Disclosing locations of red light cameras?

According to the New York city DOT, they have a reason

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2012/redlights.shtml

I hear ya but couldn't the same have been said about radar guns? They were using public frequencies so the powers that be said, then radar detectors are legal. couldn't it be argued that radar guns help the police by keeping the people in check with the speed limit. But radar detectors are legal now; Whether right or wrong they are legal.

Well we pay for this technology, shouldn't we know where they are located? I'm not disputing the information you posted, but just because they use that outlook doesn't mean it's correct.

my .02

Radar detectors are still illegal in VA.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-10...

Nobody has challenged the VA law in regards to the U.S. congress having "Eminent Domain" over sending and receiving "Radio Waves" in VA and succeeded - yet.

Also, some cities do publish Red Light Camera locations, such as VA Beach.

http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/police/Documents...

...is due to hear arguments on Red Light cameras this coming Wednesday. It will be interesting to hear their comments about the legality or illegality of same.

You're right, I have seen on occasion posted signs about camera enforcement blah blah blah in place. but I'm thinking that the states that have legalized detectors should also post camera enforcement in use.

would make our lives easier... those sign postings to me are like speed limit signs. Signs are posted for safety reason and you must obey them; if not you will suffer the consequences (i.e. tickets or points).

Well posting the use of RDL or speed cameras should be considered along the same lines no?

Before commenting let me stipulate that I prefer being told where the red light and speed cameras are located.

You are stating that "These municipalities claim they are using the RLC for the purpose of safety and not revenue.

While I have seen some jurisdictions in the past claim that Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) is "only" for purposes of safety, I doubt that many jurisdictions still do this.

Obviously, jurisdictions tout the fact that safety has been increased (as NYC did in the link above) but that is quite different from saying that ATE is for safety only.

If you know of municipalities near you that are currently claiming that ATE is for safety "only", I would appreciate some links to recent press releases.

Radar detector are illegal in VA and Washington DC. If those laws were challenged years ago, they may have had a chance to get the law overturned. However, several years ago the FCC gives states the authority to ban any detectors that may interfere in law enforcement. So radar detectors are illegal in VA and laser detector/jammers are illegal in many states including VA. With the FCC's current position there is no chance of getting any state to lift the ban on radar detectors except through local pressure.

i'm not disputing your facts because they are correct however I never said they were legal in every state. But my point albeit poor in delivery is that i believe we as tax payers do have a right to know where these cameras are located.

Now I realize this is going to be a hot topic especially in this forum but no one is denying that vehicular laws are in place to protect us and others; but i believe we should be able to know where they place these cameras.

just because they announce their locations doesn't mean every driver in the US will be able to circumvent the potential for a fine. but if you believe there is no need to let the public know, then why also post speed limits?

getting ready to get flamed...

#jgermann maybe a slight over exaggeration on my part I'll give you that but while trolling around for information on these tools that many cities and towns are now using I came across this site

http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/foss/2014/jun/07/red-lig...

Which states that at least in this article that the cities of Albany and Schenectady feel they would be a safety tool that "officials in both Schenectady and Albany say they believe the cameras will make city streets safer."

now i'm sure they won't also say "and hey by the way, we'll make some good coin with this implementation too :)"

please don't get me wrong, i'm not a proponent for RLC. I just think we as the public should be told or have a posted list of where these cameras are being used or installed.

with that said, i'm going to bow out of this conversation gracefully because this may be too hot of a topic (especially here) and i'm in no mood to be flamed which i have left myself open to i believe

These agency seem to do what they want..

The local PD here uses them for "safety purposes only." I can't find any public documents that have this citation (the police chief told me this herself and I think I've seen it on an internal memo) but the way our little town uses them really isn't for revenue purposes.

But then again, we only have 2 cameras (one in each direction) that are on during school zone hours after our cops got tired of running traffic day in and day out. And it's probably the worst kept secret in town that if you show up to mayor's court and apologize to the mayor and promise to be more careful, he'll let you off with a warning.

This is one of the VERY few good things I've ever heard about any ATE (Automated Traffic Enforcement) location! I would definitely say that this should prove that here is someone [the Mayor] who is not in this for the money... for once!

Also, I too believe that ALL such authorities should publish the location of every ATE.

I agree that RLC locations should be disclosed. Since they are a "safety measure", one should be able to safely assume they are installed at the most dangerous of intersections. Signage would help alert the unwary motoring public of these places.

These cameras are, however, owned and managed by private corporations and, as such, we have no right to the information. I suspect most municipalities would release it.

"These cameras are, however, owned and managed by private corporations and, as such, we have no right to the information. I suspect most municipalities would release it."

However they are mounted on public property maintained by the town/city which intern is paid for by the local citizen's right?

We should therefore know their locations

Governments do what they want. It is as simple as that.

Realistically, if you want to change that reality then you have to get in to very high positions within government and change it yourself.

Yep that's true

When Nassau County first started installing RLC's, the locations were posted on the county website. Then there was a change in the County Executive and almost immediately, the information disappeared. Supposedly it was just coincidence as the county claims they removed the information because they caught someone defacing the cameras and they had a printout of the camera locations from the county website in their possession.

The thing is, the information is out there. Not just from this site, but from various local newspapers and special interest organizations. Granted we do not know each and every single location at the time of roll out but over time they become known. Locating the first fifty that were authorized was a bit of a chore but they were finally found. Now we will have a total of 100 and they have not yet installed them all.

It could be worse. Look at this article about this issue in France.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/44/4440.asp

Obviously there is no freedom of speech in France.

As does Washington, DC. When you know where they are, your behavior corrects. So the more coverage there is, the more acceptable behavior becomes the norm.

Now the fact that mobile devices are more and more prevalent is a good thing. A time will come where the majority will no longer break rules.

In Toronto, there are a lot of traffic cameras. A lot of times these cameras are used as evidence for accidents and insurance frauds. So at least there is an upside to this I guess...

My city (Montgomery, Alabama) does disclose the locations of the RLCs. They are available on the city's website. Not sure if other cities are doing it though.

This will bring up those locations in Rochester NY

Just like many politicians, by the time you get into that position, you would not think of changing anything.

Just answer one simple question, which one would be more important to you? The people or your own benefit?

"When Nassau County first started installing RLC's, the locations were posted on the county website. Then there was a change in the County Executive and almost immediately, the information disappeared. Supposedly it was just coincidence as the county claims they removed the information because they caught someone defacing the cameras and they had a printout of the camera locations from the county website in their possession"

A friend of mine who worked UC busting drug dealers for 20+ years in your area was upset that local Authorities posted CCW permit holders names and addresses in the local papers. The Under Cover Officers pointed out it would endanger them and their families, they still posted their names and addresses. I think they had more to worry about then spray painting some RL Cams. Funny how politicians operate.

Or... remember all of this at election time, then VOTE with conviction! That's what I do, and the more of us doing so, the better.

Here in Nanaimo, everyone knows where the red light camera locations are, but the general public doesn't know whether or not a camera is installed at that location. If they go through on a red light, they may or may not get an automated ticket in the mail.

The city gov web site discloses details of the program with instructions on how to contest the charge. They also provide a link to pay the ticket online. How nice of them

http://www.fortlauderdale.gov/redlightcameras/

They also announce when changes are being made to the locations:

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/05/fort_lauderda...