Since I never seem to get a ticket

 

My friend emailed me a link to his violation. 3 jgps as in the early days, then a video.

How can this be disputed? It clearly has his vehicle behind the line with the red light in the image, then him proceeding through. The video is gravy.

His attitude was you do the crime, you pay the fine.

It's very curious why so many don't agree with that statement. ???

Page 1>>

comical

I just watched the video for the 3rd time and burst out laughing. imho it is so clear as far as what took place, that it basically invalidates any justification or Constitutional right to run red lights.. smile

Again, if you don't run the light, jpgs 2 and 3 are impossible to exist unless photochopped (why would any municipality do that when there are plenty of fish to fry), and the movie would not show the vehicle proceeding on red.

Shorter Yellow Lights

I guess you live in a bubble? You haven't noticed that there are problems with some red light cameras? I guess if yellow lights are shorter than they should be, even though the photos, and the video would show a violation, people should just laugh, and pay the fine?

Red light cameras are not perfect. Chicago is the biggest example I would like to offer you. Just today in the Tribune, there was an article about the problem of yellow lights being below 3 seconds. I should say, another article on the continuing problem of yellow lights being too short.

So it's not just about running a red light, and paying a fine. There's way more to it than that, which has been covered ad nauseam all over this board.

What...

twix wrote:

, which has been covered ad nauseam all over this board.

This is a board?? What kind of board is it? Pine, Oak?

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

good point

Twix made this post in response to several comments by
johnnatash4

twix wrote:

I guess you live in a bubble? You haven't noticed that there are problems with some red light cameras? I guess if yellow lights are shorter than they should be, even though the photos, and the video would show a violation, people should just laugh, and pay the fine?

Red light cameras are not perfect. Chicago is the biggest example I would like to offer you. Just today in the Tribune, there was an article about the problem of yellow lights being below 3 seconds. I should say, another article on the continuing problem of yellow lights being too short.

So it's not just about running a red light, and paying a fine. ...

If red light cameras are ever to be accepted, they need to be accurate. In my mind, that means that they must be verified at least quarterly and shown to have at least the timings which are established. When found to be inaccurate on the low side, any tickets issued and paid should be automatically refunded.

I started another thread where there was a claim of yellows being too short. see http://www.poi-factory.com/node/43528

accurate?

jgermann wrote:

Twix made this post in response to several comments by
johnnatash4

twix wrote:

I guess you live in a bubble? You haven't noticed that there are problems with some red light cameras? I guess if yellow lights are shorter than they should be, even though the photos, and the video would show a violation, people should just laugh, and pay the fine?

Red light cameras are not perfect. Chicago is the biggest example I would like to offer you. Just today in the Tribune, there was an article about the problem of yellow lights being below 3 seconds. I should say, another article on the continuing problem of yellow lights being too short.

So it's not just about running a red light, and paying a fine. ...

If red light cameras are ever to be accepted, they need to be accurate. In my mind, that means that they must be verified at least quarterly and shown to have at least the timings which are established. When found to be inaccurate on the low side, any tickets issued and paid should be automatically refunded.

I started another thread where there was a claim of yellows being too short. see http://www.poi-factory.com/node/43528

How much more accurate can a cam be than providing a video of a vehicle proceeding through a red light? Now that's just plain funny. Stone cold busted comes to mind.

Again, if shortening a yellow (completely unethical imho) by a tenth of a second gets you to proceed through a red light, you are a very poor driver indeed. It takes about as much coordination as a hockey or soccer player staying onside ahead of the puck or ball. If you can't do that or grasp the concept, you ought to not play the game.

Accuracy is a legal issue for the red light cameras as well

From an article quoted by jgermann in the other thread he referenced above: "Many of the $85 automated tickets are issued at intersections where the yellow signal warning times fall short of the minimum allowed under state law."

Stone cold busted also comes to mind when the timing of the yellow light is shown to be less than legislation requires.

--
Garmin nüvi 3597LMTHD, 3760 LMT, & 255LMT, - "Those who wish for fairness without first protecting freedom will end up with neither freedom nor fairness." - Milton Friedman

.

selfruler wrote:

From an article quoted by jgermann in the other thread he referenced above: "Many of the $85 automated tickets are issued at intersections where the yellow signal warning times fall short of the minimum allowed under state law."

Stone cold busted also comes to mind when the timing of the yellow light is shown to be less than legislation requires.

Or shorter yellow duration than the lights at intersections before/after the RLC intersection.

knee slapper

BarneyBadass wrote:
twix wrote:

, which has been covered ad nauseam all over this board.

