Short yellows on camera ticketing intersections

[DiggerJim]

Check this out:

Short Lights

 

Who would believe that a municipality would deliberatley shorten the yellow lights so people would be caught running reds? Wouldn't that be unsafe?

[MotorinLA]

Headline:

"Red light camera monkey business may be a national trend."

 

Catchy headline, although somewhat contradictory to this later line, "A few cities across America, however, have been caught short-timing their own yellow lights below legal levels...", not quite a ‘national trend’. The writer asks the same question, “So how many anecdotes do you need to pronounce something a trend? It's hard to say…” I’d say more than six.

 

Have municipalities shortened their yellow phases to give drivers less time to stop? Absolutely.

 

Is it a large scale problem?

No.

 

Is it being tolerated by the courts?

No.

 

It certainly appears that some municipalities have installed red light cameras with the intention of creating a ‘revenue generator’. These municipalities obviously try to increase the occurrence of red light violations by not posting the intersections and reducing the yellow phase.

 

Red light cameras in Los Angeles County are posted ahead of the intersection and the yellow phases are unchanged, but guess what? People still run the red light at a disturbing rate. Does it reduce red light violations? Sure.

 

Does it reduce injury collisions? Generally yes, as red light violation collisions generally produce more serious injury collisions than the rear end collisions that are increased due to the cameras.

 

Are red light cameras a big revenue maker? Not usually. The cost of operating the systems almost completely eats up the income brought into the municipality by the citations (at least in L.A. Co.). The companies that operate the systems are the true winners in this game. As far as the cities go, when factoring in the cost of the officers/sergeants that have to review the pictures, issue the citations and go to court, it is a negative revenue flow.

 

Here’s a novel thought: Stop for the red light!

 

I know it’s a lot to ask, but in my opinion people should be less concerned about the cameras and more concerned about the wellbeing of other drivers on our roads.

[Ken H.]

Yeah I got ticketed on one once (in a cage). It was pretty well know in the area that it was short timed. When I pleaded not guilty and said I had timed it with a stop watch the municipality just dropped it. They knew most people just pay up, and those that don't; easy come, easy go.

[smiller]

I know it’s a lot to ask, but in my opinion people should be less concerned about the cameras and more concerned about the wellbeing of other drivers on our roads.

You know it is possible to be both.

[MotorinLA]

I know it’s a lot to ask, but in my opinion people should be less concerned about the cameras and more concerned about the wellbeing of other drivers on our roads.

You know it is possible to be both.

 

Not to be a smartass (well, maybe a little ), but if you stop for red lights, why would you worry about cameras?

[David]

Because a yellow precedes a red, and if the yellow is shorter htan normal, you may be "running a red light" when in fact your bahavior is otherwise lawful. If the light turns yellow and I can't safely stop, I keep going.

[smiller]

Not to be a smartass (well, maybe a little ), but if you stop for red lights, why would you worry about cameras?

I never push a red, great way to die. But bad ideas don't necessarily need to be a personal threat for me to oppose them and I think cameras are a bad idea when it comes to traffic enforcement.

[MotorinLA]

Because a yellow precedes a red, and if the yellow is shorter htan normal, you may be "running a red light" when in fact your bahavior is otherwise lawful. If the light turns yellow and I can't safely stop, I keep going.

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to look for your next time I go through a green light in TN .

[MotorinLA]

Not to be a smartass (well, maybe a little ), but if you stop for red lights, why would you worry about cameras?

I never push a red, great way to die. But bad ideas don't necessarily need to be a personal threat for me to oppose them and I think cameras are a bad idea when it comes to traffic enforcement.

 

Why is it a bad idea? I understand that camera enforcement leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths, but IMO it seems that this is often based on a gut reaction rather than a rational argument.

[smiller]

There are any number of reasons why 'automated' law enforcement is a bad idea and you touched on the first one yourself -- it leaves a bad taste in citizens' mouths and breeds distrust into the law enforcement process. It's true that not every such effort has an ulterior motive such as revenue generation but the process itself invites abuse, and in such instances the mere appearance of a conflict of interest is almost as bad as a real one. Reasonable and consistent traffic regulations backed up by human enforcement is a much better alternative.

[Kathy R]

The amber light is serious and short in this city. In the surrounding suburbs it's a suggestion and last's noticably longer.

 

I've had one photo of my car mailed to me sailing under the RED. I paid my fine and I've begun to pay more attention to the flashing pedestrian light. That gives me a clue that the RED is fast approaching.

 

In this city I think the photo's and the fast amber are meant to stop the running of stop lights. Cabs are notorious for treating RED as a suggestion. I'd be curious to see how many more rear end accidents there are in the coming months.

[MotorinLA]

There are any number of reasons why 'automated' law enforcement is a bad idea and you touched on the first one yourself -- it leaves a bad taste in citizens' mouths and breeds distrust into the law enforcement process. It's true that not every such effort has an ulterior motive such as revenue generation but the process itself invites abuse, and in such instances the mere appearance of a conflict of interest is almost as bad as a real one. Reasonable and consistent traffic regulations backed up by human enforcement is a much better alternative.

 

I personally don't think the 'bad taste' argument is a good reason not to use red light enforcement cameras. There are many driver's that get a bad taste in their mouth over human enforcement, too. As far as distrust, there are many people that distrust human enforcement as much as automated enforcement, so again in my book this doesn't really add up to a winning argument.

