Red light program put on hold in Albuquerque NM

Unfortunately, Martin Chavez, Mayor of Albuquerque, vetoed the City Council's decision to put a hold on red light camera enforcement. The Council couldn't garner enough votes to override the veto. (Bummer).
Some drivers reacting to the red light cameras braked very hard and got rear ended by a car following them too closely. I've observed that red light running is rampant in Albuquerque. Also, many people ignore stop signs in that city.

Personally I want the Red Light cameras enforced. I live in Albuquerque near several and I have seen the positive difference that they make in the way people drive around them. IMO... Like most places we just have drivers that don't like the consequences of breaking the traffic laws. Of course the other option is to change the traffic laws and teach the drivers that Red=stop, Green=go, Yellow=go faster

Agreed.

I would prefer that light-running maniacs be fined and their insurance rate go up, preferably before they kill somebody.

No one likes the idiots who run the lights. We all see them daily. Most of the time though, the ones I see are the ones who are pushing the yellow rather than outright running the light.

But the cameras are not the answer. They are not proven by any means to do anything but make millions for the cities.

Check out the recent investigation by Fox in Dallas.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=F...

Another city called Richland Hills (suburb of Dallas/FtWorth) was busted as well doing the same thing. City officials want your money, not your safety.

The Albq mayor was doing this for political reasons. When he decided he was not going to run for senate, he then backed off. I'd rather them be honest and say, "Rather than raising taxes, we are putting in the cameras. This way, instead of everyone paying taxes, only the ones that we "accuse" of running the lights will be the ones paying." Dallas was starting off with 15 cameras, but once they started installing them, all the sudden they were putting in 60 instead. Now, after almost $10 Million in revenues, they are adding another 40 cameras. Maybe it's coincidental that there were many stories of budgetary concerns for the city in the news at that same time. Coincidence? I doubt it.

I do agree about the light running.
Although I still like to know where the camera's are for my own Situational Awareness.
It's not having the camera's that fixes the problem, it's the threat of getting the ticket that fixes it. Even a fake camera (as long as people don't know it is fake) would get the same response.

I respectfully disagree. It's inaccurate to say "They are not proven by any means to do anything but make millions for the cities." In Albuquerque the number of violations went down at the intersections that red light cameras where installed. I live around several of these cameras and I can testify that it has reduced people from driving recklessly by entering an intersection on a red light.

I read the article you referenced. In Albuquerque you don't get a red light violation for entering in the intersection for a yellow... its entering the intersection after the light has already turned red.

BTW as a side note I went to the website you are promoting at shinyplate.com and in Albuquerque that is also illegal to do to your plates. The spray itself is not illegal but the act of illegible display of the plate is.

The only problem with the Red Light Cameras that I have is that when they first came to Toledo, OH people slam on the breaks when a light would turn yellow. That doesn't mix well with wet or icey roads!

It is not a problem for me for you to disagree. You have your impressions of these cameras, and I have no desire to change your mind. However, because we are here to discuss things, here is my reply. Additionally, believe it or not, I have registered on this site because I just got me a gps and wanted to take advantage of the resources. However, I fear that you do not have adequate information to make an informed decision on these cameras. If you believe that the Albq mayor really cares for your safety, over the MILLIONS of dollars that the cameras have already brought into the city budget, then ... what am I to say to change that??

Something that I have always wondered. Here we get both Ford and Chevy saying that they are "...the best selling truck in Texas!" Hmmm...being a Chevy guy, I am not sure that this is the fact. But it could be. But I wonder if Ford's sales stat's include both Chevy and GM trucks compared to Fords sales? We all know that the Silverado and Cheyenne are the same truck, just with a different badge on tailgate. So, is Ford comparing F150 sales just to the Silverados and they are using this stat to back their claims? Hmmm

However, if I am in the market for a new vehicle, I am going to go directly to Ford and Chevy and let them inform me on which one makes the safer, more fuel-efficient vehicle. I am going to let them pull out their statistics and studies that they have done which proves that Chevy is better than Ford. Right? Uhh...?

The first word out of my statistics instructor's mouth was, "There are three kinds of statistics! Lies, lies, and damn lies. No matter what your point is, you can provide statistics to back it up." So with this in mind, the last thing that I am going to do is to go to Chevy, or Ford, and let them provide their own statistics to persuade me to purchase their vehicle. Personally, I want to hear from someone who has nothing to gain from the sale, like Consumer Reports or one of the car magazines. Someone with an UNBIASED opinion. I can show you stories from every single police dept across the country that have these cameras installed stating that red light runners have decreased since the installation of the cameras. That's all fine, but I am not going to go out and buy stock in the vendor because of it. Additionally, what are they leaving out of their report? Maybe an increase in rear-end accidents because people slamming on their breaks? For sure! I saw it happen today! The lady stopped well into the intersection barely missing having a sports car ending up in her trunk. But city officials gloss over "rear-enders" because they are "usually less severe accidents." UH...they still cause money to fix the damage. Increase in insurance rates due to filing claims. Still cause injuries, and sometimes are actually FATAL. So...let's trade one T-Bone accident for ten rear-enders?