This is a board?? What kind of board is it? Pine, Oak?

Wow, you're funny.

Message.

The secret password is yellow

johnnatash4 wrote:

Again, if shortening a yellow (completely unethical imho) by a tenth of a second gets you to proceed through a red light, you are a very poor driver indeed. It takes about as much coordination as a hockey or soccer player staying onside ahead of the puck or ball. If you can't do that or grasp the concept, you ought to not play the game.

It's not getting you to proceed through a red light, it's getting you to proceed through a yellow light. YELLOW? YELLOW!

@Johnnatash4

Your point is well taken. I basically agree with your OP which said

johnnatash4 wrote:

My friend emailed me a link to his violation. 3 jgps as in the early days, then a video.

How can this be disputed? It clearly has his vehicle behind the line with the red light in the image, then him proceeding through. The video is gravy.

His attitude was you do the crime, you pay the fine.

It's very curious why so many don't agree with that statement. ???

The reason that some members here do not agree with "you do the crime, you pay the fine" is that they have been subject, over time, to so many misrepresentations and outright false statements about Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE).

At first they were told and became convinced that ATE violated their constitutional rights and/or privacy. When this was proved to be incorrect, they then latched onto claims that ATE increased accidents. When these claims proved to be false or misrepresentations, the focus became "shortening" yellow timings. I analyzed ever article and was able to refute each article claiming "shortening" until Oakland CA did just that in early 2013 (and I quickly agreed that was what they had done and indicated I thought it was improper for them to done so). Without any more "shortening" episodes, opponents of ATE had to switch to the obvious fact that ATE produced revenue (which I think is a good way to generate revenue because it comes from people who have broken the law).

All that said, there still remains, in my opinion, a lack of proactive concern from many jurisdictions to making sure that all their ATE locations follow the laws and guidelines. That is one reason I posted the link about Dayton. They should have had someone responsible for making sure that each and every location was properly implemented. There are not really that many ATE intersections compared to the total number of intersections in any jurisdiction.

Proponents of ATE - and I am one - need to be aware that facts are facts. If people are concerned that there yellow timings that do not meet legal standards or guidelines and they can provide articles to support the contention, we need recognize them.

I repeat, Twix made a good point.

Whew

I'm so glad we got that cleared up. smile

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

me too.

BarneyBadass wrote:

I'm so glad we got that cleared up. smile

--
Jerry...Jacksonville,Fl Nüvi1450,Nuvi650,Nuvi 2495 and Mapsource.

finger for stopping

Just today I stopped when a light turned yellow. It was easy--no panic stop required. The fellow behind me gave me a vigorous finger of disapproval. He clearly wanted me to "get through while I could" so he could "get through with no more than perhaps a little stretch".

What part of stopping when able on yellow do people really not get?

The deaths in my town from intersection accidents are a disgrace. The people who can't be bothered even to try to stop when it is easy to do so all bear blame for this, though there are other contributing causes.

--
personal GPS user since 1992

How about ....

How about when you're driving a truck, you're behind someone who's waiting to turn left so you're partially in the intersection, now the light changes and the vehicle in front of you makes the turn but the truck is too far into the intersection to stay there yet the rear wheels are behind the stop line.

If you stay put you're impeding traffic if you go the rear wheels trigger the camera.

--
. 2 Garmin DriveSmart 61 LMT-S, Nuvi 2689, 2 Nuvi 2460, Zumo 550, Zumo 450, Uniden R3 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N Garmin based, built into my Jeep. .

we really need myth busters

soberbyker wrote:

How about when you're driving a truck, you're behind someone who's waiting to turn left so you're partially in the intersection, now the light changes and the vehicle in front of you makes the turn but the truck is too far into the intersection to stay there yet the rear wheels are behind the stop line.

If you stay put you're impeding traffic if you go the rear wheels trigger the camera.

Kinda like Batman is never around when you need him.

We're really stuck on the what ifs..implying, what if I really didn't run the light, will I get a ticket. To date, I have only seen like 2 people make that claim, but they are not willing to post their video or jpgs, so I have to say they're lying.

I just replayed my buddy's violation again. What's interesting is the Audi in front of him clearly ran the light, but there was no flash. When my buddy ran the light, there was a flash. This seems consistent with the system arming a split second after red.

