Red light camera ban hits the burbs, with lost revenue

Let me start by stipulating that revenue is a major reason for traffic cameras. I personally think this is a good source of revenue because it falls directly on those who break the law, as opposed to the citizenry in general.

When a LEO writes a ticket, there is revenue produced, but no one seems to object on those grounds. When a parking ticket is written, there is revenue produced, but no one seems to object on revenue grounds. When you must register your vehicle each year, there is revenue produced, but no one seems to object on revenue grounds.

What part of a photo showing a vehicle behind the white line with the light clearly red; another photo of the vehicle in the intersection with the light clearly red; and a video detailing the incident seems unfair to you?

Does it make sense to you to have LEOs sitting at traffic lights looking for violations. To my mind it does not. Most police departments are understaffed anyway because of budget cuts due to lack of revenue.

Most people say that having a LEO write a ticket gives them an ability to bring forth mitigating circumstances and, perhaps, get only a warning. This is clearly a cop-out (pun intended) because most people would realize that they were guilty - and lucky to get off with only a warning.

Without revenue, municipalities must cut services. Unfortunately, the service easiest to cut is EDUCATION. This will result in our future workforce being even less prepared in the future than it is now. The USA used to lead the world in educating its children - now we are lagging way behind and this will mean our economy will suffer in the future.

So, what was your reasoning?

the idea of Big Brother always watching is anathema to the freedom of individuals...I am a realist and know these cameras are everywhere...doesn't make me any less ill thinking this is what we have become as a society.

double post, sorry

My problem is the pretense that the RLCs are put in place for safety and not the revenue. It's not the money, it's the money.

When cameras first became popular around the start of the century, there were a number of the early adopters that made the claim it was for public safety (making no mention of the fact that the red light vendors had given them data about how much revenue the cameras would generate).

Once the citizens could see that the revenue from cameras was included in the budget of the municipality and - thus - had forestalled increases in the property or sales tax. it was disingenuous to continue to make the claim of "safety only".

Do you make comments to your friends that your "sales tax" is only about the revenue in the hope that this damnation will lead to the sales tax being voted down by the population?

Jgermann: None of your examples is/are unfair. The systems are installed, they work to bust the law-breakers and the $$ pour in because the cameras are on duty 24x7x365. All is well. Until: the revenues drop because people are aware and PAYOFF: they start obeying the law. Then the rules get "tweeked" and you get busted by the camera for something that was perfectly legal previously; perhaps yesterday: the last time you went through the intersection. This is the part that is unfair and IMO, this one little [documented] scam (there are others: can you say "kickback"?) is enough to put the entire system under suspicion and they should be voted out lock, stock, camera and strobe.

I could add more on the topic of why the USA is lagging behind the world in some areas (but not ALL), but I'll leave it to someone else except to say it has nothing to do with red light and speed cameras.

Why don't you get a sandwich board and stand on the corner of your choice proclaiming "Don't run red lights"

ITS A TAX NOT A PENALTY is unclear?

What this brings to mind is the old saying about "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

Of course, there are examples of kickbacks etc. (Chicago comes to mind). Oakland is an example of a city that changed yellow lights to generate revenues.

But there are examples of charities that do not use the funds donated for anything other than the benefit of the officials of said charity. I do not think that you have quit giving to charitable organizations because of these reports

I wonder why people are not consistent in their logic when it comes to cameras. Can you explain it?

If it were actually about safety, how about suspending driving licenses for repeat red light offenders? Instead, we have this system where it is ok to run lights as long you want if you have money to keep feeding the machine.

Or how about community service in lieu of cash for the camera companies?

That would be the difference between

"A TAX": something lawful that is still generally regarded as a reasonable basis for revenue generation by the State (e.g., earning income, owning property), and

"A PENALTY": something unlawful that is potentially very dangerous and performed by selfish a**holes who think that amber/red lights apply to "everybody else".

Is that clear enough for you?

Can you paint a picture?

Sorry, no. We're grown-ups here. We use our words.