 

Red light camera enforcement may not be the ultimate solution to the red light violation problem, but it is at least trying to do something to improve it.

 

IMO the 'bad taste' is not going to go away, as long as people insist that they ran the red light 'on accident'. Fact of the matter is that most red light violations could probably be avoided, if driver's paid more attention to their driving, monitored their speed more closely and drove more defensively. There are very few 'true accidents' when it comes to most traffic violations.

[David]

Because a yellow precedes a red, and if the yellow is shorter htan normal, you may be "running a red light" when in fact your bahavior is otherwise lawful. If the light turns yellow and I can't safely stop, I keep going.

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to look for your next time I go through a green light in TN .

 

That's an impertinent answer and you're deliberately trying to miss my point. I'm open to having an honest discussion, but if you aren't going to be honest enough to admit that many of these traffic enforcement scenarios are intentionally shortening the yellow light cycle (thus doing what I explained above), there's not going to be much of a start to the discussion.

 

I don't have a problem with camera traffic enforcement if:

 

a) there is due process

 

b) capitalism is not a part of the picture (jobbing enforcement out to a third party with a strong profit motivation)

 

c) points are applied to a license instead of a financial penalty

 

On that latter point, I don't think it's a good idea to mix money, power, and law.

[MotorinLA]

Because a yellow precedes a red, and if the yellow is shorter htan normal, you may be "running a red light" when in fact your bahavior is otherwise lawful. If the light turns yellow and I can't safely stop, I keep going.

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to look for your next time I go through a green light in TN .

 

That's an impertinent answer and you're deliberately trying to miss my point. I'm open to having an honest discussion, but if you aren't going to be honest enough to admit that many of these traffic enforcement scenarios are intentionally shortening the yellow light cycle (thus doing what I explained above), there's not going to be much of a start to the discussion.

 

I don't have a problem with camera traffic enforcement if:

 

a) there is due process

 

b) capitalism is not a part of the picture (jobbing enforcement out to a third party with a strong profit motivation)

 

c) points are applied to a license instead of a financial penalty

 

On that latter point, I don't think it's a good idea to mix money, power, and law.

 

Sorry David, no impertinence intended.

 

However, I think you may have missed what I was trying to point out in my initial reply, which is that the shortening of the yellow phase may not be as common a problem as the author of the article would like you to believe.

 

It is my observation that those opposed to red light enforcement cameras are quick to latch onto issues like the shortened yellow. They appear to do this to point out the inherent problems with this type of enforcement.

 

IMO this does not constitute an inherent problem, as much as an issue with implementation by individual municipalities.

 

As I see it, this is a 'throw out the whole barrel because of one rotten apple' argument.

[Boffin]

Why is it a bad idea? I understand that camera enforcement leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths, but IMO it seems that this is often based on a gut reaction rather than a rational argument.

 

From the UK's experience, it is a bad idea because the numbers of tickets generated are used as an excuse to cut the number of traffic police. Sure, lots of speeding and red-light tickets are collected but with few, or in some areas no traffic police, general driving standards are dropping faster than the dollar and road deaths are climbing at an alarming rate.

 

Keep the cameras, I'll take a cop any day.

 

Andy

[MotorinLA]

The idea has been mentioned here as well. Fortunately for our traffic officers, our cameras are not capable of taking traffic collision reports, making DUI arrests or enforcing other traffic violations.

 

I may be replaced by a machine at some point , but so far it doesn't look like the red light camera is going to be it.

[Boffin]

The idea has been mentioned here as well. Fortunately for our traffic officers, our cameras are not capable of taking traffic collision reports, making DUI arrests or enforcing other traffic violations.

 

 

Neither are ours. That is why they are not getting enforced but that's OK because the number of tickets getting generated is up.

 

Up until a few years ago, most UK police forces had 12-15% of their strength employed on traffic duties. Those officers also made 30% of criminal (non-traffic) arrests. Today, they are not permitted to have more than 5%, some have none. But apparently due to the shift to computer crime, criminals no longer drive so the loss of traffic officers will have no impact.

 

Watch your back officer, it may not be only the bad guys that are out to get you.

 

Andy

[David]

As I see it, this is a 'throw out the whole barrel because of one rotten apple' argument.

 

I see what you're saying, for sure. Again, I'm fine with camera enforcement with the provisions above. They are starting to creep into our area, without those provisions, of course.

[Mike]

Because a yellow precedes a red, and if the yellow is shorter htan normal, you may be "running a red light" when in fact your bahavior is otherwise lawful. If the light turns yellow and I can't safely stop, I keep going.

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll make sure to look for your next time I go through a green light in TN .

 

That's an impertinent answer and you're deliberately trying to miss my point. I'm open to having an honest discussion, but if you aren't going to be honest enough to admit that many of these traffic enforcement scenarios are intentionally shortening the yellow light cycle (thus doing what I explained above), there's not going to be much of a start to the discussion.

 

I don't have a problem with camera traffic enforcement if:

 

a) there is due process

 

b) capitalism is not a part of the picture (jobbing enforcement out to a third party with a strong profit motivation)

 

c) points are applied to a license instead of a financial penalty

 

On that latter point, I don't think it's a good idea to mix money, power, and law.

