Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

why do people hate red light cameras?
#21

i hear these arguments all the time, but they lack merit. the cameras are NOT in there to generate revenue, and in fact ALWAYS lose money. that's exactly why some cities have pulled them, even though their intersection accident rates fell. they are there only for safety. anybody who says otherwise is listening to the wrong people.



i have never heard of a camera being wrong. they are incredibly accurate. they absolutely do not trigger unless you entered late, and they clearly show you in the intersection after the light changed. pretty hard to argue with that. yes, they have failed to take the shot, but cops often miss things too. just today i watched a taxi run a light on a left turn, right in front of a cop who did nothing. i had to wait for the clown to clear the intersection before i could make my turn on the green light i had been waiting for. if there were a camera, that guy would have gotten a well deserved ticket. i suppose i could have just stepped on it and rammed him.



this has nothing to do with government surveillance or privacy or any of those lame arguments. there is no expectation of privacy in your car, on the street, or out in public. get used to that. you only have the governments limited permission to drive a car. they can set the rules on how you do that. this is the best solution we have. not doing anything is clearly the wrong thing. so, unless somebody can come up with a better idea, this is it, and we should support it, as it is better than doing nothing.



that being said, i'd love to say "screw it" and have no laws whatsoever. i'd love to see us all carry guns and settle it in the street. we could all wrap our cars in big bumpers, and go slug it out in the street. unfortunately that doesn't work if you want any sense of order in a society.



more than half the country lives in crowded urban areas. cameras are what's coming. they'll hit a blip along the way, as social dinosaurs object on some meritless arguments of privacy and such, but rest assured that you are under surveillance every minute of every day already. there's no going back now. i fully expect that in 10 years or less every car will have the kinds of cameras i have on the X5, and they will all be tied to a central computer somewhere that is recording everything. my car already talks to the central computer at bmw regularly. your GPS is already tracking your movements. your cell phone too. you can actually go online and track somebody on your own. they are already doing it with your phones and your computer. the technology is already there, in place, and working. every call, every key stroke, and every web page is monitored and recorded. you can thank the satellites and digital technology for that. the minute we went away from hard lines, it became very easy. it was a little unnerving when i first saw it in action, but given what's going on in the world, i can see why it's done.



at least red light cameras have some real benefits
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com



"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
Reply
#22

In California, it is completely legal to enter an intersection on a yellow light, so long as the intersection is clear enough to allow you to continue completely through the intersection without stopping. Stopping in the intersection is illegal, regardless of the color of the light. Red light cameras don't take pics until the red light comes on. Then it's illegal to enter the intersection. So, if you enter the intersection on a yellow which turns red while you are still in the intersection, you haven't violated the Vehicle Code.



Bill, the lawyer
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#23

yeah - i am very well aware of the california laws on this one too. lol - i actually taught traffic school for a short while. long colorful story.



based on discussions years ago with the engineers who designed the system (i was approached to work on that project but declined - another long colorful story), i was told that the system "activates" when the light turns yellow. it does not take a picture until a brief period after the light is red (that time is determined by a formula using the posted speed limit and size of intersection) thereby ensuring that any vehicle caught in the intersection would be in the red phase and not yellow. the idea is that it would be very easy to see whether the light was yellow or red, based on the car's position when it turned red and the shot was snapped. based on the programmed feet per second rate and associated delay entered into the system, it is impossible however to enter on a yellow and be fully in the intersection at the time of the picture, unless the vehicle was in excessive speed, in which case it would still be a violation. can't fight the physics.



very effective, and very hard to beat, if the DA actually knows how the system works, and has the programming data in front of him. you can beat the case though if you have a commissioner and not a judge (very frequent in california) and a DA who don't know what they are doing.



while technically you are entitled to defend yourself in california traffic court, it is not generally a good idea, unless you know how. most people don't. most people get hung up telling their story and such, or trying to explain their actions, which is never a good idea. they don't challenge the evidence. they don't challenge the witnesses. given that, the judge almost always takes the word of the officer over the word of the defendant. it really is a situation of guilty until proven innocent. i've beaten a lot of ticket, so it can be done, but i also know what to ask and what not to, how to prepare a case, and what not to do because it will piss off the judge who needs to clear 100 cases that day.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com



"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
Reply
#24

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1412903754' post='162918']

the cameras are NOT in there to generate revenue, and in fact ALWAYS lose money. that's exactly why some cities have pulled them, even though their intersection accident rates fell. they are there only for safety. anybody who says otherwise is listening to the wrong people.



i have never heard of a camera being wrong. they are incredibly accurate. they absolutely do not trigger unless you entered late, and they clearly show you in the intersection after the light changed.

