Ohio Judge says speed-cameras are a scam!

--Finally!!!

It's about time ! ! !

That view needs to go large - nationally.

I completely agree!

When economy was down, cities and counties were forced to find ways to increase revenue, and cut down expenses. Proposals from red light operation companies seemed a perfect match: using less cops to enforce the law and getting revenue share from traffic fines without upfront cost. Now, more and more cities and counties are finding out the truth behind the beautiful lies.

Another smaller city in California is getting rid of the cameras as well.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22716880/hayward...

Somehow I think it will never happen here in NYC. I still see more and more RLC's popping up all over the place. I personally think they create accidents as I see people slamming on their brakes not to get the ticket because people know where these cameras are.

....that the Ohio legislature is looking at making the use of speed cameras illegal state-wide. We'll see what happens. On a side note: the village, where the judge ruled the cameras illegal, stated that if it is required to refund all of the money they have taken in over the last 2 years, it will bankrupt the village. The Village of Elmwood Place has taken in almost 2 million over the last 2 years. And they say it is not about the money. Yeah, right!!!

They have only had the cameras up since September. If returning their ill-gotten money (hopefully with interest) bankrupts them, so be it. They are a postage stamp sized village anyway. Maybe Cincinnati, whose voters have already banned these cameras, could absorb them.

This judge is my hero.

--I don't know what is more worthy of mention. That these cams are all about (and ONLY about) sapping even more money out of OUR pockets? ... Or, how callous they (the politicians) are about the fact that these things cause us MORE accidents than they prevent, while they (the same politicians) line their pockets at our triple expense!!!

Mine too!

@jim, they only take money out of YOUR pocket if you break the law.

Most studies show that cameras which have been in place for some time reduce accidents - especially those involving injury. Even though read-end accidents may go up when cameras are first installed, motorist change their driving behavior around them and then such accidents also go down.

Just because sites like thenewspaper.com and the National Motorist association will selectively report on statistics where rear-end accidents increase when cameras are first installed does not mean that, overall, safety is not enhanced as time passes.

Given the conviction with which you made your statement, you ought to be able to provide ten or so studies to back up your comments.

If your statement is true,

Then this statement would also be true.

MANY studies show that cameras which have been in place for some time DO NOT reduce accidents - especially those involving injury.

The RLC's are scam cams.

jgermann, I disagree with you. Claiming that red light and speed cameras are NOT about the money and ARE about safety is like saying that adding onerous taxes to gun and ammunition sales are about saving lives. Of course taxing guns and ammunition is not about saving lives - it's about getting more money from we the people. Couch traffic cameras in any term you like, but it's all about the money.

Phil

FYI (CBS News):

Lawmakers Calling On Albany To Allow Speed Cameras In NYC
March 13, 2013 12:15 PM

I have said on several occasions that Automated Camera Enforcement (ATE) is about both safety and revenue. I have never said that ATE is only about safety. I think that officials who say or imply that ATE is only about safety are being disingenuous.

I like the fact that revenue from ATE is paid by those who break the law - as opposed to my having to pay higher taxes - which would be required if ATE were not here.

Because you are evidently an opponent of ATE, you seem to be unwilling to admit that there are safety benefits. You make declarative, unequivocal statements like "it's all about the money" when you know, or should know, that there are safety benefits.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to you own set of facts about ATE safety benefits.

At the risk of re-kindling an argument that has no end (though it looks like you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself)...

the fact that you "like the fact that revenue from ATE is paid by those who break the law" resulting, you think, in lower taxes for yourself, speaks volumes about your personality. You like income/revenue redistribution as long as it benefits YOU. That is YOUR motivation.

Your all-too-eager willingness to derive a benefit from fines paid by those entrapped in tiny incremental technical violations for which they would never be cited without automated enforcement, reveals your selfishness.