 

David, that sums up my viewpoint as well.

 

I recognize that red light runners constitute a serious danger. While I don't see it often, it is a serious enough threat that I've consciously changed my behavior at light-controlled intersections; I always try to err well on the side of caution.

 

However, I believe that mixing a profit motive into any law enforcement activity is fraught with peril. Ultimately the temptation--to which the vendors routinely succumb--is to maximize the number of violations and, hence, revenue. Of course, government agencies are not immune to acting for a profit motive either. In either case, law-abiding citizens often end up losing in these scenarios.

 

A related problem is that these schemes place a tremendous burden on the purported violator to prove his or her innocence. Even in cases where it's clear that a mistake has been made, the only alternative is generally to spend the better part of a day to attend a hearing at what is often a remote location to present your case to a hearing officer, who is not a judicial official.

 

All in all, I think these schemes foster distrust of law enforcement and engender a "them versus us" mentality that extends beyond intersection etiquette to contribute to a broader disdain for the law.

[tallman]

Red light cameras probably increase intersection accidnets.

From one of the 5 cited studies.

 

"The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”

 

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-...-that-prove-it/

 

10 Reasons to Oppose Red Light Cameras

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/10-reasons-to-oppose-red-light-cameras/

 

Soldier ticketed while serving in Iraq

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/red-light-camera-mistakenly-tickets-soldier-in-iraq/

 

etc...

etc...

etc...

 

Now, I am in favor of enforcing existing laws.

Our town is always #1 or #2 state-wide for running red lights and speeding.

But I believe anyone who thinks the cameras do a better job of traffic control, at intersections, is mistaken.

[motoguy128]

I don't have a problem with red light cameras if the yellow is a resonable length, some consideration is given to time of day, traffic levels, etc. And most improtantly, the "all red" time should be increased. Although this will increase traffic congestion this is by far the most effective way to increase safety.

 

I've gottne 1 ticket at a red light camera and I'll admist I should have been driving slower and been able ot stop easily. However, I had 4 people in the car, cold wet roads, drivng 7 mph pver the speed limit in the late evening with only 2 others ars to be seen... only 1 at the cross street already stopped. This was the last stop light before the 65mph freeway resumed.

 

Given the conditions, as a first time offender I should have gotten a warning IMO. I'm fully convinced that a LEO would have given me a warning in this case. Because the courthouse was over 1 hour away, I didn't both fighting it.

 

If this is how they treat visitors to "America's Home Town", then I'll be happy ot buy gas, food and entertainment elsewhere. We normally would visit their downtown 2-3 times per summer. I'll go elsewhere now and recommend my friends do the same.

[flars]

First off - I think red light cameras are a good idea, but have a bad implementation. They should be on every street corner, and the cost should be born by the insurance industry. Maybe even increase the length of the yellow by three seconds. Yes, RLC remove part of due process from the equation, but there just aren't enough police to go around, and they have too much to do already. And with all the complaints about the 'tax burden', the number of police ISN'T gonna increase enough to help the situation.

I think the real problem is that money means nothing to most people. 'Oh, I got a $120 ticket for running a red light/speeding/failure to stop at a stop sign/making an illegal lane change/some other scenario,etc' This statement is usually followed by 'they only stopped me because I was driving a red car/had my stereo turned up loud/was driving a hot looking car'. These people pay the fine and don't do anything to change their behavior or accept their guilt. They continue to speed/run red lights/tailgate until they are killed/kill someone. If they had points slapped onto their license, or lost their license, it may not change their behavior, but it would (probably) get them off the streets for a while. Maybe their insurance rate would go up. Unfortunately, they still wouldn't change their behavior, because money doesn't mean diddly to them. We can't put them into jail because the jails are too full already.

Money doesn't mean anything to them, but their free time does. I think the solution is to start requiring community service for all these people. And I don't mean 4 hours on some weekend, either. Put them to work during the week - preferably in the afternoon so they have to take time off from work, and let the time flow into the rush hour period so they get to enjoy the traffic. Hit their pocket books AND their free time in one fell swoop. If they aren't repeat violators, let them work on weekends. Increase the amount of community hours according to their records.

Now, ask me what I think about drunks....

[Rob_Mayes]

What is even scarier is that some cities are contracting out the systems to private industry, thus collecting a percentage without doing anything.

[Jerry Johnston]

Tell us how you realy feel Michael !

[MattS]

...thus collecting a percentage without doing anything...

Of course, the cameras maintain themselves. It's the latest invention no one's heard about.

[EffBee]

Both of our boys are cops. And even they agree that RLC's are first and foremost about revenue.

 

As the recipient of two such citation in my life (one seriously questionable, the other an absolute crock), I can tell you that my biggest beef is that they're trading one type of accident for another, i.e. marginal reductions in intersection accidents in exchange for a WHOPPING increase in rear-enders. Despite the differences in severity between the two, I don't care for government deciding I should be exposed to a greater possiblity of one in exchange for a minor reduction in the possibility of the other.

 

Second, studies cited by Car & Driver magazine show that lengthening the yellow light's ON time will reduce the number of intersection accidents, with NO increase in rear-end collisions. Add to that a longer delay in red overlap (the time it takes between one light turning red and the cross-traffic's light turning green), and you can eliminate even more accidents.