In the video, the Audi is approximately 3/4 of a car length from the stop line on red, clearly ran the light, and no flash. I counted one-thou and the Audi hits the line. At one-thousand one one-thousand two one thousan--here is where my buddy's vehicle crosses the line. Maybe someone out there can yay or nay that the timing/following distance is consistent with blowing the red light at 22 mph according to the violation.

Based on the flash, I believe the Audi did not get a ticket, despite having clearly run the light. So if you've got a 53' trailer that has 10' behind the line on green, yellow, then red, and you proceed on red, no ticket.

My buddy is about as right as you can get, he closed his credit union after 15 yrs. because they no longer allowed concealed weapons under any circumstances.

But after viewing the video he said do the crime pay the fine. I bet many here do get that, they just like to argue.

Already across the line

soberbyker wrote:

How about when you're driving a truck, you're behind someone who's waiting to turn left so you're partially in the intersection, now the light changes and the vehicle in front of you makes the turn but the truck is too far into the intersection to stay there yet the rear wheels are behind the stop line.

If you stay put you're impeding traffic if you go the rear wheels trigger the camera.

It is my understanding of traffic laws that, if you are in the intersection when the light turns read, you are expected to clear the intersection so the opposing traffic can proceed.

It is my understanding of red light cameras that the first picture will show the front of the vehicle behind the stop line with the light red.

In your example, the front of the truck had already cleared the stop line, so there would be no violation.

As johnnatash4 has commented, there are jurisdictions which allow drivers a "grace period" - say half a second - after the light has turned red. This would be equivalent to the yellow timing being one half second longer and giving no grace period. My preference based on safety considerations would be to have the grace period and count on the fact that drivers will become accustomed to the yellow timing and learn to stop.

By the way, in all of these discussions on red lights and yellow timings, people are not mentioning whether or not their towns have a 2 second ALL RED cycle at lights. My town does.

me too

me too

--
nuvi 2757LM-65LM-65LM

Good Grief

Are we going to go through another round of this?

I thought it had all been settled earlier, GEEEEEZZZ LOUISE!

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

people who get caught don't seem to chime in

jgermann wrote:
soberbyker wrote:

How about when you're driving a truck, you're behind someone who's waiting to turn left so you're partially in the intersection, now the light changes and the vehicle in front of you makes the turn but the truck is too far into the intersection to stay there yet the rear wheels are behind the stop line.

If you stay put you're impeding traffic if you go the rear wheels trigger the camera.

It is my understanding of traffic laws that, if you are in the intersection when the light turns read, you are expected to clear the intersection so the opposing traffic can proceed.

It is my understanding of red light cameras that the first picture will show the front of the vehicle behind the stop line with the light red.

In your example, the front of the truck had already cleared the stop line, so there would be no violation.

As johnnatash4 has commented, there are jurisdictions which allow drivers a "grace period" - say half a second - after the light has turned red. This would be equivalent to the yellow timing being one half second longer and giving no grace period. My preference based on safety considerations would be to have the grace period and count on the fact that drivers will become accustomed to the yellow timing and learn to stop.

By the way, in all of these discussions on red lights and yellow timings, people are not mentioning whether or not their towns have a 2 second ALL RED cycle at lights. My town does.

It seems to be one of those...people who can contribute the most (those who have been busted), do not. Out of shame, or maybe not wanting to help (remember in school those kids who knew all the answers but did not share).

Seriously, if a flash = summons, in my buddy's video, there was only one flash, when his vehicle went through. The Audi in front of him clearly ran the light, but there was no flash. I can only surmise he made it during the grace where the system had not armed yet (but video was rolling).

I Have One!

johnnatash4 wrote:

It seems to be one of those...people who can contribute the most (those who have been busted), do not. Out of shame, or maybe not wanting to help (remember in school those kids who knew all the answers but did not share).

I've gotten an RLC ticket - and I deserved it! Five and a half years ago, in Manhattan - it was the night the US Airways jet ditched in the Hudson River, and I went in to shoot pictures.

Heading down the West Side Highway in Lower Manhattan, the light turned yellow, and I thought I could make it - no other traffic around, and when I went through the intersection, I saw the flash in the mirror, and a few weeks later I received my summons - several nice photos, even though it was 9:45 pm, showing my car just short of the stop line, with the red light overhead, and other showing me going through the intersection. I knew I was going to be close, and thought I would make it. If I read the info on the photos correctly, I crossed the stop line 1.1 seconds after the light turned red - not as close as I thought I was...

On the bright side - I had recently purchased a new Nuvi 760, and the ticket prompted me to check out RLC information, which led me to POI Factory!

