California, Tennessee: More Cities Terminate Traffic Cameras

to see these revenue schemes coming to an end /sarc

The DC area's RLC program is adding new locations.

I saw on their local TV station while I was there this last weekend that they are not only added new cameras, but also talking about putting cameras on corners control by stop signs.

I spent a good part of the summer in Ventura and was keenly aware of the numerous red light cameras in the city. Hopefully, the city of Ventura will join may other cities and remove the cameras.

$500!!!! That's insane! I think that would get me to stop for green lights, just to be safe.

Right now its on $50.00

I pass thru Ventura all the time and yeah, the camera saturation is just amazing. I've heard no talk of removing them, unfortunately. They must make money.

I really do not understand why so many people are so bothered with RLC's. If you drive like you should then they present no problem.

As an example, where I live the pedestrian lights will start to flash quite a while before the traffic light changes.

So if you drive aware and watch for those visual giveaways that the light is about to change then you should already be prepared to come to a stop.

Yellow does not mean step on the gas and go like hell!

Let's not have this argument again

I'm with you on this one -

No, but if your car is about to enter the intersection on a yellow at the speed limit, there should be adequate time given to clear the intersection. The right light camera companies instead shortened the yellow to ensure that safe drivers would be ensared and fined. And since the companies get a healthy cut of the "fine," why not?

When cameras are smart enough to NOT ticket somebody giving way to an ambulance behind them at an intersection, then maybe I will change my mind. But cameras installed by companies with an incentive to boost their ticket profits is a horrible idea. It's not about safety, it's about cash. If it was about safety they should put points on licenses or revoke licenses of the "bad" drivers. The scam should stop.

Many cities receive half of the revenue and Redflex Traffic Systems is laughing to the bank.

If the light has been yellow for about 6-8 seconds prior to you entering the intersection, I have no sympathy as one would have plenty of time to stop.

As for the ambulance, how often do you think this scenario actually occurs? (I'd guess almost never). And why would you have to run the light just because there is an emergency vehicle behind you? I've had quite a few come up behind me in NYC, they just go into the oncoming lanes to go around.

In NYC they don't have 6' ditches between opposing lanes. I have run reds to make way for ambulances and firetrucks in both a bus as well as a semi. Someones life could be on the line. Now blue lights just get a slight move over.

double post

Funny - the City Council in the the City I live in in Florida just voted to add more cameras. Must be the income they need.

Yesterday a car went over the double yellow line to pass two vehicles (including mine) that were doing the speed limit. It was especially dangerous due to the busy cross streets in the path.

It would be better to concentrate live resources to catch these types of violators instead of relying on cameras at intersections.

I wonder if that was my little sister. She has pulled that trick before.

You have made a blanket statement for which I have never seen any supporting data. The most that thenewspaper.com - openly against Automated Traffic Enforcement - has ever been able to show is that there have been isolated camera locations where the yellow light interval was shorter than required by generally accepted criteria. If your statement were correct, thenewspaper.com would be providing such data as talking points to ATE opponents.

By the way, Red Bank, Tennessee, voted yesterday to remove its 3 red light camera and 1 speed camera after the 90 day grace period allowed by their contract with American Traffic Services.

I will GLADLY move out of the way for any emergency vehicle (was in one two weeks ago after a bad reaction to bee stings).

I just don't believe this situation is common enough to use as an example as to how or why someone can justify running a redlight and make a statement that the cameras are bad for this reason.

It's all about making $$$.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120802/NEWS15/120802...

@Twix, I'm surprised that you did not read this article closely because it supports what I said. To let others see, I will include the text from your link

The article does not mention the ATE vendor.

The problem, as I read this article, is that the yellow light timings should have been increased at some point in time based on the recent speeds at which 85% of motorists were driving through 3 of the 63 intersections mentioned.

I can not find any claim in this article that any person, company, or juristiction had "shortened" a yellow light. Did you read it otherwise?

What it comes down to is this. If anyone claims that yellow lights are too short at ATE intersections, that's the true issue. You want proof that the ATE vendors are responsible for shortening the lights. Just like I can't prove that they did, neither can you prove that they didn't. The fact remains that more people will be caught in the snare of "running a red light" when it's really about the yellow lights being too short.

Furthermore, shouldn't the ATE vendors be doing studies prior to installing such equipment? Shouldn't they be determining the length of the yellow light, and whether or not it's safe for the intersection? If not, it seems awfully suspect if the yellow lights are not taken into careful consideration.

So whether anyone can meet your expectations or criteria, does not automatically dismiss what is an actual problem at some ATE intersections. And that is, yellow lights are not timed properly.

It's amazing to me that any community would agree to sign up for these things for any less than 1/2 of the total fine. $100 out of a $500 fine is a complete rip-off.

than a way for cities to generate revenue ( A new tax). Once the revnue stream starts drying up or the complaints city hall gets don't justify the revenue politicians start shutting them down.
It would be interesting to know what is the % of out of towners that get nailed vs locals. If most of the revenue comes from out of towners and they can't vote the local politicians out it's easy money for the city.
When you get complaints from the locals and they start showing up at town meetings politicians who like to get re-elected listen.
Maybe the politican who signed a contract to give
a private company 80% of the revenue while the city gets 20% got tired of being asked why.

Are these engineers employed by the camera people?
Although I don't know, I'm thinking cities do not have such engineers on their payroll. OUR city would hire a consultant.

My town is adding cameras and the city council is thinking about putting up some speed cameras, as well. They only charge $60 for running a light with a camera. And it doesn't go on your driving record. If a cop catches you, it's $160 and you get a citation that goes on your record.

This means the engineer has P.E. after their name and the requirements are the same for every profession. You have to prove competency and be issued a license by the state in which you practice. New Jersey isn't going to accept a report signed off by an engineer licensed to practice in Arizona. They have to be licensed by New Jersey to show they are familiar with local regulations. That doesn't mean they need to graduate from some place like Rutgers, it means they have to have knowledge of New Jersey requirements and prove that through examination. Now states do cross license, a P.E. from Arizona can get a NJ license without taking the complete exam, they just take and pass the parts dealing with their state requirements.

Assuming the report was generated by an engineer from AZ, it would still have to be certified by a NJ engineer who states, under penalty of perjury the requirements were met. We have over a dozen P.E.s in our office and none of them will sign a certification as they don't have a state license. So reports go out with their name and title as the author, but it is up to someone else to certify the work. Nobody likes to be caught in an audit and charged for practicing without a license.

cameras on corners control by stop signs. OMG ....
Hope the Florida Governator don't find this

The vendor is making too much money while city leaders are taking in all the criticism. If the city's share is doubled or more while keeping the fine the same, I bet the city will keep the cameras in place.

NJ DOT maintains that studies were done by the cities and were verified by professional engineers.
From the link

NJ DOT washes their hands of the matter. I agree with their stance. If cities treat RLC fines the same as parking tickets, and not moving violations, then DOT won't get involved.
Too often our government people are more concerned that the paper work is filed correctly than if the facts are right. That last statement is my opinion of course, based on personal obervations.

+1

Been a while since we have batted back and forth - think you were on vacation.

I may regret bringing this up, but I am unclear as to what we should not argue again about.

Double Tap made his statement in response to a post from Melaqueman which I thought was a reasoned one but ended with

If you want to link to it in another window it is at
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/37539/#Comment-301807.

I do not remember an argument about that (but maybe I missed it). What should we not rehash?

To repeat:

It's not about safety, it's about cash.

I don't remember either. But I snapped at you as I recall. I apologize for that.