 

Finally, we don't have yellow warning stripes on our roads. A double stripe on the road, which indicates the point at which a vehicle traveling the posted limit would make it across the intersection safely if they were at or beyond those stripes when the light turns yellow, would help greatly with drivers who have poor or underdeveloped ability to judge distance/time/speed. And we all know there are plenty of those kinds of drivers out there.

 

No, when one looks at the alternatives, FAR LESS COSTLY alternatives, the purpose of RLC's is abundantly clear. It's about revenue. Any talk about public safety is hogwash.

[tobyzusa]

I had a ticket mailed to me from Lubbock, TX where my son goes to school (the car was registered to me). There was a web site where you could view the still pics and video of your trespass. My son was required (by me) to cough up the dough.

 

What was interesting, is that about 6 months later, the City of Lubbock discontinued use of red light cameras due to the significant increase of rear end collisions.

[MotorinLA]

Both of our boys are cops. And even they agree that RLC's are first and foremost about revenue.

 

Do they have direct knowledge of the automated enforcement program, or are they basing their opinions on hearsay? Just because you're a police officer, doesn't mean you know much about automated enforcement.

 

I base my statements on my personal knowledge of the red light enforcement program in our city, which includes knowledge about set-up, functionality, processing and revenue gathering of that program.

 

As the recipient of two such citation in my life (one seriously questionable, the other an absolute crock),

 

Why were they questionable and 'an absolute crock'? Please explain.

 

I can tell you that my biggest beef is that they're trading one type of accident for another, i.e. marginal reductions in intersection accidents in exchange for a WHOPPING increase in rear-enders. Despite the differences in severity between the two, I don't care for government deciding I should be exposed to a greater possiblity of one in exchange for a minor reduction in the possibility of the other.

 

Based on what research?

 

There are several studies that claim other results than the ones found in the one referenced by Tallman, for one see European Transport Safety Council

 

The second two links listed by Tallman are sponsored by NMA, who has made no bones about having an agenda to try to abolish automated enforcement – not exactly an unbiased source.

 

It is true that rear-end collisions increase with red light cameras, however, I suspect your statement about marginal changes in red light crashes is based mostly on speculation. Speaking from my experience as a traffic collision investigator, I can tell you that red light violation collisions are generally a lot more severe than rear-enders. So, do red light cameras increase the probability of property damage? Yes. Do they decrease the probability of serious injury? Yes.

 

Some would say increased property damage is worth a decrease in injuries.

 

Second, studies cited by Car & Driver magazine show that lengthening the yellow light's ON time will reduce the number of intersection accidents, with NO increase in rear-end collisions. Add to that a longer delay in red overlap (the time it takes between one light turning red and the cross-traffic's light turning green), and you can eliminate even more accidents.

 

I'd have to question the long-term effect of the longer yellow, but definitely agree with the longer red overlap.

 

Finally, we don't have yellow warning stripes on our roads. A double stripe on the road, which indicates the point at which a vehicle traveling the posted limit would make it across the intersection safely if they were at or beyond those stripes when the light turns yellow, would help greatly with drivers who have poor or underdeveloped ability to judge distance/time/speed. And we all know there are plenty of those kinds of drivers out there.

 

IMO you'd only change the excuses for running the red light with this change, "But I was past the warning line, the light turned red too fast, etc. etc.."

 

No, when one looks at the alternatives, FAR LESS COSTLY alternatives, the purpose of RLC's is abundantly clear. It's about revenue. Any talk about public safety is hogwash.

 

What revenue? I don't think the WHOPPING $25,000.00 (approximate figure) a year our city receives after the company that operates our cameras takes their share covers the salaries of the police personnel assigned to the automated enforcement program.

 

Why do you think so many municipalities are getting rid of their red light cameras? I'm sure it is because they just can't figure out what to do with all that extra revenue they're generating...

[MotorinLA]

I've gottne 1 ticket at a red light camera and I'll admist I should have been driving slower and been able ot stop easily. However, I had 4 people in the car, cold wet roads, drivng 7 mph pver the speed limit in the late evening with only 2 others ars to be seen... only 1 at the cross street already stopped. This was the last stop light before the 65mph freeway resumed.

 

Given the conditions, as a first time offender I should have gotten a warning IMO. I'm fully convinced that a LEO would have given me a warning in this case.

 

Based on my experience as a traffic officer, I wouldn't count on it if it.

 

Given your description of the ‘bad’ conditions and although your speed was only 7 mph over the posted speed limit, it may have been as much as 12-17 mph over the ‘safe speed’. You point out yourself that you were traveling too fast to safely stop for the red light, thus you were traveling too fast for the conditions.

 

I’m not saying this to paint you as an ‘irresponsible driver’ or to try to put you down, I’m simply pointing out that your ‘excuse’ is still not a legal excuse for the violation you admittedly committed.

 

The fact that you have not received other tickets is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that you committed a violation at the time of the described incident. Just because you haven’t gotten other tickets doesn’t mean you haven’t committed other traffic violations, knowingly or unknowingly, it only means you haven’t gotten caught.