Your assumption about how it affects your taxes that is tenuous at best, considering how much revenue from most RLC tickets goes to the people selling and promoting them, and considering that most governmental units spend every dollar as fast as they take it in. The same municipal leaders who advocate RLCs are the same ones who seem to have glorious expansive dreams for their towns; cutting spending is an anathema to them. (Only the federal government, with its ability to create as much money as needed on demand, spends it even faster).

You may earnestly believe that it's "fair" for anyone who may "break the law" to pay fines to offset your fair share of the burden all citizens bear to have a civilized society, but it that same principle was applied on a broader scale, you wouldn't like living under those circumstances very much (even though you vehement denial is expected, because, after all, you'll claim, how could I know how you live your life).

If you want people who "break the law" to pay as many fines as possible so that your tax burden is reduced, watch out: you may be the next one on the list, because there are more than enough laws on the books to entangle even you in that web.

You really want to take the "zero-tolerance" mindset and extend it to more things just so you can think you're paying lower taxes? Then you better be prepared to never leave home, and even that may not protect you. Do you really want to pay a fine every time it rains (if a drop of water runs off your property)? Do you really want to pay a fine because the albedo of your roof contributes to global warming? There are thousands more like this, but you aren't even aware of them.

When you want some scheme that you think will benefit you by making somebody else pay part of what you'd otherwise have to pay (notice I avoided the use of the appropriate term "fair share" since you would of course object to that), be careful what you wish for, because the next 'revenue + some other benefit scheme' may be one that hits YOU in YOUR wallet. And somebody else will be glad you're paying some of their bills.

I guess for me that this whole ATE discussion goes to motive. I contend the MOTIVE for the cameras is to make money. If there happen to be fewer accidents along the way, that's a bonus. The politicians spin the safety angle to sell the cameras to the public. Call me a cynic, but I don't much trust anything the government does.

That's what I like about the Factory - it's a place for discussing various, divergent opinions.

Phil

ATE or ACE?

but base on the ruling, the way they set these up are really to trap people to make money. No warning signs, pay for just a hearing even if they're wrong, they still make money.

I usually say Automated Traffic Enforcement.

Good catch. I should have caught that myself. Glad that you read closely. Many people do not.

This is my kind of Judge however, I would not get too excited due the fact an appeal most likely will follow.

Shows that they aren't all wise, just appointed.

Please keep in mind the rules when posting.
It's ok to have an opinion and express it here provided you can do so in a polite way.
This is a warning. I will start removing comments after this point, so let's keep it friendly.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28855

We reserve the right to remove posts or to ban anyone who willfully violates the forum rules.
•Be friendly and polite. We will not tolerate personal attacks, insults, rudeness, or inflammatory posts.
•Avoid bickering or arguing for sport. POI Factory is not a forum for politically charged debate. Let's avoid topics that already have a long list of Democrat or Republican talking points.
•Do not argue with a moderator’s decision publicly. If you feel a decision should be reconsidered, send a private note via the contact form. The moderator’s decision is final in these matters.

All posts must comply with the site's Terms of Use.

Disciplinary Action

You will usually be given a warning if you break the rules. If a moderator has to talk to you a second time you will have your posting privileges removed for a period of time to be determined by the moderator.

If you continue to break the rules, you will be banned and not allowed to return to the forums.

~Angela

As I've read in another blog, "You're talking about NYC. They can bust you for excess salt and large sugar drinks."

The Baltimore paper ran a series of articles on people getting camera speeding tickets when they were not speeding. They eventually turned up a camera issued speeding ticket for a car that was setting still waiting for a red light to change. Seems a lot of law abiding people were getting tickets.

@zeaflal, that was my quote.

I hope that those in Baltimore receiving tickets that the city admitted were clearly in error (see http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-13/news/bs-md-speed... for one particularly egregious case) did not have to pay (although there would have been a cost in time to dispute the ticket) or if they paid were one of the over 3,000 people to whom Baltimore is giving refunds.

