Poll Finds Support for Red Light Cameras in Tampa Bay Area

 

Saw this printed in my paper today from the Tampa Bay Times formerly the St. Pete Times as of today.

Poll Finds Support for Red Light Cameras in Bay Area

By MICHAEL VAN SICKLER
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES
Published: Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, January 1, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.

They might be unpopular in other parts of the nation, but red light cameras enjoy strong support from most residents of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties.

A Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9 poll found 62 percent of residents favor the cameras. A third oppose them, while 4 percent aren't sure.

Here is the link with the rest of the story.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20120101/NEWS/120109997/141...

A couple reasons

I think people in this area are willing to give it a chance for a couple of reasons:

1. In other states, most of the violations are not actually for running the red light, but failing to fully stop when turning on red. In Florida, if a car is moving 12 mph or less and conditions are safe, a camera ticket is not supposed to be issued when turning on red. Adding to the confusion, police at the scene can issue a ticket for not fully stopping before a turn on red.

2. The Tampa and St. Petersburg police reviewers are rejecting almost 1/2 of the violations sent to them by the camera companies before mailing them to car owners. So far at least, the concern seems to actually be on safety, and not just a money grab. How long that continues remains to be seen...

Red Light cams

There are many views of what red light cams are.
Red cams should be on safety, but when they lower the time yellow is on that can through the timing off! Many jurisdictions stop using cams because the companies operating them where manipulating results to increase the volume of fines to met contracts to keep them from terminations! That is not safety!! Big Brother using machines to control humans, you can see what this is leading to!

A Breath of Fresh Air

EV Driver wrote:

...The Tampa and St. Petersburg police reviewers are rejecting almost 1/2 of the violations sent to them by the camera companies before mailing them to car owners. So far at least, the concern seems to actually be on safety, and not just a money grab. How long that continues remains to be seen...

In this day and age, it's nice to read that some jurisdictions are actually thinking and using reason to issue these citations. Of course I'm still opposed to automatic violation cameras, but this process seem a bit more palatable.

Happy New Year to all!!!!!

Welcome, Icedog

Icedog wrote:

...
Red cams should be on safety, but when they lower the time yellow is on that can through the timing off! Many jurisdictions stop using cams because the companies operating them where manipulating results to increase the volume of fines to met contracts to keep them from terminations!

See you have just joined us. Welcome. There are many knowledgeable members on this site who are willing to help others solve problems. Lots of accurate POI files also.

I am interested in the basis of your statement that "[m]any jurisdictions stop using cams because the companies operating them [were] manipulating results to increase the volume of fines"

While I know there have been a very few instances in the past where municipalities set yellow timing to less than the standards set by the Institute of Trasportation Engineers, I have never seen any reports implying that the camera companies were able to lower yellow light timings. Yellow light timings are determined by the municapality traffic engineering departments.

Where did you hear about this?

Red Lights

You asked Where did I hear about this?
Texas City Caught Again With Illegally Short Yellow Time.
Go to this page and you see what is going on: http://photoradarscam.com/trust.php and after you can make your mind.
Here you can see: http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...

If you are not satisfied you can click here on this link: http://serp.freecause.com/?sid=63267&cuid=&userid=71257755&q.... and you are able to satisfy your curiosity!

Read this report: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3368.asp , and at the end you have the answer for my say....you will be enlighten!

Now tell me if this is for safety or money.

Be back to you

Icedog wrote:

You asked Where did I hear about this?
Texas City Caught Again With Illegally Short Yellow Time.
Go to this page and you see what is going on: http://photoradarscam.com/trust.php and after you can make your mind.
Here you can see: http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...

If you are not satisfied you can click here on this link: http://serp.freecause.com/?sid=63267&cuid=&userid=71257755&q.... and you are able to satisfy your curiosity!

Read this report: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3368.asp , and at the end you have the answer for my say....you will be enlighten!

Now tell me if this is for safety or money.

The link to the "Texas City again caught ..." is http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3283.asp

your original post in this thread said

Quote:

There are many views of what red light cams are.
Red cams should be on safety, but when they lower the time yellow is on that can through the timing off! Many jurisdictions stop using cams because the companies operating them where manipulating results to increase the volume of fines to met contracts to keep them from terminations! That is not safety!! Big Brother using machines to control humans, you can see what this is leading to!

The Baytown failure was in not setting the yellow to the minimum suggested for the speed limit. No excuse can be made for Baytown, BUT Baytown did not "lower the time yellow is on".

I made a response to the "6 cities" article in this thread http://www.poi-factory.com/node/30127

Scroll to the bottom of the first page and back up 4 posts for my first set of debunking on links that people posted. There are quite a few detailed responses to other links on the second page of that thread. A few more on the third page.

I read all the links and follow the links to other places to demonstrate how the facts have been generally misquoted. A few time the report was accurate and there was nothing to do but agree that the municipality was in the wrong and got caught. However, the majority of the time, the "quotes" and "facts" are partial and misleading.

the newspaper.com is very good at making a statement that someone with confirmation bias will leap on and say "Aha - proof I was right"

Several of your links will take some time to research. Since I am going to do this, I hope your will go to http://www.poi-factory.com/node/30127 and read through it.