 

During the first 10 years of being a licensed driver in California I committed a huge number of traffic violations (considering most drivers, at least in Los Angeles, commit speed violations on a daily basis this is not really some major confession) and I only received one ticket. Did that mean I was a law abiding driver? No. It just meant I was good at ducking the CHP. So the “just check my record” argument is really moot, as it proves nearly nothing.

[sgendler]

I got a red light ticket because I had to pull into an intersection in order to allow an emergency vehicle through. There were 3 of us in the left turn lane and we all made the left to give the engine room. I don't know about the others, but I was in front, and I got a ticket for it because the fire truck wasn't in view of the camera.

[Mdcruiser]

I've gottne 1 ticket at a red light camera and I'll admist I should have been driving slower and been able ot stop easily. However, I had 4 people in the car, cold wet roads, drivng 7 mph pver the speed limit in the late evening with only 2 others ars to be seen... only 1 at the cross street already stopped. This was the last stop light before the 65mph freeway resumed.

 

Given the conditions, as a first time offender I should have gotten a warning IMO. I'm fully convinced that a LEO would have given me a warning in this case.

 

Based on my experience as a traffic officer, I wouldn't count on it if it.

 

Given your description of the ‘bad’ conditions and although your speed was only 7 mph over the posted speed limit, it may have been as much as 12-17 mph over the ‘safe speed’. You point out yourself that you were traveling too fast to safely stop for the red light, thus you were traveling too fast for the conditions.

 

I’m not saying this to paint you as an ‘irresponsible driver’ or to try to put you down, I’m simply pointing out that your ‘excuse’ is still not a legal excuse for the violation you admittedly committed.

 

The fact that you have not received other tickets is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that you committed a violation at the time of the described incident. Just because you haven’t gotten other tickets doesn’t mean you haven’t committed other traffic violations, knowingly or unknowingly, it only means you haven’t gotten caught.

 

During the first 10 years of being a licensed driver in California I committed a huge number of traffic violations (considering most drivers, at least in Los Angeles, commit speed violations on a daily basis this is not really some major confession) and I only received one ticket. Did that mean I was a law abiding driver? No. It just meant I was good at ducking the CHP. So the “just check my record” argument is really moot, as it proves nearly nothing.

 

With respect, you miss the entire point. Which is that a LEO is a human being who can understand individual situations, while the camera is brainless and automatically churns out tickets that cost more to defend than they are worth. The "explanation" one can offer at trial is the same one that could have been offered to a LEO at the scene, but it's far less plausible or persuasive when given 45 days later at a different location (i.e., the courthouse).

 

The District of Columbia is notorious hereabouts for shortening their yellow lights on camera-equipped intersections. I never ride my bike in DC -- I can brake on a dime and be killed in a rear-ender because of the rigged camera setup.

[tallman]

So you want to compare Europe and the USA?

Different driving standards for licensing, different standards for registration, road use taxes, sanctions, etc...

But, I did go through the 56 pages of the report you cited, and, they reference cameras with regard to 3 areas.

1. Speeding

2. Tailgating

3. Red light running

Nowhere do they cite evidence that red light cameras reduce rear end accidents at intersections.

There are a lot of ideas presented, mostly related to lowering speed limits, using traffic control road design techniques, increasing stationary enforcement (camera for speeding, tailgating, red lights), increasing % of motorists stopped for breatalizers, and immediate disqualification of driving privilege for failing the test.

The population of Europe was more than twice that of the USA and the number of fatalities was a bit lower. That says something about the driving populations of the two groups.

Stick with the USA if you want to cite studies.

Red light cameras are full of propaganda from the people who make and install them.

Some communities are turning over control of the "law enforcement" to a private company and collecting a percentage.

Maybe we should do that will all law enforcement?

[Lets_Play_Two]

Tim, as you know, red light running is an epidemic in Florida. I don't believe cameras would make a dent in the problem. I am always concerned about the car behind me when I prepare to stop because, like cell phones, the drivers get hypnotized by the light and their desire not to stop. I believe cutting off the hands of red light runners may be the only solution here!!!

[Gregori]

Do they have direct knowledge of the automated enforcement program, or are they basing their opinions on hearsay? Just because you're a police officer, doesn't mean you know much about automated enforcement.

 

I base my statements on my personal knowledge of the red light enforcement program in our city, which includes knowledge about set-up, functionality, processing and revenue gathering of that program.

This implies that you disagree with the premise that it's profit driven.

 

 

(...) What revenue? I don't think the WHOPPING $25,000.00 (approximate figure) a year our city receives after the company that operates our cameras takes their share covers the salaries of the police personnel assigned to the automated enforcement program.

 

Why do you think so many municipalities are getting rid of their red light cameras? I'm sure it is because they just can't figure out what to do with all that extra revenue they're generating...

Yet here you as much as admit that if it isn't making money, they get rid of them.

 

So? Make up your mind. Is it revenue based, or not?

 

For the record, I've never gotten a red-light ticket. (Intentional absence of front plates may help!)

But it's very clear to me that it's all about the dollars. Why else would a privately owned contractor be handling the installation, maintenance, and ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS? They're certainly not doing it out of a sense of public duty - there is absolutely a profit motive. And in most cases, there's enough left over that the municipality gets a big chunk of change as well.

[EffBee]

Yes, both work the streets. Deputies. 23 years experience and 21 years experience.

