Study Evaluates Options For Increasing Red Light Camera Revenue

 

"A literature survey reveals that most municipalities implementing red light cameras are committed to private red light camera providers with certain revenue goals to financially sustain their red light camera programs," the study found. "Most red light cameras are installed with dual, conflicting purposes, reduce red light running and maximize private (and public) sector revenue from red light running citations. Harmonizing these two purposes is challenging, resulting in substantial backlash against red light cameras."

http://thenewspaper.com/news/41/4179.asp

We had an interesting

We had an interesting situation a few days ago at the exit of a Costco at route 175 in MD. The red light was frozen red. It never turned green while I was looking & that was over 20 minutes. People were afraid to turn right or left when cross traffic abated because there looked like there was a red light camera at the same intersection.

FINALLY, traffic simply drove thru the red light - carefully I might add. An interesting question was whether all those who proceded thru the red light would be ticketed for running it despite the fact that the light was inoperable!

We'll see, since I was one of those who finally proceded after what seemed to be a VERY, VERY long time. If they were ticketing, I imagine that there were hundreds of cars ticketed.

I'm sure that MD & the camera operator would be subject to some complaints in the courts, of course.
We'll see.

Fred

And this is why I think red

And this is why I think red light cameras should be operated on a payment plan. I like the red light cameras as I think it reduces the number of people running red lights by causing some people to think twice before doing it. But the goals of the company (trying to earn money when people run red lights) and the goals of the municipality (trying to reduce the number of people running red lights) are in direct conflict. If the cameras worked perfectly, then there would be no money made!

I think that these cameras should be set up with a plan that allows the city to pay them off over time. For example, the "loan amount" represents $1000 which accrues interest at the end of the month. Each red light runner will shave $1 off of that principal and at the end of each month, an interest rate is calculated. When the amount reaches $0, the city now owns the traffic camera and can operate it as it pleases. If it so chooses, it should have the option to pay a flat fee for a service contract with the camera operator of it's choosing, or it can run the camera itself. All proceeds are kept to the city at this point (minue the cost of operating it, either paying for a city department to run it or outsourcing it).

.

WuLabsWuTecH wrote:

And this is why I think red light cameras should be operated on a payment plan. I like the red light cameras as I think it reduces the number of people running red lights by causing some people to think twice before doing it. But the goals of the company (trying to earn money when people run red lights) and the goals of the municipality (trying to reduce the number of people running red lights) are in direct conflict. If the cameras worked perfectly, then there would be no money made!

I was always under the assumption that there was no conflict of interest, ie, both the company and the municipality are simply in it for the money.