Seems as if there are studies that have shown that red light cameras actually cause an increase in accidents at intersections where they are placed. What a sham! They need to work better at engineering these intersections so that they are safer, instead of trying to scare drivers into driving safely.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0311151159.htm

 

.....i have one that actually works **but to clarify, it does not "spin" the plate**...if you get nailed with one of them, i am pretty sure it's a ride in a state vehicle for you!...

....what i have is a clear vinyl sleeve that your plate goes into and then you mount the sleeve/plate to the car in the normal fashion...at about 30 degrees to either side or up or down, 1/2 of your plate is obliterated and cannot be read except by a straight on view...it works well...

....i did get stopped not too long ago and the l.e.o. stated that it was illegal to have ANYTHING over or AROUND the plate, even from the dealers, etc....i verified that statement with state statutes and found he was correct.....so, i paid the $7.50 fine and it still remains on my car...

...as i see it, if i get stuck in the intersection because i arrived at that intersection just as the light changes, i feel that i should not get a citation...same goes if i throw in my toll change and the machine does not change from red to green, i'll be damned if i am gonna throw in another "round of change" to go through or to have the toll machine fail..then, to add insult to injury, if the toll machine takes a picture of my plate, not only am i out the toll monies but, i get whacked with an additional $50 fine for allegedly running a toll plaza....lastly, i NEVER run lights, tolls, or "other"....

 

I happen to be the Director of Transportation in a large City in Texas. Your comment are way off base.

We have Red Light Enforcement cameras and have significantly reduced both crash rates and violation rates. We have 120 signalized intersection of which only the 4 with the worst crash history have cameras. However, all the "publicity" including this type of internet BS has spread the word that running red lights is no longer tolorated. As a result, the overall red-light crash rate in our City as well as most of our neighboring cities that have cameras has dropped. We call it the "Halo" effect where even intersections without the camera are now safer. BUT, I still advise you look both ways before proceeding on a green!!!

Our vendor is only only paid a flat fee per camera per month for operations and maintenance. They don't get a percentage or cut of any citation. They don't even have access to the controller cabinet to change the yellow timing so there is no incentive to cheat.

SAFETY IS THE ONLY REASON WE INSTALL CAMERAS!!!!!
Hell, after 18 months of operation the violation rate has dropped down to the point where we don't get any revenue after all the expenses. When revenue was greater then expenses all of the excess was used for other Safety related projects in our City. None of it went into the general fund to be used for anything but SAFETY projects.

Thanks for this post and adding more publicity. Maybe others will learn that the only "lemmings" out there are the morons who insist on breaking the law by putting everyone else at risk and then blame the big bad government.

 

Just curious, just what was that crash rate that was miraculously reduced by these cameras? How much did it drop? Who did the research to show that they were indeed responsible? Your observation as to cause/effect is dubious at best. Red light runners are a minute % of intersection crashes if you read the link in the post above. How is your city so different with regard to statistics as qouted in such studies?

 

"Red Light Enforcement cameras?
No. If the camera popped up out of the pavement, it MIGHT have an 'enforcing' characteristic.

'overall crash rate'?

You're tryin' to convince us that since 4 cameras were installed in a town, that the red-light 'overall crash rate' has dropped? Is this written public record? IRREFUTABLE public record? Irrespective of any other circumstance?

I challenge that statement. But feel free to link to public record which shows your claim.

I drove myself through college in a cab, and as a courier/delivery contractor. 1.4 million miles, between 1991, and 2006. About 70 - 80 % of that was municipal driving. I have seen municipal planners, and traffic engineers take problem-free thoroughfares, and turn them into problems.

Dozens of times, I've called city managers' offices, to tell them of a stuck switch for an on-demand-only left turn redlight during after hours, when a light changes from cycling mode to on-demand-mode, for overnight hours. 2 times that I recall of those dozens, was the problem understood with no further explanation.

I have seen in several towns where traffic lights were sequenced for traffic to accumulate into the demographic/business center of town, instead of having greenlights sequenced for traffic to leave the center of a town.

I think I have NEVER, EVER seen an accident at a 4-way stop sign intersection. What does that tell ya'?

How Government works: Fix it till it's broke. Then fix it some more.


WIZARD OUT

 

Here is a product that works well. Check your state laws regarding its legal useage in your area.http://www.redlineauto.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=6

 

It sounds like you are the exception to the rule then. Here in Arizona the cameras are contracted by a private company that gets something like 60% of the profits from the tickets. In the city of Mesa not enough people were getting tickets so they had to recontract with the company so it would get a higher percentage - since they weren't making enough money. If this isn't equivalent to a "quota" I don't know what is.