I've saved the summons, and one of these days will frame it, along with a photo of the jet in the river.

--
The Moose Is Loose! nuvi 760

Are there municipalities who

Are there municipalities who abuse red light camera and alter timings? Yes.

But RLCs are law enforcement tools, and like all law enforcement tools, HOW they are used matters. In the right hands, they can help decrease people who run red lights (and perhaps even accidents--maybe), increase city revenue, and freeing up law enforcement officers to do other tasks such as patrolling. An officer stuck for 15 minutes writing a red light ticket is 15 minutes that he's not driving through a neighborhood.

Perhaps it's just where we're located, but the municipality in which I run as a volunteer firefighter, I can count on one hand how many people who are residents of the city have showed up to a council meeting to complain about the RLCs. The only people who complain are people from out-of-town who have to show up to mayor's court.

Why? Because of how we use the cameras. Our main street runs parallel to a state route (with a speed limit of 55-65) that often gets backed up. People's GPS will take them through our little city to get around the jams. That's all find and dandy and probably good for the mom and pop shops on our main street. However, some people decide to run through our town at 50 mph through the main street (signed at 25-45 mph with a 20 mph school zone).

So by using RLCs and speed cameras, it helps our town
1) Generate more revenue--this means less levies for the townsfolk
2) Keep cops on the street patrolling and not writing tickets--they can review RLC pictures/tapes in their downtime
3) Keep our citizens safer--particularly for those idiots who like to run at 50 mph through our 20 mph school zone. The money generate can also be used towards other safety improvements such as eventually getting traffic preemption devices for our fire trucks so they never have to run a red light again.

Sure, we could have used other tools to increase safety such as putting in speed bumps (which would increase emergency response times) or narrowing the roads (which would increase traffic jams) but this solution worked out for us.

As our police chief has said, she doesn't care if the cameras never generate a single penny of revenue and actually highly publicized their addition to our town--if it keeps people from speeding and running read lights, it's doing it's just as good as, if not better than, clicking away every day.

Yellow lights...

I read through the thread and one thing stuck out at me... People saying that a shorter yellow made it so more people would blow a red, and that is why RLC's are evil, etc.

You know, I may have taken drivers ed a long time ago, and I may not be Mr. Angel when driving, but I was always taught that yellow meant slow down and prepare to stop - not try and get through the light.

Just some thoughts from someone who tries to follow the law.....

...

I find it hilarious that municipalities actually claim that they don't care about making any money with red light cameras and then issue revenue tickets to make money with red light cameras.

If it's about safety, start suspending licenses. If it's about revenue, keep collecting revenue.

now lemme see

spartenos wrote:

I read through the thread and one thing stuck out at me... People saying that a shorter yellow made it so more people would blow a red, and that is why RLC's are evil, etc.

You know, I may have taken drivers ed a long time ago, and I may not be Mr. Angel when driving, but I was always taught that yellow meant slow down and prepare to stop - not try and get through the light.

Just some thoughts from someone who tries to follow the law.....

I think it goes something like this..

GREEN = Go fast
YELLOW = Go faster
RED. = One more car

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

same friend

telecomdigest2 wrote:

I find it hilarious that municipalities actually claim that they don't care about making any money with red light cameras and then issue revenue tickets to make money with red light cameras.

If it's about safety, start suspending licenses. If it's about revenue, keep collecting revenue.

Guess what--the same friend who emailed me his link to his violation, was pulled over in his home town for rolling a stop sign. He texted his wife to be careful, and she too was pulled over.

These are nice folks who live in a multi-million dollar home, send their kids to private school, and have at least one car that costs over $100,000. But they are careless and distracted drivers, which many people are today. Since it was a police officer that pulled them over, they were given warnings, not summonses.

I would say it's not about collecting revenue. It's difficult to break habits that have been prevalent for years.

I find this I have the right to break the law because the law just wants money argument to be stupid.

The last time I got a ticket was the 155 in a 55 when I was 19. The fine was severe, but even as a 19 y.o. I reflect and say you do the crime, you do the time. There was nothing about revenue, it was to punish an action and correct it.

if I am interpreting the video

BarneyBadass wrote:
spartenos wrote:

I read through the thread and one thing stuck out at me... People saying that a shorter yellow made it so more people would blow a red, and that is why RLC's are evil, etc.

You know, I may have taken drivers ed a long time ago, and I may not be Mr. Angel when driving, but I was always taught that yellow meant slow down and prepare to stop - not try and get through the light.

