the 99.99% of the other idiots it will have the same affect a camera does.

--
"In order to be old and wise, one first must have been young and stupid."

Florida RLC

My wife just returned from a trip to Florida where the only thing being discussed on the news was the weekend revenue reports for the RLC from different local intersections. One particular camera tallied over $100,000.00 for a single weekend. Something about the intersection and how the RLC is set up that has the locals upset with this particular intersection.

Per the locals, there weren't ever any reports on the safety aspect of the RLC. Well apparently there is no increased safety if you count the the number of tickets issued over a single weekend. Just a thought!

--
Harley BOOM, Zumo 665, (2) Nuvi 765Ts & 1450LMT | 2005 Harley Road King, 2015 Harley Ultra Limited

Ped Crosswalk Count Down Timers..!!

A lot of red light running/intersection accidents could be avoided if there were crosswalk count down timers installed. Some of the intersections in the area I live in have the ped walk/don't walk lights turning into a count down timer when there's about 20 seconds or so of time left before the traffic light goes to yellow/red from the existing green.

Most of the time you're able to judge (by looking at the seconds left as they count down.. against your speed.. and where you're located in relationship to the intersection), if you're able to "SAFELY" go through the intersection or if you should start to slow down because you're going to have to stop.

But of course.. if the cities did that then all the money received from RLC's would then stop. Let's face it. It's NOT about safety.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

Get real

Timantide wrote:

... most of the people I know who complain about the cameras are the ones that always try to run the light.

I have a clean driving record. I do not drive aggressively. I do not 'try to run the light'.

I hate the cameras and what they stand for and I believe they (and a significant reduction in real road policing by trained police officers) have led to a decreased level of safewty on the road..

Period.

Box Car wrote:

While some of what you state is true, I have never seen where a officer's presence or not stopped the drunk from getting behind the wheel. I have never seen where an officer's presence stopped a reckless driver from doing reckless or dangerous behaviors. People are people, and having been behind the wheel of a cruiser I can speak from my experience. Drunks will always get behind the wheel and having a cop on overy corner will not stop that from happening. Dangerous and reckless drivers neither care nor worry about an officer. It's because those people will do that behavior whether an officer is present or not. When working traffic - back when traffic laws used to be enforced, you didn't have to look for an infraction, they happened all the time in front of you. So don't claim having an officer present would stop the behavior, it won't - just as a camera doesn't stop the behavior. Seeing an officer may affect your behavior but for the 99.99% of the other idiots it will have the same affect a camera does.

A police officer may not stop drunks from getting behind the wheel. But he is the the only thing (aside from a crash) that will stop them once they are on the road.

I never suggested that an officer would prevent the infraction, but aside from the red light ticket, an RLC does nothing and has no subjectivity. It doesn't enforce 'no left turns' or red light runners from directions not covered by the camera. It doesn't ticket for failure to yield to pedestrians. It doesn't ticket for blocking the flow of traffic or driving recklessly.

It isn't the camera that affects people's behavior. It is the belief that there's a camera there and as such, a consequence. The police car, sitting at the side of the road actually has a much more profound effect. Some jurisdictions have parked cruisers with mannequins inside and they have proved to very effective deterrents to people who don't drive the route regularly . . . And unless there is some immediate consequence for the driver, his violation will have no impact on his future behavior, pure and simple. No different than trying to discipline a dog, unless you do it at the time of the transgression the discipline will have no impact.

RLCs are strictly cash grabs and you must have live bodies to police the streets.

--
Currently have: SP3, GPSMAP 276c, Nuvi 760T, Nuvi 3790LMT, Zumo 660T

That sums it up

Timantide wrote:

... most of the people I know who complain about the cameras are the ones that always try to run the light.

I agree.

There is also a group against cameras whose opinions are given them by 'talking heads". If this group would actually read the studies they would see that safety is usually a major (tho not always the primary) factor. There hear someone say "unconstitutional" and they parrot "unconstitutional". They read "invasion of privacy" and they spout back "invasion of privacy". They check nothing.

<

jgermann wrote:

There hear someone say "unconstitutional" and they parrot "unconstitutional". They read "invasion of privacy" and they spout back "invasion of privacy". They check nothing.

Care to give any examples of these parrots?

The Scarlet Letter

Box Car wrote:

It isn't the camera that affects people's behavior. It is the belief that there's a camera there and as such, a consequence...No different than trying to discipline a dog...

Yes...quite true.

RLC's mosty stimulate man's "lower" cognitive reflexes through negitive reinforcement.

Proponets of RLC's, it seems though, don't know any other reality.

It's just not about safety at all.

bramfrank wrote:

RLCs are strictly cash grabs and you must have live bodies to police the streets.

Again, those automated enforcement cameras are only for revenue, most of which seems to go to an out of state vendor that installed and operates the system.

If you want it to be all about safety then designate every cent of the fines to affordable housing and health care for indigents. None to pay the vendor. None to the courts. Use other funds for that.

If cities would do that I would believe the safety scam they keep mentioning. Until then, it's just revenue.