There are several studies done by impartial parties (i.e. not insurance companies who make TONS of money off of the cameras by raising people's rates) which say that not only have accidents increased because of the cameras, but also personal injury accidents.

http://hsc.usf.edu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm

And here's a map of the camera locations in just the East valley of Phoenix:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...d4f87a596a4d98

And here's a news article where they talk about Arizona using the forecast proceeds of the cameras to help cover their budget deficit this year:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2180.asp


It sounds like your town is doing it the right way for the right reasons. Don't kid yourself that all of them are, though.

 

currently where I live there is a class action lawsuit against the light and speed cameras and they are supposedly turned off until the judgment of them being constitutional is decided, but I also hear that they are still taking photos and if it is determined legal all of the photos taken during the "shutdown" will then be sent out to unsuspecting persons. and the rage insues.

 

I disagree. If that were the case, reduce the fine. The concept, implementation, and execution of these cameras is a sham to raise money for the town.

People have posted stats that demonstrate that intersections become more dangerous with the cameras.

Tell me, how much safer have intersections become and how is this associated specifically to the cameras.

If that's the case, put up fake cameras, it cost the town nothing and has the same effect. But that doesn't generate revenue, does it.

It's all about the revenue and separating the taxpayer from as much money as possible. Nobody has sympathy for someone blowing a light, so they'll find more and creative ways to take their money.

Show me the studies.

 

How 'bout this, Director of Transportation. Have all 4 ways of an intersection show red for five seconds. This will give all red light runners the time to speed through the intersection and no MONEY will have to change hands. Of course, as you claim, IF you're REALLY interested in safety...

 

Actually most jurisdictions already follow the Federal guidlines in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and depending on the width of an intersection and speed have between 1 and 3 seconds of an All Red phase so that stragglers at the end of yellow can pass all the way through the intersection before the conflicting directions get a green. Unfortunately many habitual violators know this and use it as a justification to push through at the end of yellow or start of red. Adding more All Red time would be counter productive by reducing the amount of valueable green time, creating more congestion, and encouraging more people to push the yellow.

I know its hard for alot of you to believe that there are actually hard working considerate government employees who truely care for the public's safety. I consider myself to be one of them and revenue is not the reason we installed cameras. Most of the posts since mine above have questioned my integrety and professionalism. Thats fine, I'm quite used to dealing with the public and we rarely get any credit or appreaciation for the work we do.

Do all Agencies in all states have the same level of integrety? Probably not.
Have some agencies around the US used "safety" as a justification to install cameras and generate revenue? - Probably so.
Has this hurt the reputation of the rest of us? Absolutely. :o

There are alot of people who are strongly opposed to Red Light cameras and the internet is full of websites established to discredit the practice. Please don't believe everything you read on the internet just because it is posted as "news". Rarely are they telling the whole story and usually they slant the story or facts to make the point they want.

My town only has 4 cameras but every city in my area has them as well. In fact all the surrounding towns have many more then we do. We also use other Video Cameras for vehicle detection instead of loops in the pavement as well as for observation of traffic from our Traffic Management Center. The general public doesn't know which cameras are for Red Light enforcement and which are for routine detection and observation. This is why the "Halo" effect is so good. They have to awsume the Red Light Cameras are at every intersection!!! We considered installing Dummy Cameras as well but have not done that yet.

Initially we were concerned with an increase in rear end accidents, but that has not materialized in our town as the "anti" red light propoganda folks predicted. What has dropped are the more severe broadside accidents. I know alot of you want to see the facts published, though some people still wouldn't believe them because they disagree with the principal and would assume we are skewing the numbers. TxDOT will be collecting all the data from all the Cities starting later this year and will be conducting an extensive review of the statistics.

You can continue to believe whatever you want about me. I don't intend to argue every point brought up in this thread because it really wouldn't change anyone whose mind is already made up and opposed to Red Light cameras.

Drive safe and peace be with you,
Your Corvette Loving Brother - The Lemming

 

...interesting video on this site re: red light cameras....(near the bottom).....


http://www.blinderm20.com/

 

I believe the legality of the cameras is currently before the Iowa Supreme Court, not a pending class action lawsuit. The reasoning behind the appeal in Iowa, is the way Iowa's law is written about being able to I.D. the driver and not the owner of the vehicle being responsible. BUT Iowa does have a law stating that the owner is responsible for the vehicle ...... contradicting ....... YES.

Also the cameras system in Clive, IA is OFF during the court appeal process.

I do believe in the camera system for the sake of Public Safety ...... just as survaillence cameras cut crime down in businesses and public places. They work if done properly.