I have been enlightened

Icedog wrote:

... Red cams should be on safety, but when they lower the time yellow is on that can [throw] the timing off! Many jurisdictions stop using cams because the companies operating them [were] manipulating results to increase the volume of fines to met contracts to keep them from terminations! ...

Icedog wrote:

...
Read this report: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3368.asp , and at the end you have the answer for my say....you will be enlighten! ...

The headline in this article by thenewspaper.com dated 1/4/2001 is:

    New Jersey: Camera Town Caught with Short Yellow Times
    Glassboro, New Jersey admits red light camera generated $1 million worth of tickets at intersection with short yellow.

In the body of the article, one finds that the red light in question had a yellow timing shorter than it should have (3 seconds) for a road with a speed limit of 35 MPH (4 seconds). The article takes pains to imply that Glassboro "shortened" the yellow timing.

However the article then reveals that the state Department of Transportation had changed the speed limit from 25 MPH to 35 MPH in 1993 without changing the yellow timing. The red light camera was not installed until 2010 (17 years later).

So for 17 years the timing had been at 3 seconds. Yet Icedog seems to believe that this situation supports his contention that cities "lower the time yellow is on ".

There is no question that the yellow timing was not correct (and had been so for 17 years). But, it is clear that Glassboro did not "lower the time yellow is on ".

@Icedog

Icedog wrote:

Red cams should be on safety, but when they lower the time yellow is on that can through the timing off! Many jurisdictions stop using cams because the companies operating them where manipulating results to increase the volume of fines to met contracts to keep them from terminations! That is not safety!!

I asked

jgermann wrote:

I am interested in the basis of your statement that "[m]any jurisdictions stop using cams because the companies operating them [were] manipulating results to increase the volume of fines"

While I know there have been a very few instances in the past where municipalities set yellow timing to less than the standards set by the Institute of Trasportation Engineers, I have never seen any reports implying that the camera companies were able to lower yellow light timings. Yellow light timings are determined by the municapality traffic engineering departments.

Where did you hear about this?

You replied

Icedog wrote:

You asked Where did I hear about this?
Texas City Caught Again With Illegally Short Yellow Time.
Go to this page and you see what is going on: http://photoradarscam.com/trust.php and after you can make your mind.

You seemed to be giving me links which you thought would demonstrate that municipalities had done things to lower the time yellow is on .

An earlier post of mine dealt with the Texas city (Baytown) – where there was no mention of lowering yellow timings; and, in my post above, I pointed you to my comments on the “6 Cities” in another thread.

I now want to respond to the link http://photoradarscam.com/trust.php which was titled “Violations of Trust”. The page turned out to be a series of links and excerpts to some 84 articles. Links 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 38, 42, 44, 49, 51, 58, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 81 and 84 were from thenewspaper.com. So far, I have followed all of the links to thenewspaper.com and was not able to find anything other than the Baytown article (link 31) that made any claim about “shortening” or “shortened” yellow lights. I will be quick to point out that there are instances that yellow lights were not set at the timing they should have been based on standards – BUT no one has claimed that yellow timings were modified to bring in revenue.

I am fairly confident that you did not follow any of the links, but I may be wrong. If there are any of thenewspaper.com articles that support a claim that any municipality lowered yellow light timings, then I would appreciate knowing which ones you think do so.

Perhaps you were trying to provide posts that supported your statement that the companies operating them [were] manipulating results to increase the volume of fines.

If that is the case, please amplify what was meant by “manipulating results”. I think I have demonstrated that any manipulation was not due to lowering yellow light timing.

Some of the links do speak of fraudulent activities by officials in cities. Some of the links talk about activities by ATE companies to influence municipalities (but they are profit driven and one should expect them to “market” their products)

Oh, please spare us...

jgermann wrote:

...(but they are profit driven and one should expect them to “market” their products)

Oh, is this what this crap is called now? "Marketing"?

I lol'd, I frowned, I puked...

--
nüvi 3790T | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable ~ JFK

Bit surprised ...

Juggernaut wrote:
jgermann wrote:

...(but they are profit driven and one should expect them to “market” their products)

Oh, is this what this crap is called now? "Marketing"?

I lol'd, I frowned, I puked...

Bit surprised at the response because I do not know how you would extend it. By extend it, I am thinking along the lines of restricting activities of organizations within the free-enterprise system because we object to their product.

Maybe I misunderstand which activities you are lumping under "crap"

Let's say one objects to the Predator drone because of its military uses. Do we lobby for restrictions on the marketing activities of General Atomics to sell this product?

Clearly, activities like bribery and fraud must be rooted out because they are illegal.

.

The real problem with polls (and also with enfrachised citizens in general) is that people who have no clue about the issues will express opinions based on gut reaction, rather than on any basis in fact, rendering their input counter-productive.

IMHO it's too bad that voting is a right. It should be a priviledge that is earned.

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