Just some thoughts from someone who tries to follow the law.....

I think it goes something like this..

GREEN = Go fast
YELLOW = Go faster
RED. = One more car

It's not complicated at all. If a vehicle is traveling at the speed limit, there's no decision to be made. Proceed on yellow or decelerate and prepare to stop, depending on the position of the vehicle. There is no need to speed up. People that don't get it, can't do it, are poor drivers. Uncoordinated, something. It's no more difficult that staying onside in hockey or soccer.

More than one here

BarneyBadass wrote:

RED. = One more car

Sadly here in Albuquerque it is often more than one.

For me, Yellow means "stop if safely able", but here in Albuquerque in the early part of a yellow I only go to half braking until I've verified in the rear view mirror that somebody in a big pickup is not speeding up to ram me.

--
personal GPS user since 1992

.

perpster wrote:
selfruler wrote:

From an article quoted by jgermann in the other thread he referenced above: "Many of the $85 automated tickets are issued at intersections where the yellow signal warning times fall short of the minimum allowed under state law."

Stone cold busted also comes to mind when the timing of the yellow light is shown to be less than legislation requires.

Or shorter yellow duration than the lights at intersections before/after the RLC intersection.

Shorter yellows in Chicago (lowered to 2.9 seconds), below the 3.0 seconds standard, without notice. 77,000 additional red light camera tickets at $100 each as a result. But it's all about safety not revenue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-inspe...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-yello...

Link 1 requires subscription

Perpster, can you find a link to the article in link 1 that does not require a subscription?

Is this it?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-inspe...

.

jgermann wrote:

Perpster, can you find a link to the article in link 1 that does not require a subscription?

Is this it?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-inspector-general-20141010-story.html#page=1

Sorry jgermann, I don't know. I copied the link from a post on another board. One is to the IG report, one is to the Trib's own story the day before the report. I suppose the IG's report is public domain, but the Trib has a wall.

Report of the Office of the Inspector General: Red Light Camera

jgermann wrote:

Perpster, can you find a link to the article in link 1 that does not require a subscription?

Is this it?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-inspector-general-20141010-story.html#page=1

That is the correct link to the actual report.

The document is 39 pages long; commentary on timing fluctuations for yellow lights is addressed on page 23 and page 24.

Simple if the traffic engineers/admins set things up properly

johnnatash4 wrote:

It's not complicated at all. If a vehicle is traveling at the speed limit, there's no decision to be made. Proceed on yellow or decelerate and prepare to stop, depending on the position of the vehicle. There is no need to speed up. People that don't get it, can't do it, are poor drivers. Uncoordinated, something. It's no more difficult that staying onside in hockey or soccer.

You're partially right, at least. It's not complicated at all... if the intersection is set up properly and the yellow lights haven't been set too short for the expected speeds encountered at that intersection (hopefully the actual speed limit, assuming that has been properly set which is another discussion).

However, if the light timings are improperly set, whether intentionally or not, then your argument fails completely. Simple. Period.

On one occasion that comes to mind, I watched at least 7 additional cars blatantly proceed through an intersection in the city after the light turned red. They all deserved tickets, there's simply no excuse for that.

But... if a vehicle is approaching a green traffic light at the speed limit on a 55 mph roadway and the light turns yellow, the driver has to quickly estimate and decide whether to proceed through the intersection or try and stop based on distance and speed. If they have any sense they'll check their rear-view mirror and take that into account as part of their decision-making process.

I state the obvious here but estimation isn't perfect and if the light is too short then the driver may wind up getting a ticket that really wasn't deserved. This simply shouldn't happen.

Ever.

The yellow should be of sufficient duration and/or there should be a grace period of sufficient duration to give the well-intentioned driver a break, not raise additional revenue for every vehicle which happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Let the aforementioned 7 violators pay the fine instead.

- Phil

No Need to Shorten Yellow Cycle

pquesinb wrote:

The yellow should be of sufficient duration and/or there should be a grace period of sufficient duration to give the well-intentioned driver a break, not raise additional revenue for every vehicle which happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Let the aforementioned 7 violators pay the fine instead.

- Phil

I completely agree with your statement. I do not understand why a municipality would ever consider shorterning the yellow light cycle. They don't have to!

Like you, I have watched vehicles fly through intersections well after their light had turned red. The municipalities would still rake in significant revenue from these lead-footed drivers.

Greed

DanielT wrote:

I completely agree with your statement. I do not understand why a municipality would ever consider shorterning the yellow light cycle.