This is sad, that took this long for a judge to see the light for what this is, a cash grabbing machine without regard for safety. If you install a red-light cam, lower the yellow to a minimum you are not doing people a favour for a safer intersection.
It is wrong to run a red-light, but is also wrong to lower the time the yellow stays on at the intersection with the red-light compared to the one without red-light.
Increase the time the yellow light is on and you see a safer intersection for everybody.

It is about money, not safety. If the cameras were there for safety, we'd want to revoke the licenses and get those "dangerous" drivers off the road who frequently get zapped by the cameras, instead of keeping them on the road so they can keep getting billed.

A system built for safety needs due process and legal safeguards to ensure all who are unfairly charged get a fair hearing. Cameras provide for neither.

@icedog - I agree with your general thoughts that the yellow lights at red-light cameras should be long enough to provide a safe interval for drivers to clear intersections.

However, I think you are betraying an anti-camera feeling by implying that cities lower yellow light timing when they install cameras. I have never seen any documented evidence of that occurring.

One can cite instances where yellow lights are not at the timings that they should be, but they were not long enough before the installation of red-light cameras and their insufficiency was not corrected - even though it should have been - until someone questioned it by disputing a ticket.

It is a myth that cities have been caught "shortening" yellow lights and I always try to jump in when someone implies such. It is Ok to be against red light cameras. I just want to make sure that the reasons for opposition are based on facts - not misrepresentations or outright untruths.

What I found interesting is that this thread is about speed cameras.

You might think RLC's AND SC's bring in revenue from the evil bad guys and reduce overall taxes for good guys. Like giving a junkie heroin to kick a drug habit, increasing revenue for a politician is only going to increase spending not lower taxes!!!

Also big money without fail leads to corruption, rigged cam's, speed traps, funny signage! Trust your government as you would street scum, street scum are probably more trust worthy!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20004508-71.html
"It seems that so many tickets remained unpaid (only a reported 30 percent were ever paid) that initial estimates of $90 million in revenue weren't exactly realistic."

Just the fact that there even IS "an initial estimate of $90 million in revenue" speaks volumes as to the reason for the existence of these cameras.

So they were put in based on an estimate of $90 million in revenue... and then after the revenue fell far short of that, they were removed. The primary reason they were installed is obvious, but I'm sure there will be one person on here still making the argument that it wasn't mainly about the money, with safety just added in as window dressing.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10458570-71.html
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...

... after outright denial, or claims of it all being just a "myth," the usual response is a "which came first, chicken or egg?" argument. Or maybe a new argument that goes like this: RLCs actually provided a valuable public service by exposing yellow light times that were *already* short.

Except...
"The city of Springfield, Missouri prepared for the installation of a red light camera system in 2007 by slashing the yellow warning time by one second at 105 state-owned intersection signals across the city"

"Lubbock, Texas KBCD, a local television station, exposed the city’s short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed."

...etc.

Just silly coincidences, I guess.

And if it was really about safety, then this would not happen:

Arizona shuts down speed cameras on freeways
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/07/16/20100716ar...

"...lower-than-expected revenue encouraged Arizona to end their freeway speed camera program."
"Arizona law required in person service of citations and many drivers refused to pay" (and here's why that MUST be the case: "Some of those tickets, typically $181 apiece, no doubt were lost in the mail" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us/16camera.html?_r=0)

Nothing like due process getting in the way of a money-grabbing scheme, huh?

Exactly. That's why in many jurisdictions they had to do an end-around by classifying these "citations" differently (like parking tickets) than what they really are (moving violations). That's just the first indication of "pulling a fast one" in this case.

More here: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/06/20100506ar...