I don't need to get one, I already have one!

For several personal reasons it's almost a year since I was on this site, (Nothing criminal:), and I find red light cameras are still an active topic.

Exceed the speed limit, park illegally, make an illegal turn, DUI, run a red light etc., and you should expect to be caught and pay the penalty. Cameras just make the odds of being caught much less favourable for you.
You committed the crime now pay the fine. Don't whine about it, just be thankful for the number of times you got away it.

Of course, the topic of automated enforcement cameras is still an active topic! This is a Discussion Forum, where participants are given the opportunity to express their opinion.

Over and over and over again... at least once per week

Badges? We doan need no stinkin' badges! (to quote an old Western).

--Lee

Sure. Just as long as it's a human seeing you committing the traffic violation and a human writing the ticket. That is the only fair solution.

Education is NOT the easiest to cut but it does create drama and the media eats it up. You know how many unneeded staffers and departments could be eliminated if government truly prioritized spending and expenditures?
People would be up in arms if reports came out that the local police agencies were going to a no tolerance policy to raise more money or quota system to raise more money. RLC are simply a way to raise revenue under a quota system. If the quota isn't met
the RLC will be removed.

@Frside007, you took exception to my statement that "the service easiest to cut is education"

Two questions arise:
Are you saying that education is not the easiest service to cut?
or
Are you saying that education has not been cut?

If education is not the easiest municipal service to cut, then what service or services do you think are?

If you think that education has not been cut, then you may want to look at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4011.

I do not agree with your apparent feeling that when education cuts occur that the public would be aware and that the "media eats it up". Maybe that has occurred where you live but not around here.

This is a new one on me - "If the quota isn't met the RLC will be removed."

This makes no sense on its face. If the RLC was creating revenue in excess of its expenses but did not meet its "quota", then the RLC would be removed??

Would not any "quota" have been at a level to make enough revenue to cover costs?

Maybe you did not phrase your thought as you meant to do.

Perhaps you're right, but some things to be considered.
1. A Red-light camera costs about $100,000 installed. To replace it with a policeman full-time would cost about $500,000 each and every year. approx. $100,000 per policeman.

2. Obviously the fines would have to be significantly increased to achieve the same revenue increases.

3. In Canada, if the ticket is issued by a policeman, the driver loses 3 demerit points. This would be good, since loss of 6 demerit points probably means loss of license for 6 months.

4. When someone gets bored they are more likely to make mistakes. So do policemen. Are you prepared to take the bet that the mistake will always be in your favour?

5. Policemen are more likely to check for other offences such as seat-belts, failed lights, failure to signal a turn, texting, DUI (alcohol or drugs), tinted windows, and whatever other offences may be observed.

Beware of what you wish for, it may happen.

To give some idea of a realistic quota. In my province "The set fine for running a red light detected by a camera system is $260.00, plus a $60.00 victim surcharge and $5.00 for costs for a total of $325.00."

The cost of a camera installed is $100,000. Thus ONE fine each day would recover the initial cost. Anything over this is profit. Of course ANY fines in subsequent are almost all profit.

The quota should then be set at 1 fine/year.

Personally, I have little issue with red light cameras. I wouldn't have much of a problem if they were installed at every red light. But the big problem we have here in Canada is that most red light cameras are also what is termed "intersection safety cameras." They ticket for both red light running, plus speeding. The speed trigger is about 10 kmh over the posted limit. (About 6 mph.)

Speed tickets outnumber red light tickets by a factor of ten times.

If it were truly about safety, they would place these at intersections with a red light running problem or a speeding problem. Instead, they are installed and operated by a private company who collects a percentage of the tickets. They are thus installed in locations where they can "trick" the most motorists. For example, one is on a majour feeder route where the limit is 60 Kmh for half the width of the city. It drops to 50 for about 10 blocks for no discernible reason, and then goes back up to 60. That one traps a lot of people who are going 60.

Another one was installed on a short street leading to a freeway. The main street it leads off of is 60; the freeway is 60, and the short stub street is 50.

