Red Light Camera Advocate Changes Mind, Now He Wants Them Abolished

My first question about the change is "Did He Get a ticket?"
I find it offensive of how many people think it is alright to speed through red lights but scream of invasion of privacy and other stupid claims when they get caught.
A Republican Supreme Court has long ago determined that driving is a privilege and not a right. This means that you drive obeying the the laws or face the fines imposed by the states. The Supreme Court does not have the time to figure light changes so pay the fine.
Do not break the law and you will not get a ticket and the city/county will not receive the fine and they will have to move the cameras if they want revenue.
The amount of revenue they get is determined by the idiots breaking the law at that place.

That's a fair question and something I'm curious about myself. Why the change of heart?

I've said this before but I'll mention it again. Your argument that red light cameras are no problem if you don't break the law is fine - in a perfect world, where municipalities aren't cash-strapped and motivated to find additional sources of revenue. As long as money isn't involved, everyone will play by the rules and do what they're supposed to...

Unfortunately, in the real world this just isn't the case. It was posted in this forum recently where yellow-light times had been shortened where cameras were in use in order to punish those whose crime was that they happened to be approaching the intersection as the light was changing. If you're unlucky enough to be in the wrong spot, you have the choice between slamming on your brakes and risking being rear-ended while still probably being unable to stop, or simply sailing through the intersection as the light turns red and receiving a ticket. This game has been played before, over and over in fact. I'd be interested in seeing if, in addition to shortened yellow light times, the overall cycle time was shortened as well in order to generate more light changes and therefore more "opportunities" to catch drivers during those changes.

I don't run red lights and have never received a red light camera ticket. I'm all for red light cameras if they're set up and sdministered in a fair and reasonable fashion. I've been at intersections where I've watched as many as 7 cars roll across my path after my light turned green. I think at least six of those drivers should get a ticket. If the first driver was just 1/2 second late through the intersection then I don't think a ticket should be issued.

Administer the cameras in a similar fashion and all reasonable arguments against the cameras disappear.

Most of the people arguing against the cameras aren't reckless lawbreakers, they just don't like being screwed.

- Phil

Sorry Senator but no do overs. You made a mistake and you will have to live with it. The number of times we legislators pass a bad law and suddenly "see the light" after the damage is done. Perhaps they should think things through more carefully. Changing your mind is more of a privilege for those of us who do not write laws that those who do since they cause much more damage than I ever could.

What a jerk... Talk about flip flopping!!! just the kind of person we want in office...

For years, I challenged posters to cite an instance where yellow light had been shortened for revenue. No One was able to do so until an instance in Oakland. see http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39440

As you see from the thread, I was quick to admit that it looked like a revenue move to me.

Since then, St. Pete has been in the news but the shorter lights was part of something the State was involved in.

So, unless you have new information, I hope you will look at the facts and not exaggerate.

That was the first thought for me as well.

Politicians... he probably will change his mind again if he or someone he knows becomes a victim.

loudly.

So we're just supposed to live with bad laws because lawmakers shouldn't get do-overs? Were you a fan of Prohibition??? Slavery???

Somehow I knew that you would once again jump in here and make a request for a source referencing where the info was cited from. Sorry, while I'm pretty sure that I've done this for you in the past (and I know that others have), I'm not going to go to the trouble to find the post/cited article, at least not at the moment. I read on this very forum recently about there being ahorter yellow light times on photo-enforced intersections in a particular municipality than in non photo-enforced intersections. I'm 99-44/100% certain that there was an article cited in that post. I pulled up the link you referenced and I can tell you that it was not the one I had read, but the link you reference is another good example of this sort of behavior.

Also, Statistics tells us that there will likely be other examples of this sort of behavior which no one has yet written an article about that we can cite from.

Like I said, I'm all for red light cameras if they're set up and administered in a fair and reasonable fashion. Doing so greatly reduces the revenue those cameras provide to the municipalities operating them though, as your above-cited article shows. So with that in mind it's not likely to happen voluntarily, at least not in the majority of cases.

This matter will not be resolved until class-action and other legal remedies make the cameras too expensive and difficult to operate unless very strict operational guidelines are followed which should serve to ensure that the cameras are fair and that all citations issued are likely deserved. It may take a while but it will almost certainly happen. Abusive practices by states like Florida will only serve to speed up this process. While at first glance this seems to make them look stupid for inviting expensive litigation and additional regulation, I believe that they have probably seen the writing on the wall and are just trying to squeeze as much revenue from their camera programs for as long as they can.

Once this all settles out, the authorities who have discontinued their camera programs will likely resume them under the new operational guidelines, which will make the cameras much more difficult to challenge.

If you change the time on the yellow to increase the number of fines is not fare.
If you lower the time to the minimum you not only put drives in danger you put pedestrians in danger.

Conspiracy is a crime..and even if you put in the law that you can lower the time does not make it right. Braking the law is one thing.. doing things for you to break the law is irresponsible. The law of physiques has to be in place no matter what laws you enable.
I don't like when people run red-lights, but also hate being put in danger by greedy politicians in order to have more revenue.

A primary purpose of the RLCs is revenue generation (obviously). The municipalities are not going to want to give up that income which is making up for other budgetary shortfalls. This theme is not restricted to RLCs...I've seen greatly ramped up enforcement of equipment violations, for example. Window tint violations, burned out bulbs...the things a few years ago resulted in a verbal or written warning are now being ticketed.

RLC direct result of PUTSS.

PUTSS = Politicians Unable to Stop Spending.

Not unless a good example is made of a County Executive or other visible politician who endorses Red Light & Speed Cameras. One way to begin is any questioning of that politician who might be running for office should include: Why do you support such cameras when in many cases the cameras are not set up to truly & fairly monitor citizens.