Simple greed. And a lack of ethics.

But it also may be that the person setting the light timing really didn't know what was proper for that intersection.

rt 1

pquesinb wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

It's not complicated at all. If a vehicle is traveling at the speed limit, there's no decision to be made. Proceed on yellow or decelerate and prepare to stop, depending on the position of the vehicle. There is no need to speed up. People that don't get it, can't do it, are poor drivers. Uncoordinated, something. It's no more difficult that staying onside in hockey or soccer.

You're partially right, at least. It's not complicated at all... if the intersection is set up properly and the yellow lights haven't been set too short for the expected speeds encountered at that intersection (hopefully the actual speed limit, assuming that has been properly set which is another discussion).

However, if the light timings are improperly set, whether intentionally or not, then your argument fails completely. Simple. Period.

On one occasion that comes to mind, I watched at least 7 additional cars blatantly proceed through an intersection in the city after the light turned red. They all deserved tickets, there's simply no excuse for that.

But... if a vehicle is approaching a green traffic light at the speed limit on a 55 mph roadway and the light turns yellow, the driver has to quickly estimate and decide whether to proceed through the intersection or try and stop based on distance and speed. If they have any sense they'll check their rear-view mirror and take that into account as part of their decision-making process.

I state the obvious here but estimation isn't perfect and if the light is too short then the driver may wind up getting a ticket that really wasn't deserved. This simply shouldn't happen.

Ever.

The yellow should be of sufficient duration and/or there should be a grace period of sufficient duration to give the well-intentioned driver a break, not raise additional revenue for every vehicle which happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Let the aforementioned 7 violators pay the fine instead.

- Phil

Route 1 in NJ is a good example, 55 mph limit, and red light cams. I have never seen anyone get nabbed--the yellow last about 6 secs. If you are traveling 55 mph, it's not a hard decision stopping, or proceeding. Depends on when the light turns yellow relative to where you are.

How about situations where there is a long line of people waiting to turn left, and a car blows up the middle, then cuts off someone who is weak, and turns left? On two occasions, I saw an individual busted for doing so, the other 1000 times the person gets away with it. Cameras change this behavior. The money grab argument is weak.

I also agree

pquesinb wrote:

...
The yellow should be of sufficient duration and/or there should be a grace period of sufficient duration to give the well-intentioned driver a break, not raise additional revenue for every vehicle which happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
...
- Phil

I also agree.

If opponents of red light cameras would make comments such as pquesinb has above expressed to the municipalities in which they reside, they would do far more good than railing against cameras on this site.

And, by making such feeling known they might just stave off a tax increase that would impact them personally rather than those offenders who blow through lights.

Money grab is the sole purpose for RLC cameras...

Fact. A single police officer can easily average
1 ticket an hour and pile multiple violations such as no insurance, no license, warrants, drug and alcohol violations which can easily top $2500 a day.
More officers means more criminals caught while RLC do nothing to get these people off the road. If you want unsafe drivers off the road you simply hire 50, 100, 200 officers depending on the population and mandate they write $2,000 a day in tickets.
The local government and society win because obviously if you get a ticket you're guilty and because they must write tickets each officer is not a tax burden but a profit center for the city/county, which is the sole reason for an RLC.
So, do you want a machine to do it to you or a person who can really solve the problem?

-truly-

Frside007 wrote:

"Money grab is the sole purpose for RLC cameras..."

Fact. A single police officer can easily average
1 ticket an hour and pile multiple violations such as no insurance, no license, warrants, drug and alcohol violations which can easily top $2500 a day.
More officers means more criminals caught while RLC do nothing to get these people off the road. If you want unsafe drivers off the road you simply hire 50, 100, 200 officers depending on the population and mandate they write $2,000 a day in tickets.
The local government and society win because obviously if you get a ticket you're guilty and because they must write tickets each officer is not a tax burden but a profit center for the city/county, which is the sole reason for an RLC.
So, do you want a machine to do it to you or a person who can really solve the problem?

A real interesting point-

--
~Jim~ Nuvi-660, & Nuvi-680

devils advocate

jimcaulfield wrote:
Frside007 wrote:

"Money grab is the sole purpose for RLC cameras..."