Another problem is that speed cameras are not always at intersections. We have mobile radar sites that are allowed to set up in construction zones and school zones. They are notorious for ticketing drivers on a Sunday night at 11PM in the summer when there are no kids in school, or in construction zones where they only post the reduced speed limit sign on one side of a four-lane road where drivers miss it easily if there is a vehicle in the lane beside them when they pass it. It doesn't matter the time of day or if they are actually working or not ... you get a ticket at around 10 over. THAT is strictly revenue generating.

So for those drivers who say they never speed, tell me that you have NEVER driven 6 mph over the limit. In places in Canada, that gives you a $300 ticket.

Then you probably haven't had to spend incredible amounts of time to fight an improper red light fine when you didn't even run a red light.

There have been several times that I have been in an intersection when the light turned red despite entering it when the light was green. "Fast" lights is one reason (lights that plow through yellow to red very, very quickly and are not set up properly for larger intersections) and getting stuck behind someone who has braked or is going too slow for some reason is another. I rarely enter an intersection when the light is yellow. Honestly, I don't. I've never been sited by a red light camera but I don't think they should be used.

If red light cameras generate so much revenue, it shouldn't be much of a budget exercise to justify hiring human beings to watch these busy intersections. The human perspective would go a long way toward trust by the rest of us.

Took a trip to Vancouver recently and didn't care for the speed camera zones appearing out of nowhere from time to time and, it seemed to me that as one continued to drive on some stretch of highways, the speed limit would fluctuate without much rhyme or reason, making driving within the speed limit a more difficult endeavor.

usually though when cuts are made they first happen at the level that actually does the most good. The people at the top who do the least are protected.
It just seems cuts are made to hurt those that need the service or agency rather than get rid of the fat farther up the ladder.
This is done on purpose to punish taxpayers and get them more acceptable to tax/revenue increases.
The biggest problem is no real accountability for running an agency/department like someone would if they owned it.

Well said!

Here on long Island cameras have been installed at intersections that have never had an accident there. It's clear that the cameras are there for the right turns on red, to generate revenue. If safety is the main concern of the legislature then a law should be passed prohibiting right turns on red everywhere and we would be a safer community.. NOT!!! They would loose to much $$$$$$.. Oh, where is all the millions from these cameras going? Does anyone know? Maybe the general fund?

I think this is a gross misrepresentation of facts and reflects only the opinions that the individuals involved.

First, let's examine the opening statement "Virtually Any Goverment Agency Has Waste..." The more accurate statement is that Virtually Any Organization Has Waste...". However, when one is anti-government, the more specific attribution is used for effect.

Note that salaries for government agencies are public records - so it is possible to see what happens over time. One is able to see what the people with the highest salaries make relative to those making the lowest. One has only to keep up with the local newspaper to see is happening.

How exactly would one ascertain that any cuts made are done at the level that does the most good?

Were there ever a situation where such cuts were "done on purpose to punish taxpayers and get them more acceptable to tax/revenue increases", one can be certain that this would be reported extensively by the local media.

The way this statement was made implies that such is a common occurrence. Unless there is factual support of instances where cuts were made to "punish taxpayers", this one deserves a "pants on fire" rating.

Don't run red lights and once the cameras become an expense as opposed to a revenue generator, they will come down. As long as people think a yellow light is a green light and a red light is only truly red after it has been red for a few seconds, the cameras will continue. I guess many take the approach, "it's still pink".

Most intersection or speeding cameras are being dismantled in my community due to the fact that they are more expensive to maintain than the revenue they bring. I live in the So. Cal area. I work for Enterprise car rental and drive about 200 to 300 mile a day 3 days a week. Its nice to know where the cameras are located. I don't speed or break the laws because the car I'm driving is not mine. Also 3 tickets while driving my car or theirs gets me fired but knowing where the cameras are located is nice. I can't wait for all the cameras are dismantled. Drive safe and defensively.

Don't drive, walk, use a pogo stick, hitch-hike, take a buss.......