I'd venture a guess that there are a lot of folks who follow the law (as I do) but feel manipulated on behalf of raising more revenue!

Fred

It's called Confirmation Bias (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

"Somehow I knew" that you would refuse to cite data that would justify your previous statement, which said

My goal was not to have you look up links for me. Rather, I wanted to illustrate through the fact that you can not cite links that you exaggerated.

I am sure that you have read the NMA article that was picked up and requoted by camera opponents - see http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shorteni...

I have debunked this article several times - lights were "short" (and should not have been) as opposed to "shortened".

People believe what they want to believe - and you seem to want to believe that manipulation of cameras is widespread.

However, the fact that you remember the Oakland situation which I agreed with in http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39440 and think you remember one other situation should indicate to you and others that "shortened" or "shortening" is not widespread.

interesting read

Just allow more than 3 cars through at a time and keep the Cameras.

I would agree, red light cameras if administered in a fair way would be OK. The minimum yellow light time should be 4 seconds (like required in GA but manipulated by local municipalities to increase revenue). Also, as another poster mentioned, there should be a grace period after the light turns red, like ~ 1/2 second.

Some posters are of the opinion that if a statement is not supported with a link, then that statement is not supported by facts. I am of the opinion that journalists publish stories that are not factual.
My opinion is that law enforcement officers and politicians are not always truthful.

Since I am one of the members who ask for links supporting statements which I believe to be untrue, I'll add my opinions.

I agree that some journalists publish stories that are not factual. Indeed, some organizations like thenewspaper.com and NMA publish articles that they must surely know are written in a way that will lead to their readers making incorrect assumptions of what the facts were.

It seems that many politicians make statements that are not factual and do so for purely political reasons. Indeed, even when the facts are pointed out to such politicians, they not only will not admit to the facts but keep repeating the incorrect statements.

One does find law enforcement officials that are less than fully truthful but vastly fewer times than with politicians.

From the following article:
http://nypost.com/2012/10/08/citys-gotcha-traffic-cameras-us...

"Based on recent random surveys, AAA New York has found that intersections with cameras have yellow lights that are shorter by as much as 15 percent compared to the city standard."

There are more interesting links on shortened yellow lights and their effect on violations and accidents here:
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/yellow-lights

Whether the lights are consistently "shorter" at camera intersections or have been "shortened" really doesn't matter. The fact that the lights are shorter at camera intersections clearly resolves the motivated by safety vs revenue debate in those instances. Especially considering the fact that shorter yellow light times raise the accident rate.

From the different articles and studies that I've read, it seems clear that the cameras, when properly applied with appropriate yellow light times, have the potential to reduce accidents and that's a decidedly good thing. The problem is that applying the cameras in a manner which increases safety rather than reducing it tends to decrease the revenue from those same cameras, creating a conflict-of-interest for the cash-strapped municipalities operating them.

I appreciate your comments about cameras, when properly applied with appropriate yellow light times, have the potential to reduce accidents and that's a decidedly good thing. because my feeling is that such is the case most of the time. As I have admitted, there are isolated instances where improper actions were taken.

I have often wondered why those who find links like the one you cited about New York accept them as factual - AND make no effort to follow up on them to see what happens later. Take note of the fact that your link uses "Study" in the headline.

However, another news station looked at the situation and came to a different conclusion including reporting that two of the lights AAA claimed as too short were not even camera locations and that the AAA rep said it was a random "survey" not a study.

see http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/10/09/aaa-ignores-research-o...

Now opponents of cameras will look at the next link and declare it as self-serving. However, it addresses the claims made by AAA.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2012/redlights.shtml

I agree that the RLC's should be abolished unless lawmakers can prove that they are not just revenue generators.

What is wrong with gettting some extra revenue while catching those breaking the law??? I don't care if they are revenue generators and catching the redlight runners in doing it..

As I said before, I'm not against the cameras, I'm against use and abuse of the cameras to extract maximum profit. I'm not so sure that those instances are as isolated as many would like you to believe.

That said, you provide some interesting links, especially the first one. While it certainly reads like it was written by an ambitious proponent of red light cameras, it raises some interesting points. However, New York is getting negative publicity mainly because it does not follow ITE recommendations, IMHO. The ITE recommends longer yellow light times for a reason, longer yellow times make intersections safer.

A conservative and consistent approach to ticketing as I've mentioned before would (eventually) reduce the panic braking by drivers who are unfortunate enough to be close to an intersection when the light starts to change and reduce the rear-end collisions while still ticketing the 4 extra cars who blatantly run the light after the "victim" has gone through the intersection. At least New York gives an 0.3 second grace period after the light turns red, which is a step in the right direction.

Before the RLCs, I remember that a lot of the smarter lights would hold the other side red and even hold a longer yellow while that last car approaching the intersection came through. Common sense tells us that this would reduce accidents but easy money tempts the authorities away from that sort of practice.

If a slightly longer yellow saves even one life, then I think it's worth doing.

I will, however, take your advice and try to keep a closer eye on some of these claims in the future. Being misinformed and spouting that misinformation as the Gospel is much worse than not having any information at all, so thanks for the reminder to all of us.

- Phil

If the yellow lights were short, rather than shortened, what difference does it make? In Illinois, a study has to be done before RLCs are installed. If a short yellow is overlooked, how is that any different than actually shortening it? How do we know those doing the study weren't aware of the yellow light timing? Maybe they were and chose that particular intersection because they could rake in the dough, and then claim ignorance.

The point is, it happens.

What happens if when the survey is done and the timing is found to be out of compliance with the standard and the cycle time is changed to bring the timing into compliance. If bringing the light into compliance results in the timing of the yellow light being changed, is this wrong even if the yellow was out of compliance by being too long?