"Among those who criticized the financial motives of the system was Gov. Jan Brewer, then-secretary of state. She did not support the state photo-radar system because it appeared from the beginning to be designed exclusively as a revenue generator."

and here: http://photoradarscam.com/summary.html

----

Actually, the biggest public health crisis today is not auto accidents in intersections, or speeding, but something else altogether: obesity. Since the SCOTUS has decided that "we're all in this together" in terms of our obligations for health care costs, that means that obese people are costing everyone else money, just by their existence.

Since I'm not overweight, and since I selfishly would like for other people to pay more than their fair share of the burden of having a civilized society, and since I am willing to promote this on the basis of "for their own good" (certainly not for my own selfish benefit as a non-obese person), here's a "solution":

There should be a fine for anyone who is observed in a public space being in an obviously obese condition. This will be enforced with an automated scales & camera system, which will send a notice of violation to any obese person caught in this automated network. Implemented to the fullest extent imaginable, a system like this can't possibly have any unintended consequences (such as causing obese people to stay inside all the time, becoming even more obese).

Remember it's not about the revenue, it's about public safety, so we all need to advocate a system that will address the biggest (pun intended) and most costly public health problem in America today: obesity.

Call your local politicians, and ask them to install Obesity Detection Systems today!

+1.

Can we make him Pope?

No, I guess it's too late for that. Too bad. Finally somebody willing to take a principled stand against a stacked deck. He certainly seems to understand what this is really all about. Maybe he's a POI Factory regular!

From that article:

The contractor spokesman for Xerox is named Gilligan. As Will Rogers used to say "Folks, I can't make this stuff up" ROTFL.

Cheers,
--Lee

@GoneNomad

It seems that most opponents of Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) latch onto articles that seem to support their beliefs and do not take the extra time to research whether or not the statements in such articles are factual or are actually misrepresentations. Thank you for bringing this up again. It is helpful to review the "myths" from time to time. I appreciate the fact that you chose to title your post with " 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times" because it gives me a chance to bring facts to light.

Let's start with comments on the article that was used in your title. See
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...
with links to thenewspaper.com articles

This article has been put forth many times as "proof" that cities had intentionally "shortened" yellow light timings at red-light camera to generate more revenue.

My guess is that those, like you, who have, in the past, provided me with the link to the National Motorist Association article above did not follow the links and take the time to actually read the other articles linked to (and then follow the links in thenewspaper.com articles to the sources to see whether or not thenewspaper.com had made any misrepresentations). They only looked at the headlines and said to themselves “Oh boy, have we got jgermann now”.

Well, I hope that thoughtful readers of this thread will read my comments and - at the same time - do a shift-right click on the links and see if they draw conclusions different from mine.

The lie in the National Motorist Association (NMA) article is this:

There is no other way to read this statement than to create a timeline:
1. install red-light cameras
then
2.shorten the yellow light duration
and, then
3. collect profits.

The lie is the word "shorten" as we will see. The unfortunate reality is that lots of people have believed this lie.

The NMA article then cited six cities based on articles from thenewspaper.com. Anyone who takes the time to read these articles will not find the word "shorten".

Chattanooga, Tennessee.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2269.asp

This is my own city, so it delighted me that this would be presented to me as “facts” which would support a contention that cities have shortened yellow light timings to generate more revenue.

“Last month, a motorist challenged his citation by insisting that the yellow light was too short and only remained lit for 3.0 seconds before changing to red and activating the camera. LaserCraft, the private vendor that runs the camera program in return for a cut of the profits, provided the judge with a computer database that asserted the yellow was 3.8 seconds at that location. Bean gave the motorist the benefit of the doubt and watched the video of the alleged violation while counting how long the light stayed yellow.

Bean then personally checked the intersection in question was timed at three seconds while other nearby locations had about four seconds of yellow warning. City traffic engineer John Van Winkle told Bean that "a mix up with the turn arrow" was responsible and that the bare minimum for the light should be 3.9 seconds. Judge Bean ordered 176 of the tickets issued within the first 0.9 seconds after the light turned red canceled.”