Why do I not believe them you ask? (or maybe not) They literally have MILLIONS of dollars on the line if the cameras do not work. The state of Texas has a sunset limit on the cameras. They have until 2009 to show that the cameras are proven for safety and not just revenue generators. I fear that gov't greed will take hold and they will see all of the programs that they can fund from the citations. Houston for instance, have installed cameras at intersections where they have had only ONE OR TWO ACCIDENTS A YEAR!! Yeah...big need for a camera there.

Regardless of it all, you have your opinion that the actually care about your safety and I respect that. I wish it were so, but I know better.

Here is two INDEPENDENT sources of information for you, if you care to learn more. I could provide more evidence to show that my statement "They are not proven by any means to do anything but make millions for the cities" is absolutely accurate and my opinion. There is not ONE INDEPENDENT study which shows that the cameras saves lives. There ONLY source of any positive studies are from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety which is hardly unbiased and independent. Read the article from the second link and you will find that the person who performs the studies for the IIHS is actually the man who BROUGHT THE CAMERAS to the US when he was head of the Dept of Transportation for NY City. Yeah...I believe that he is absolutely unbiased.

Again, here is a couple of resources for you that are unbiased. Read them if you dare. If nothing else, read the article from the second link.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

and an in-depth article from the Washington's The Daily Standard newspaper:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00...

And whether you buy a can of photoblocker or not, there are many that have already fell victim to the cameras that are buying it.

OH...and it IS LEGAL in NM. I am from the Hobbs area orginally. There is NOTHING in the law that states, like in Texas, that states that your plates have to be visible to PHOTO ENFORCEMENT equipment. There are only four states that have outlawed the spray and all four had to amend their law to include the verbage, "...visible to photo-enforcement devices" for it to be illegal. Regardless, you can't tell that it's on your plates to begin with. To the human eye, it shows absolutely no differnce to your plates. Your bright yellow plates will still be bright yellow. Either way, I am not a lawyer, and until it is challenged in court we can only state our opinions.

Have a good one! (I love debate )

Thanks for the response... I should have it completely read by the end of the month I did find another article though about Albuquerque that I want to follow up on concerning city employees (police, bus drivers, etc) being caught by the cameras... are they paying for it or the city?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/381701...

Well...since you read this article, you see that response is a mixed bag. In my humble opinion, those who respond as you have, have just not gotten caught by the system yet. Whether you believe it or not, it is rigged to produce the most citations possible proven by the California study showing that over 80% of the citations were taken in the first 2/10 of a second after the red light. This is what they call the "dilemma zone." Do I stop; or take a chance? Hmmm....what to do?

Related story:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2049.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1243.asp

Like I mentioned before, I have spent an exaustive amount of time and have 100 stories of where they have ticketed the wrong vehicle. Frequently it is the wrong model of car, and even a wrong color. All of which I believe is available by the registration data. And I am not even talking about cars that have a similiar design. There have even been mistakes made by sending a violation of a car to the owner of a pick-up. The worst thing about this is that they (city or vendor officals - whoever you believe is running this operation) insists that they show for court to resolve the mistake.

Now for your question, only the city officials and vendors know for sure. Of course the city officials will tell you that the offending officer/city employee who was assigned to that vehicle will be responsible for the fine (at least from the other stories that I have read from other cities with this issue). However, this DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the policy of the OWNER of the vehicle being responsible. Imagine that!!

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=102568
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4780649&f...

Kind of ironic when the police get caught breaking the laws that they are supposed to enforce.

Houston shows no benefit after a year.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/14618294/detail.html

And check this out! From the article above, why do they have cameras on intersections that have had only TWO accidents per year? I believe in a city of this size, two accidents a year is pretty acceptable/resonable. City driving is dangerous!!
http://www.click2houston.com/download/2007/1116/14616610.pdf

Lubbock Tx is having problems....financial programs. Their prelim study after having the cameras for six months show a drastic INCREASE in accidents and are not making the money that the vendor suggested that it would.

The totals reflected a 52 percent increase in collisions with rear end crashes up by 60 percent. The total number of injuries did drop about 9 percent, but the city's figure -- unlike the more precise injury accident statistic -- can vary with the number of passengers traveling in vehicles involved in an accident.

OOpsie!!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2168.asp

NM Gov Richardson is wanting Albq to share with the state. Apparently there was an agreement between Richardson and the Mayor of Albq to lessen the amount of the citations on the cameras. Well...apparently the mayor did not uphold his end of the bargain, so Richardson is looking to take a share of the profits for the state.

Can't we all just get along??

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2186.asp

For those of you in Albq, your citations were just lowered. Guess the mayor did not want the Gov to take all of his profits.

http://kob.com/article/stories/S336811.shtml?cat=500

Well the saga continues as Albuquerque had the red light program totally suspended a couple of weeks ago. I am happy to say it got reinstated recently.

Here is an interesting fact but certainly not surprising.... During the time the red light program went on suspend mode here the number of traffic violations caught (but not issued) doubled at the red light locations and of course the income was zero.

IMO... The point is forget the money it is about the lawless driving. It really doesn't matter if a red light violation makes the city $1 or $100. If a person is not driving by the traffic laws which are there for our safety they should have consequences. I am all for the red light cameras because it is obviously has a positive effect on reducing the number of violations.

The arguments above concerning increased revenue are mute and nothing more than a way to distract from the real issue. It isn't about the amount the government makes here but what amount does it take such that the consequences outweigh the risk such that drivers change their driving habit. The trick is to find the least amount that affects desired change and still cover the cost of the program.