 

One citation I was slowing for the yellow when I heard tire squeeling right behind me. Rather than get rear ended, I made a split-second decision to accelerate through the intersection while cross traffic was still stopped. The camera doesn't "hear." The judge said he couldn't take my word over the camera, even if the camera has only one "sense" and I have 5, not to mention a survival instinct.

 

The other one was about 10 years earlier, before accompanying video. I made it into the intersection on the yellow. Car on my right went through the red at about 80 in a 35, passing me in the process. Because of the great difference in speed, at the moment of the photo (not as quick as they are today), he was barely ahead of me. I was in the photo, cited, and judged to have followed him into the intersection. Judge said that based on what he was looking at, I was even MORE guilty than the other driver because I was slightly behind him.

 

Two experiences. Two bad tickets. I'll bet I'm just the "exception to the rule," though.

 

Your casual dismissal of my suggestion of painted warning lines, without data, is only an opinion about how some of the public might try and use them as a weak defense. I see that you didn't dismiss the idea as fundamentally unworkable. Neither of us know that yet. Study is required. I have made a constructive suggestion. You've dimissed it because of potential caterwalling. How does this help the discussion?

 

You have to understand that I am VERY pro law enforcement. I do occasionally ride beyond the posted limit on my motorcycle when I'm in the middle of nowhere, which is a separate discussion, but I accept my risks, both personal and legal, when I do. However, I support virtually all aspects of the work that law enforcement officers do. We need more of you out there doing the fine work you do, and given the authority to actually do it.

 

What I have issue with is the use of mono-dimensional, non-sentient, non-interrogable mechanical devices whose incomplete evidence gets "interpreted" and from that I get fined, my insurance rates go up, and the municipality goes merrily on its way. Having gotten hosed two out of two times might have something to do with it. But when I look at the judgments my sons take into account when making a stop and deciding whether or not ALL the circumstances provide sufficient reason to cite, a RLC offers the public, at best, about 20% of what they're paying for, and provides far less overall situational accuracy in exchange for municipal convenience. That is a financial decision, which makes it about revenue.

[Mister Tee]

I don't want to rant and rave on this subject, I'll just suffice to say that I'm of the camp, as many have mentioned, that these devices are invasive and Orwellian. It's my opinion that the MAN has too much power.

 

(BTW I'm pro law-enforcement myself, and I separate cops from the MAN.)

[motoguy128]

I agree after reading most of these posts, that the biggest diasagreement is the automated nature of the system and it's limited viewpoint of the complete environment.

 

Red light running is a huge problem is my town, but as a response, I triple check that cross traffic has stopped before entering the intersection. Because the light timing is not sequenced properly, cars are constantly running the red because if you miss 1 particulat light you'll then get stuck at 2 more... if you run it, you'll make all the next series of lights.

[KCBeemer]

OK, this post is for MotorinLA......let's say that I am on a road with a 40 or 45 posted speed limit, and while doing the speed limit, the light turns yellow at a point where either I come to a fork bottoming stop or continue through the yellow, and it turns red when I am 90% through the intersection. That would be considered running a light, but the alternative may be an uncontrolled stop. What then?

[chrisolson]

OK, this post is for MotorinLA......let's say that I am on a road with a 40 or 45 posted speed limit, and while doing the speed limit, the light turns yellow at a point where either I come to a fork bottoming stop or continue through the yellow, and it turns red when I am 90% through the intersection. That would be considered running a light, but the alternative may be an uncontrolled stop. What then?

I'm not MotorinLA, but "running" a red light is not defined the same in each state. The situation you describe ... 90% through the intersection ... would not be a red light violation in Arizona. But past that, you've never heard of a "stale green" or situational awareness that would prevent just such a panic stop?

[subvet]

All it'll take is for one citizen to get killed because a yellow light was short-cycled to increase revenue, and this issue will take on a whole new meaning.

 

I don't know what the rules are around oversight when there are non-govt. fingers in a specific pie, but it's my opinion that there is some benefit to having a not-for profit philosophy, and "one throat to choke" for anything touching public safety. (You hear about prison breaks from these contract-run jails)

 

This analogy may not seem to fit but a number of years ago in middle TN, a local school board had no money to continue bus service for the kids. Parents suddenly had to take their kids to school and traffic increased dramatically. One morning, a mother was killed in front of the school in a car wreck and within 24 hours, the school board found the money to re-instate bus service....amazing isn't it?

[MotorinLA]

So you want to compare Europe and the USA?

Different driving standards for licensing, different standards for registration, road use taxes, sanctions, etc...

But, I did go through the 56 pages of the report you cited, and, they reference cameras with regard to 3 areas.

1. Speeding

2. Tailgating

3. Red light running

Nowhere do they cite evidence that red light cameras reduce rear end accidents at intersections.

There are a lot of ideas presented, mostly related to lowering speed limits, using traffic control road design techniques, increasing stationary enforcement (camera for speeding, tailgating, red lights), increasing % of motorists stopped for breatalizers, and immediate disqualification of driving privilege for failing the test.

The population of Europe was more than twice that of the USA and the number of fatalities was a bit lower. That says something about the driving populations of the two groups.

Stick with the USA if you want to cite studies.

Red light cameras are full of propaganda from the people who make and install them.