Fortunately for me, this article - with a headline of “Refunds for Photo Tickets on Short Yellow: Chattanooga, Tennessee Judge refunds 176 red light camera tickets issued at illegally short yellow light.” - illustrates the liberties that thenewspaper.com takes with articles it runs. Three seconds is not illegal (look at the articles below to note that 3 seconds is the minimum suggested timing) for a 30 MPH intersection. The city engineer said that the yellow light should have been 3.9 seconds by the city's formula and that is the timing today.

Note that the camera vendor thought that the timing at that intersection was 3.8 seconds - way above the minimum. and that the city engineer was adding to that.

Dallas, Texas
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2068.asp

“Dallas likewise installed the cameras at locations with existing short yellow times. A total of twenty-one camera intersections in Dallas have yellow times below TxDOT's bare minimum recommended amount. The Texas Transportation Institute study also found that shorter yellows generate a 110 percent jump in the number of tickets, but at the cost of safety. Increasing the yellow one second above the recommended minimum cut crashes by 40 percent.”

Note that the complaint was that cameras were installed “at locations with existing short yellow times”. While this, in my view, was not acceptable, it is NOT shortening yellow light timings to generate revenue.

Note that we have no indication as to whether or not the yellow timings at camera intersections are different from the yellow timings at non camera locations. There was a reference pdf from the TV station's reporting cited in thenewspaper.com article which can be found here. http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2007/kdfw-rlcdallas.pdf
It would have been nice if the TV station had been able to get from the city the actual yellow light timings.

Springfield ,Missouri
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1759.asp

“The city of Springfield, Missouri prepared for the installation of a red light camera system by slashing the yellow warning time by one second at 105 state-owned intersection signals across the city. In a 2005 Texas Transportation Institute study, a one-second reduction in yellow time resulted in a 100% increase in the number of violations (Table 6-2). Each violation under Springfield's new system will bring a $100 fine to city coffers after ticketing begins on June 1.”

Once again this is a not a situation where a city with cameras shortens yellow light timings to generate revenue. This might be an example of a city taking unethical action, but the article does not state the actual timing of the 105 yellows being referenced, so we cannot make a judgment.

GoneNomad quoted the first sentence above but failed to note that the source article continued with a statement that “[t]he city defended its effort to the Springfield News-Leader by claiming it was "standardizing" and had increased the yellow time at 136 city-operated lights to meet national standards.”

I would not expect thenewspaper.com to provide the actual reduced timing on the 105 yellows reduced (to see how they might have compared to guidelines), but because thenewspaper.com reported the city's statement that the yellow on 136 city lights were INCREASED to meet national standards makes me think that the 105 first referenced yellows also met national standards. But - noting that thenewspaper.com article does not say whether the reduction in timings was to below guidelines is important. Had those yellows been below guidelines, it would have been reported.

Not to put too fine a point on the necessity of reading all of the articles for pertinent facts, I note that Springfield lowered yellow timings on 105 "state -owned intersection signals across the city.". Also noted is that Springfield " increased the yellow time at 136 city-operated lights to meet national standards. ". They installed 5 cameras in 2007 when this article was written (and there are 10 now). We have no idea whether the cameras were installed at state-owned or at city-operated intersections.

Lubbock, Texas
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1621.asp

“On Thursday, the Lubbock, Texas city council voted to delay installation of red light cameras after a local television station exposed the city's short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed.”

and

“At 82nd and University, the 50 MPH speed limit suggests the need for a 5 second yellow, but it currently set at just 4.3 seconds. At 82nd and Frankford, the speed of traffic requires 4.5 seconds of yellow, but the public is only given 4.0. Milwaukee and 19th, a 55 MPH intersection, has a 4.4 second yellow when it should be 5.5. Parkway and Zenith has a 2.9 second yellow which is illegal under federal regulations mandating yellow times of no less than 3.0 seconds. Hart admitted the light should be 3.5 seconds.”