Fact. A single police officer can easily average
1 ticket an hour and pile multiple violations such as no insurance, no license, warrants, drug and alcohol violations which can easily top $2500 a day.
More officers means more criminals caught while RLC do nothing to get these people off the road. If you want unsafe drivers off the road you simply hire 50, 100, 200 officers depending on the population and mandate they write $2,000 a day in tickets.
The local government and society win because obviously if you get a ticket you're guilty and because they must write tickets each officer is not a tax burden but a profit center for the city/county, which is the sole reason for an RLC.
So, do you want a machine to do it to you or a person who can really solve the problem?

A real interesting point-

A couple observations. Almost nobody here has ever gotten a ticket, so they speak in theory.

Most here are anti law-enforcement.

You guys really think the function of a law enforcement officer is to generate revenue, like a telemarketer robo-dialing your house while you're eating dinner? Now that there's funny.

My buddy who got the rlc ticket, said he did the crime as the video clearly showed, was subsequently caught rolling a stop as was his wife. This was in the Tampa FLA area. In both cases, they were let off with a warning. A rlc would not do that.

So the human factor actually reduced potential revenue.

I was pulled over in 2005 by a NJ State Trooper. He too let me off with a verbal warning.

there goes the money grab theory once again.

RLC's are the money grab.....

I have friends in law enforcement and know most police officers are not in the frame of mind to write tickets to generate revenue. On the other hand RLC and speed cameras sole purpose is generating revenue.
My point was if you really want revenue generation and law enforcement why not hire real people to get problem drivers off the road and make money if that is the goal versus a driver with no license, driving drunk in a stolen car who runs a red light and causes the legal owner to get a ticket.
Does anyone know of a city that loses money on RLC and/or speed cameras and keeps them active cause I've never heard of one?

although I don't have links to substantiate this

Frside007 wrote:

I have friends in law enforcement and know most police officers are not in the frame of mind to write tickets to generate revenue. On the other hand RLC and speed cameras sole purpose is generating revenue.
My point was if you really want revenue generation and law enforcement why not hire real people to get problem drivers off the road and make money if that is the goal versus a driver with no license, driving drunk in a stolen car who runs a red light and causes the legal owner to get a ticket.
Does anyone know of a city that loses money on RLC and/or speed cameras and keeps them active cause I've never heard of one?

Some.of my work colleagues in NC say most of the RLC's were removed because the city / county didn't make enough money from the RLC tickets because so much of the fine went to 'education'....

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

mistaken

Frside007 wrote:

I have friends in law enforcement and know most police officers are not in the frame of mind to write tickets to generate revenue. On the other hand RLC and speed cameras sole purpose is generating revenue.
My point was if you really want revenue generation and law enforcement why not hire real people to get problem drivers off the road and make money if that is the goal versus a driver with no license, driving drunk in a stolen car who runs a red light and causes the legal owner to get a ticket.
Does anyone know of a city that loses money on RLC and/or speed cameras and keeps them active cause I've never heard of one?

In my job, I work with LEO from across the country. While many of those I deal with on a daily basis are not doing patrol duty they haven't been away from it for that long of a period either. Officers don't write tickets as a rule unless there is another reason such as a collision or a blatant case of reckless driving. The bulk of a patrol officer's time is now spent answering radio calls. If you are answering a radio call, you don't have time to write a ticket because the dingbat just blew the sign/signal when making a turn or sped up to go through the intersection just after the light turned red. Now, if a near miss happened and the officer observed it, chances are they would notify dispatch and write the ticket, but often they don't because the radio call has a higher priority.

Camera are about behavior modification. If a camera is in place, people's behavior changes. Where they would roll through a signal to make a right turn or enter the intersection because the light wasn't red, it was just a little pink stops because of the camera. In my area there are a lot of cameras that have been in place for years - literally. They don't flash much any more, but traffic still stops at lights and slows down to the speed limit, so they must be working in changing behavior.

Saying an officer could "justify their salary writing traffic tickets" just shows the ignorance of the claim. It's not that they could probably write enough in tickets to return to the agency their salary, it's what happens after the officer is done. Where do the funds come for their retirement? How about the healthcare? So come on, put out a truly logical argument that would stand to scrutiny. Salary is only a small part of the cost of having an employee. The argument lacks any merit because of the false premise the revenue collected goes to the department, it doesn't. Revenue from fines goes into the general fund after the equipment expenses are deducted. Money in the general fund is then apportioned out to requesting agencies to meet their requirements of providing even more services to the citizens.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

But then...

jgermann wrote:

...
If opponents of red light cameras would make comments such as pquesinb has above expressed to the municipalities in which they reside, they would do far more good than railing against cameras on this site.