Some communities are turning over control of the "law enforcement" to a private company and collecting a percentage.

Maybe we should do that will all law enforcement?

 

You're the one who referenced an Australian study first, so don't bitch too much...

[MotorinLA]

Do they have direct knowledge of the automated enforcement program, or are they basing their opinions on hearsay? Just because you're a police officer, doesn't mean you know much about automated enforcement.

 

I base my statements on my personal knowledge of the red light enforcement program in our city, which includes knowledge about set-up, functionality, processing and revenue gathering of that program.

This implies that you disagree with the premise that it's profit driven.

Yes, I do disagree that it is profit driven for all municipalities.

 

(...) What revenue? I don't think the WHOPPING $25,000.00 (approximate figure) a year our city receives after the company that operates our cameras takes their share covers the salaries of the police personnel assigned to the automated enforcement program.

 

Why do you think so many municipalities are getting rid of their red light cameras? I'm sure it is because they just can't figure out what to do with all that extra revenue they're generating...

Yet here you as much as admit that if it isn't making money, they get rid of them.

 

So? Make up your mind. Is it revenue based, or not?

 

My point is that the municipalities that did install the red light camera systems to create a revenue making machine, usually get rid of them when they realize that they in fact cost more to operate than what you can earn from them. These are the same municipalities that would try to hide their red light camera intersections and shorten the yellow in hopes of creating more violators, in a desperate attempt to make their red light camera system profitable.

 

The municipalities that keep their cameras, despite the fact that they are not profitable are those that installed them for reasons other than profit – like safety. You’ll find that there are actually quite a few of these types of municipalities (at least in California) and that these municipalities generally use systems that try to eliminate many of the problems associated with the profit driven camera systems (i.e. do not shorten the yellow, use video in conjunction with still pictures to identify violations and violators, use radar instead of in-ground loops to measure speed and range, use no activation below a certain speed to eliminate problems like the one described by ‘sgendler’, etc.). Despite what many on this board would like to believe, there are red light camera systems that actually perform fairly well.

 

For the record, I've never gotten a red-light ticket. (Intentional absence of front plates may help!)

But it's very clear to me that it's all about the dollars. Why else would a privately owned contractor be handling the installation, maintenance, and ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS? They're certainly not doing it out of a sense of public duty - there is absolutely a profit motive.

The true winner when it comes to red light enforcement is always the private company that operates the camera systems. There are many factors that make it logistically difficult for municipalities to purchase, install, maintain and operate red light camera systems/programs on their own. However, I don’t think most people would find red light camera systems that much more palatable just because they were operated by a municipality rather than a private company. In fact, if municipalities did run their own systems, the profit argument would actually have a lot more validity.

 

And in most cases, there's enough left over that the municipality gets a big chunk of change as well.

 

I’m sorry, but unless you have specific data to support this statement, I’d be inclined to say that you’re talking out of your alternate orifice. The ‘leftovers’ are usually meager to non-existent when overall cost is factored into the equation. Keep believing the hype from NMA if you want to, but reality is not quite what they would have you believe in this matter.

[MotorinLA]

I've gottne 1 ticket at a red light camera and I'll admist I should have been driving slower and been able ot stop easily. However, I had 4 people in the car, cold wet roads, drivng 7 mph pver the speed limit in the late evening with only 2 others ars to be seen... only 1 at the cross street already stopped. This was the last stop light before the 65mph freeway resumed.

 

Given the conditions, as a first time offender I should have gotten a warning IMO. I'm fully convinced that a LEO would have given me a warning in this case.

 

Based on my experience as a traffic officer, I wouldn't count on it if it.

 

Given your description of the ‘bad’ conditions and although your speed was only 7 mph over the posted speed limit, it may have been as much as 12-17 mph over the ‘safe speed’. You point out yourself that you were traveling too fast to safely stop for the red light, thus you were traveling too fast for the conditions.

 

I’m not saying this to paint you as an ‘irresponsible driver’ or to try to put you down, I’m simply pointing out that your ‘excuse’ is still not a legal excuse for the violation you admittedly committed.

 

The fact that you have not received other tickets is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that you committed a violation at the time of the described incident. Just because you haven’t gotten other tickets doesn’t mean you haven’t committed other traffic violations, knowingly or unknowingly, it only means you haven’t gotten caught.

 

During the first 10 years of being a licensed driver in California I committed a huge number of traffic violations (considering most drivers, at least in Los Angeles, commit speed violations on a daily basis this is not really some major confession) and I only received one ticket. Did that mean I was a law abiding driver? No. It just meant I was good at ducking the CHP. So the “just check my record” argument is really moot, as it proves nearly nothing.

 

With respect, you miss the entire point. Which is that a LEO is a human being who can understand individual situations, while the camera is brainless and automatically churns out tickets that cost more to defend than they are worth. The "explanation" one can offer at trial is the same one that could have been offered to a LEO at the scene, but it's far less plausible or persuasive when given 45 days later at a different location (i.e., the courthouse).

 

The District of Columbia is notorious hereabouts for shortening their yellow lights on camera-equipped intersections. I never ride my bike in DC -- I can brake on a dime and be killed in a rear-ender because of the rigged camera setup.

 

 

No, I did get your point.