Once again, this is not a situation of a city installing cameras and then lowering yellow light timings to generate revenue. HOWEVER, this certainly seems to me to be a case of someone in Lubbock wanting to generate more revenue by not putting the yellow light timings - at both camera intersections as well as non-camera one - to at least the minimum timings.

BUT - GoneNomad should have paid attention to his own quote from the blog.

Had he done so and decided to check the source article in thenewspaper.com article, he would have learned that the cameras had not been installed and the city council voted to delay installation. See http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=6129121&nav=3w6y

Because there have been no follow-up articles by thenewspaper.com on the yellow timings when Lubbock did install cameras, we can probably assume that they then all met yellow timing guidelines.

Nashville, Tennessee
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1122.asp

“Nashville resident Joe Savage obtained the data on every red light running ticket issued on Broadway since 2000. He contends that yellow lights are longer at intersections along Broadway until the areas where police are issuing tickets. At those locations, Savage clocked the yellow signal time at less than 3 seconds, in violation of both state law and federal regulations. The Nashville Scene confirmed his findings”

Note that this article starts by noting that it is not about red-light cameras but about police setting traps at intersections with short yellow light timings.

Union City, California
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/670.asp

“Authorities explain the yellow was too short long before the cameras were installed, but that no effective system was in place to verify the timing of the traffic signals despite their direct impact on safety."

Article Excerpt:
"It was not intentional. We're not going to let anything hurt the integrity and credibility of this program," [police Capt. Brian Foley] said. "At least it's better to find out now than a year from now."”

Once again, this is not a situation of a city installing cameras and then lowering yellow light timings to generate revenue. However, seems to me that every red-light camera has electronics that control all the timings - red, yellow and green. It should not be difficult to check the electronics and Union City should have done so (and do so routinely).

To recap on the six cities. No city "shortened" any yellow light

The articles on Arizona from July 2010 did not seem to have anything to do with either safety or revenue - but did seem to be related to politics.

Speed cameras on freeways across Arizona went dark just before midnight last night, ending the state's controversial experiment with photo enforcement.

The short-lived program expired after the state Department of Public Safety decided against renewing its contract with camera vendor Redflex Traffic Systems. Gov. Jan Brewer signaled in January that she planned to bring the cameras down."

I hope GoneNomad will tell us why Arizona currently has both speed and red-light cameras in operation, but he chose to link to several 2010 articles when one of them had this info.
" The Department of Public Safety had reported a 19 percent drop in fatal collisions in the first nine months the cameras were in use, but after Ms. Brewer took office and named a new director of the department, no further data was released."

It never occurred to you that you've put the cart before the horse, did it?

As should be obvious, NO, that isn't the ONLY way the scenario you refer to could apply. You might want to fire up another sequence of google searches to see if that helps you understand the fallacy in your "logic."

The conclusion they will draw (if any) is that you are once again arguing semantics, such as what form of the root word "short" means what, as if when you can't find "shorten" that means your argument wins.

The reality is never so neat and tidy. You, from the comfort of your easy chair, say this: "To recap on the six cities. No city 'shortened' any yellow light" but the people who were actually there say otherwise.

Since it seems you've worn out the search buttons on keywords with the root word "short" here's a couple other words to do your extensive google searches on instead:

"fraud"

"kickback"

And here's a new phrase for you to research:
"...tampering with the software to speed up the transition from amber to to red, netting the local police and others in on the scam millions of dollars of extra fines."

Next maybe you'll protest that since didn't happen near you, it doesn't count... as if it's the only example, and as if human nature - especially among government officials presented with an new opportunity to get their fingers on a new revenue stream - is really all that different from one place to the next.

And you'll probably claim this search term doesn't matter either:
"Redflex company executives and lobbyists had paid for hotel rooms and spent thousands on entertainment for the city official overseeing the red light program."

Oh no, who could see any possible problem with that?