EXCUSE ME!

I never made the statements attributed!

HawaiianFlyer wrote:
Box Car wrote:

It isn't the camera that affects people's behavior. It is the belief that there's a camera there and as such, a consequence...No different than trying to discipline a dog...

Yes...quite true.

RLC's mosty stimulate man's "lower" cognitive reflexes through negitive reinforcement.

Proponets of RLC's, it seems though, don't know any other reality.

Please verify the source of your quotes before attributinng them.

--
"In order to be old and wise, one first must have been young and stupid."

The Quote Was...

bramfrank's, above.

This is a artical from the

This is a artical from the news paper, The Florida RLC just may be going away,

GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. -- They haven't been legal for very long, but there's already a movement to get rid of red-light cameras in Florida.

A state House committee voted last week to repeal a law that allows cities to use the cameras to fine red-light violators.

On the First Coast, Green Cove Springs just implemented the technology last month and hundreds of drivers are already facing fines.

"So far we've got quite a few of them," said Green Cove Springs Police officer William O'Daniel.

There are three visible red-light cameras in place along Orange Avenue.

O'Daniel analyzes each snap of the camera, which catches the date, time, speed, and how long lights are yellow and red. Along with picture proof, video also is taken.

"The videos are showing they have ample amount of time to stop," said O'Daniel.

In February, the first month of implementation, 331 citations were issued. To date in March, that number has nearly doubled to 650 citations.

"I think a lot of them are distracted with other things and not actually keeping their eye on the road," he said.

Opponents of red-light cameras say they invade privacy and are just a way for cities to make money. O'Daniel said it's about public safety.

"We are putting people first. That is our number one concern, reducing the amount of accidents and injuries."

Red-light-runners face a $158 fine and some drivers say that's enough motivation to stop at the light.

"It's 158 more dollars in your pocket if you don't run a light," said driver Christopher C. Hughes.

There will soon be more red-light cameras to look out for in Green Cove Springs. Two others could be up and running in two more months.

If the $158 fine isn't paid in 30 days, drivers have to either request a court hearing or pay an increased fine of $256. So far, Green Coves Springs hasn't had anyone contest their violation.

--
Jerry...Jacksonville,Fl Nüvi1450,Nuvi650,Nuvi 2495 and Mapsource.

Unfortunately red light

Unfortunately red light cameras are going to grow and stay for most of FL. I talked with a local municipality and while they insisted it was for safety, the way they said it I could tell otherwise. I'm pretty sure they had their toes crossed lol. This particular person needed work on their lying skills. They knew and I knew it was for profit.

Human nature

Box Car wrote:

So don't claim having an officer present would stop the behavior, it won't - just as a camera doesn't stop the behavior. Seeing an officer may affect your behavior but for the 99.99% of the other idiots it will have the same affect a camera does.

Human nature being what it is, I agree with Box Car

Yes

twix wrote:
jgermann wrote:

There hear someone say "unconstitutional" and they parrot "unconstitutional". They read "invasion of privacy" and they spout back "invasion of privacy". They check nothing.

Care to give any examples of these parrots?

I have a number of friends who fit this description, but I certainly do not want to name them. Because they will not check anything out, I have just stopped debating with them. Their mind is made up.

As an example of refusal to do checking, one of them would not even look in his Bible to check my comments to him on the "creation story". He obviously did not believe in evolution and to see if he would be willing to accept anything new, I asked him if he knew that there are actually two different creation stories in Genesis. He, of course, said that there wasn't but to this day has not checked.

Do you always go read the entire "study" that parts of which are quoted by thenewspaper.com?

Cross Walk Timers

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:

A lot of red light running/intersection accidents could be avoided if there were crosswalk count down timers installed. Some of the intersections in the area I live in have the ped walk/don't walk lights turning into a count down timer when there's about 20 seconds or so of time left before the traffic light goes to yellow/red from the existing green.

Most of the time you're able to judge (by looking at the seconds left as they count down.. against your speed.. and where you're located in relationship to the intersection), if you're able to "SAFELY" go through the intersection or if you should start to slow down because you're going to have to stop.

But of course.. if the cities did that then all the money received from RLC's would then stop. Let's face it. It's NOT about safety.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

The City of Lakeland's red light cameras have these crosswalk timers installed. Many drivers use them to time their passage through the intersection as the light turns yellow. Needless to say some drivers panic when they see the timer hit one, two, or even three seconds and brake suddenly. As I drive often as part of my job, I've seen a number of near, rear end collisions and I'm sure collisions happen that I've not seen.

That being said, they can be used to certainly enable you to judge whether you want to even chance going through the intersection on a yellow/caution light and perhaps risk a ticket from the camera.

-

jgermann wrote:

Do you always go read the entire "study" that parts of which are quoted by thenewspaper.com?

Are you asking me that question? I see it more as an insult, and your question does not deserve an answer.

Interesting.

Interesting.

--
Nuvi 360, OS X Lion 10.7

please ,everyone just drive

please ,everyone just drive safely