…we would have to find something else to complain about. Besides, we'd miss getting our weekly POI RLC file! wink

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

C'mon..

You evidently haven't heard of traffic detail within most departments that almost exclusively write tickets for speeding, running red lights or what's called traffic enforcement. Many agencies have them and all could have them.
If you're telling me that an officer writing lets say $2000.00 a day average in tickets isn't paying his way for wages, medical/dental, retirement benefits what departments daily cost per officer is this high?
True that money from tickets goes to a general fund but please don't be naïve to the concept of more money being allocated to a unit within an agency based on performance.
Where does the revenue from an RLC go? To the general fund most likely and is then spread around
based on that cities/counties requirements.
You ever seen an officer in a car or on a motorcycle on the side of the street? That also can be considered behavior modification.

Generating Revenue AND Changing Behavior

Frside007 wrote:

On the other hand RLC and speed cameras sole purpose is generating revenue.

I disagree with that statement. While traffic safety cameras do generate revenue they are also a simple mechanism to stimulate behavior change (as stated by Box Car).

Running a red light or speeding 10 - 15 MPH over the limit are choices. Fortunately, nothing bad happens most of the time when a driver makes the wrong choice - but with no negative consequences, these choices become common behavior.

Fines are intended to be a monetary punishment for traffic violations. The fact that a camera may be present may alter a driver's choice. If the presence of a camera doesn't modify a driver's behavior, then that individual will pay the penalty.

So yes, traffic safety cameras generate revenue. But they also change behavior.

100%

DanielT wrote:

I disagree with that statement. While traffic safety cameras do generate revenue they are also a simple mechanism to stimulate behavior change (as stated by Box Car).

Running a red light or speeding 10 - 15 MPH over the limit are choices. Fortunately, nothing bad happens most of the time when a driver makes the wrong choice - but with no negative consequences, these choices become common behavior.

Fines are intended to be a monetary punishment for traffic violations. The fact that a camera may be present may alter a driver's choice. If the presence of a camera doesn't modify a driver's behavior, then that individual will pay the penalty.

So yes, traffic safety cameras generate revenue. But they also change behavior.

agree

RLC

Chicago was caught with changing the yellow light to below 3 seconds. I think in one instance it was only at 2.9 seconds which seems no big deal, but the increased revenue from a 3 second yellow light was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra revenue.

The only behavior modification I find in my personal case is that I avoid the known RLC locations and do not shop at merchants anywhere near their locations.

--
Dudlee

again

Dudlee wrote:

Chicago was caught with changing the yellow light to below 3 seconds. I think in one instance it was only at 2.9 seconds which seems no big deal, but the increased revenue from a 3 second yellow light was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra revenue.

The only behavior modification I find in my personal case is that I avoid the known RLC locations and do not shop at merchants anywhere near their locations.

It's not ethical to monkey with yellows.

But let's get real, 1/10 sec causes a person to be unable to stop properly at a red light?

In politics, we have this awful habit of dancing around cause and effect, and misusing statistics.

Again, going back to my buddy's video, the Audi who clearly ran the light got a pass as there was no flash. This invalidates the 1/10 of a second, and unethical, modification of the yellow.

Oh for Pete's sake

Let's just all agree to do the following.

When you see a red light camera, run the red light just to make it flash

When you see a speed camera, exceed the speed limit sufficient to cause it to flash.

Do similar things for right turn and seat belt cameras.

Eventually, all the flash systems will burn out and its likely the jurisdictions won't fix them..... They don't tend to fix anything else so why would they fix the flash systems.

smile

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

seriously

BarneyBadass wrote:

Let's just all agree to do the following.

When you see a red light camera, run the red light just to make it flash

When you see a speed camera, exceed the speed limit sufficient to cause it to flash.

Do similar things for right turn and seat belt cameras.

Eventually, all the flash systems will burn out and its likely the jurisdictions won't fix them..... They don't tend to fix anything else so why would they fix the flash systems.

smile

For the vast majority of folks, there is no need to do anything differently just because there is a camera.

Yesterday, for only the 2nd time in 4 years, I saw someone zip up the center, then bang a left cutting someone off bypassing the line of people waiting to turn left. A PD lit it up and busted them. That person has the ultimate in bad luck, in 4 yrs. of this activity, that is the 2nd time I've seen anyone get busted. A camera placed there would eliminate the behavior altogether. It's obvious that PD has other things to do. But the behavior is dangerous, the cars tend to be going 40-60 and cutoff someone who is legitimately in queue to turn.

Page 1>>