Especially not if those ill-gotten fines help reduce your tax bill. What could be wrong with that?

Millions of words later, you'll still believe what you believe, and everyone else will still believe what they believe, which is mostly not in agreement with you.

Not that you care. But if somebody else comes up with some other scheme "for your own good" that causes YOU to pay more, THEN you will care. The concept of that scheme being unfair to you won't ever be called into question by your counterpart on the other side (the beneficiary side) of that equation.

Now if we can just convince some of our Texas politicians of that, maybe we can get rid of them. Doubtful, though. Too much money involved!

This thread has a lot of twists and turns, kinda OT at times but I guess the theme is all about being able to do what you want, when you want it, regardless of the technology available to cite you when you do something wrong.

I almost wonder what some folks think about entering secured office buildings where you must present valid id and have your fingerprint scanned into the system. Do you get all twisted as well, i.e. conspiracy theory? Unwilling to be printed, because it's some sort of invasion LOL

jgermann, I find it interesting that, while you insist on others only stating "facts", you, on the other hand, feel free to make speculations based on no evidence whatsoever. To wit:

Really? On what evidence, other than your gut feeling, do you conclude that the 105 lights first referenced also meet national standards? Or are you just guessing?

Really? Do you really believe that it occurs to reporters to report everything? And do it accurately? Well, you've obviously never attempted to carefully explain any scientific topic to a local reporter, only to find the science totally wrong in the resultant article.

Nope, totally wrong. The signal light cycles are run by a signal light controller box at one corner of the intersection. All the redlight camera does is parallel onto the appropriate relays that change the light from yellow to red. From Wikipedia:

The camera has no control over the actual timing of the cycles.

Now lets look at all this another way. Cities probably choose high-accident intersections to install most redlight cams. Later it turns out that many of these intersections had yellow cycles that were too short for the posted speed. It seems logical to me that the reason those particular intersections were high-accident in the first place is that the yellow cycles were too short. However, all of this paragraph is pure logical deduction on my part, not backed up by any study other than my reading of the aforementioned articles. I present it as a *possibility* not as a *fact*.

Regards,
--Lee

@RebHawk

Lee, you have made a good point that I have no evidence that the "105 first referenced yellows also met national standards" in the case of Springfield. I note that I was careful to say that it made me think that such was true (as opposed to others that take headlines and accept them as factual without further investigation).

Why did I think this? First, Given that Springfield standardized yellow light timings at intersections within the city - and no comment was made by reporters about them ALL being below guidelines - makes me think (there I go again) that all intersections (those reduced as well as those increased) met guidelines and thus the standardization was a proper step to take before any cameras were installed. I looked for articles in the 2007-2008 time frame that complained about Springfield red-light cameras having too short a yellow timing but was not able to find any. I realize that absence of comment is not evidence that there was not reason to comment, but red-light camera opponents usually magnify any problem found with cameras.

More importantly, thenewspaper.com is unabashedly opposed to cameras (as is National Motorist Association). Both organizations routinely misrepresent the situations they report. If either organization had had any factual information (or even suspicion) that one of the five intersections later made into a red-light camera intersections was at one of those state-owned intersection whose yellow timings were reduced in order to standardize yellow light timings throughout Springfield, do you not think it would have been reported? Whether it met guidelines or not?

Now, if you feel that thenewspaper.com and NMA are scrupulously accurate in all that they report, I will not be able to have a reasonable discussion with you. You see, I do not think you took the time to follow all the links. If you had, I'm pretty sure you would have arrived at the same suppositions that I did.

Lee, you mention that reporters do not report everything and often do not report it accurately. Seems like you have some personal experience. I would extend the comment to say reporters have personal biases that color the tone of articles. That is exactly why I encourage members to follow all of the links to see if they would have written the article the same way given the data and facts found.

So once again, I point out that unabashed opponents of cameras would have surely reported it had one of the Springfield red-light cameras been one of those lowered in order to standardize timings.