 

Your point is that you would like red lights enforced by humans rather than cameras. That way you’d decrease your chances of getting caught in the first place and if you did get caught you'd have the immediate opportunity to try to weasel your way out of having to be responsible for the violation you just committed. The red light camera basically took away the convenience of letting you plead your case immediately, rather than having to take time out of your day to go to court to do it. Apparently you felt your excuse was not good enough to go to trial over 45 days later, which suggests to me that it wasn’t that good in the first place.

 

I’m sure you think I’m a jerk for writing these things, but if you had to listen to people try to tell you how it wasn’t their fault 10-20 times every single day, you’d most likely get fed up with it too. All the excuses people write about in threads on this board when it comes to getting tickets are just the same crap I hear every day I work. Very few people are willing to admit that they did something wrong when they get stopped for a traffic violation. Everyone feels that their excuse should be a valid one for not getting a ticket.

 

And this is the reason almost everyone hates the traffic police, because we don't accept your excuses.

 

[/major rant]

 

Just for the record, I do think that it is ridiculous for cities to shorten the yellow at intersections with red light cameras. It is obviously counterproductive (to safety) and gives those that operate these systems legitimately a bad name.

[tallman]

http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003862.html

Authors' conclusions

Red-light cameras are effective in reducing total casualty crashes. The evidence is less conclusive on total collisions, specific casualty collision types and violations, where reductions achieved could be explained by the play of chance. Most evaluations did not adjust for RTM or spillover, affecting their accuracy. Larger and better controlled studies are needed.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...n1.468120d.html

 

Dallas

With a major decrease in revenue, what do they do?

 

"They're in between a rock and a hard place, and when the money goes away, the cameras go away," Mr. Baxter said. "Probably the only way they can sustain it is to raise the violation rates, despite all the protestation that this is about safety and not about revenue."

 

Which type of collision do you want?

Federal Study.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/page/2/

“We would prefer to have minor rear-end collisions, rather than broadside collisions, which lead to serious and fatal injuries,” said Art Acevedo, chief of the Austin, Texas, police.

Small reduction in injuries cited.

What is clear in the study, when it is taken overall, is that red light cameras led to no real change in the number of accidents (4,059 with versus 4,063 without). But they did reduce the number of people hurt in those accidents, by just less than 5 percent (459 versus 482).

The FHA concluded that cameras provide, at best, a “modest aggregate crash-cost benefit.”

That benefit is so modest that the National Motorists Association has a standing offer of $10,000 to any community that can empirically prove that red light cameras can prevent violations and accidents better than a schedule of traffic engineering steps it recommends, which include proper signal timing, better signal design and improved intersection design.

 

Washington D.C.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844_2.html

 

The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent.

 

 

D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said citations for red-light running have dropped by about 60 percent at intersections that have the cameras. (By Gerald Martineau -- The Washington Post)

 

Monitored Intersections

The D.C. government installed the first of its red-light cameras in 1999. By the following year, 37 intersections were covered in the city, some with more than one camera. The number of traffic accidents at the 37 intersections has gone up since the cameras were installed. The increase is the same or worse than at the 1,520 intersections with traffic lights that do not have red-light cameras.

 

Overall, total crashes in the city rose 61 percent, from 11,333 in 1998 to 18,250 last year.

Lon Anderson, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, said the data reinforce the motor club's view that the red-light effort is targeted more at generating revenue than at reducing crashes. "They are making a heck of a lot of money, and they are picking the motorists' pockets on the pretense of safety," he said.

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...onal-trend.html

In the single court case that has occurred thus far, Chattanooga's city traffic engineer John Van Winkle testified that the yellow signal light should be (and was) turned on for the 3.9 seconds necessary to meet basic safety standards. The judge in question ordered the claim verified, and discovered that the light was only set for three seconds—significantly less than the 3.9-second minimum. Van Winkle claims that the problem was caused by an accidental mixup with turn arrow timing, but there might be more behind the issue. According to confidental documents released in 2001, Lasercraft, the company behind Chattanooga's red camera lights, only installs red light cameras at high-volume intersections with an "amber phase" of less than four seconds.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-14-redlightcameras_x.htm

There's a dramatic change in driver behavior when red light cameras are used," says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for IIHS. "The jury is in on that question."

The Virginia Beach study, conducted by Old Dominion University, examined signal violations at four intersections before red light cameras were installed, while they were operating and after they were removed in 2005. Violations more than tripled by August 2006.

"That's a huge jump," says lead researcher Bryan Porter, an associate professor of psychology at Old Dominion. "The rate of red light running was actually higher" than before the cameras were installed.

There are many studies.

Most show that rear end collisions increase, the total number of accidents is very similar when comparing intersections w/w/out RLC's in the same city, and there is a reduction ns T-bone (side) collisions, at intersections with RLC's.

 

There is a serious concern over revenue generation and whether the use of cameras is justified when the accident data for intersections is evaluated.

 

Approximately 850 people are killed, and 170,000 injured, at intersections every year.

 

A cost/benefit analysis has resulted in many jurisdictions changing the number of cameras used, almost always (all that I found) leading to a reduction in the number of cameras.

 

I predict that in 20 years, people will look back at this as the "good old days".

In 20 years we'll have GPS systems sending information to collection centers that will monitor many aspects of the vehicles operation and generate "use" taxes on a regular basis.