When I said:

I opened myself up for retort - and you caught it. I should have said that it seems to me that every intersection with a red light would have electronics that control all of the timings - whether or not the intersection had a camera or not. In making the statement, I was trying to say that cities that do not make sure that the yellow light timings are set according to their guidelines are not acting responsibly. Especially at a red-light intersection.

This goes to standardization (see Springfield above). Drivers have every right to expect that the timing at red-light camera intersections will be the same as non camera intersections having the same speed limits, intersection widths, approach sight lines, etc.

Lee, I agree with you and can even extend it. I have seen a few articles pointing out that, early in the history of cameras, many of the high accident intersections chosen were KNOWN (at least by the camera vendor) to have had short yellow cycles. My conclusion would be that this went straight to a desire to generate revenue.

Would you permit me to claim "pure logical deduction on my part" relating to the 105 Springfield cameras?

Lee, once again I compliment you on good points.

Regards,
--John

I quoted from an article whose headline was:
"6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times"
and the quote was:

and then continued as seen below in the response from you.

First, I will stipulate that, up to a point, there are clear safety benefits to making sure that yellow light timings are at, or preferably, exceed ITE guidelines. Several studies have concluded that doing so reduces red-light running.

@GoneNomad, would you please explain how I have put the cart before the horse in detailing the timeline above?

Would you explain how doing a Google search would impact the "logic" of my timeline?

Would you please offer another way to read the sentence
" Some local governments have ... decided to install red-light cameras, shorten [emphasis added] the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead."

A straightforward alternative reading from you would be appreciated as it would give us some basis for discussion about the lie involved in the word "shorten".

I am disappointed that you do not take note of the fact that I continue to state opposition to installing cameras at intersections with short yellow lights and I am particularly appalled that the short yellow has a few time been known at installation. I feel that "intent" is important to note. "Short" describes a state of affairs; "shorten" describes an action.

So, words do matter. People opposed to cameras latch onto words like "shorten" - especially because it implies intent when presented in a sentence that implies that this occurred after a camera was installed.

I am still looking for any indication relating to the six cities discussed that any "shortened" yellow light timings for profit took place. No source in articles I have seen can be cited. Yet, you say that "the people who were actually there say otherwise.

For this discussion on "shorten" or "shortened" to productively continue, you need to cite specific cities and or persons where it is clear that something intentional was done after a red-light camera was installed.

We've been saying that same thing for years.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

The quote above leads to the following article written in February 2009 about something purported to have happened in Italy.
http://www.loosewireblog.com/2009/02/the-traffic-light-scam....

The article starts out "If true..." so it is reporting on allegations, not proven facts. It is possible that you have researched the outcome of these allegations, but, since you have not linked to them, I assume that you have not.

But, I will try to find out what happened because it would be an egregious example of putting revenue above safety and I would need to be aware of it and know who might have profited by it.

The article says:
"Those now under investigation include 63 municipal police commanders, 39 local government officials and the managers of seven private companies."

The article also includes this quote

Notice how the NMA article is being cited even though it was not factual.

But, for the moment, let's assume that the Italy situation was fraud, involved kickbacks (see also Chicago), etc.

What does this have to do with the discussion of misuse of words like "shortening","shorten" and "shortened"?

Hopefully Toronto gets rid of this.

Our mayor has announced that we will be installing even more red light cameras and will add speed cameras in movable vans or police cars, so no one will know where they are on any given day.

So far all we can deduct from this thread is that some people hate cameras and want to get rid of them and people like me who think we do need more cameras.
I suggest that we stop picking "fly crap out of a pepper jar" and close this thread for no one will change any one's opinion.

If you don't want to participate in the conversation, you don't have to. To say that the thread should be closed when it's obvious a lot have people have a lot to say, seems a bit harsh. Besides, it will only be a matter of days before the topic gets brought up again anyway.

--Amen--