[/quote]



You are drinking some major kool-aid if you think they "ALWAYS" lose money. Not even remotely close:



http://www.nola.com/traffic/index.ssf/20...d-lig.html



$500 million dollars in 11 years? The cameras didnt even cost $5 million to install, so that leaves what, $495 million for maintenance over 11 years? Ya right. Camera companies paying over $2 million to city officials to win the contract? Seems odd to do since they will never make money.



as for being accurate?



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-re...tml#page=1



http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/13/2...tions.html



http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_2...e-are-they



http://www.phantomplate.com/WYNU-Red-Lig...ction.html



And that is just from page one of a google search
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#25

lol - yeah- the company that operates the cameras makes money. the cities don't. that's why some of them have pulled them. it's all over the news.



however, you can bet that the people who got citations aren't running red lights there anymore, thereby making it safer.



the end justifies the means.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com



"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
Reply
#26

In my experience, in many counties here in California, there is a good chance, sometimes even 50/50, that the cop doesn't show in Traffic Court and the case is dismissed. And even if the cop shows, you can often get the fine reduced or allowed to go to Traffic School.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#27

Strange, pretty sure every dime of every fine generated by cameras goes into the (local) government's pocket. A small part of it goes into a fund to support victims of traffic accidents. At least, that's the case over here, don't know how it is arranged over in the US.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#28

I don't see how having a camera take a photo of a red light runner that then hits a car is any safer than changing the lights to be change simultaneously yellow, then instantly turning green on one side when the other turns red (no delayed green). Then take all the money spent on ticket enforcement, jobs for that stuff and camera purchases and put it into education that if you run a yellow you risk causing an accident.



I learned two things when I lived in Europe:

- The countries I lived in spent a LOT of time educating the driver on safe driving practices and road rules, making it difficult to get a license (I had 2+ hours of written and road tests in EU vs 5 minute drive and 15 minute T/F quiz in the US)

- Americans get in a LOT of accidents running yellow lights in countries that have no delayed greens.



So my argument is spend more on education and be true to enforcement. But the more you educate my cynical self says you cut down on revenue generation for the state.



Will the state continue to pay for red-light cameras if no one runs the light, no revenue comes in and they cost millions to operate? Will the argue we can't remove them because you need to spend money in perpetuity to fix a problem?
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#29

lb - yeah - i've had that happen. not so much the case down in socal though. the union must have worked that out.



bulti - it's because the cities farm out the operation of the cameras. they really should own them and operate them. that would make it profitable.



type - if only effective education were possible here. unfortunately they are so worried about getting licenses out there to everyone, that they have forgotten about safety. they really should charge for a license, like they do in many european countries. we should have no fault insurance (most states do now, but not california). we should crack down harder on uninsured motorists. we should crack down on run down/unsafe cars. but we don't. it's easier to keep feeding the machine than to fix it.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com



"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
Reply
#30

In Baltimore 3/4 of intersections have red light cameras so I assume they all have them. There are still a lot of idiots that run red lights and or get stuck in the intersection and cause gridlock. I'm all for red light cams if it makes people be more aware of what they do near intersections. I'm slightly biased though, my work revolves around having a camera in the sky.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#31

God I love Arizona. A lawyer in Paradise Valley went to court on a speed cam violation and the AZ Supreme Court ruled that to be legal, the city entity has to properly serve you for any violations. Meaning if you don't show or acknowledge the citation, they have to hire a process server to knock on your door and give you a court summons. Many here just throw the ticket away. My issue is that all the red light cameras record speed violations also. The violation set point is up to the city. Some are at two over, some at 5 others at 10. In Huachuca City, AZ. 45 means 45. They have cited people I work with at 46 and are very proud of the "Speed Trap" label. Entering on a yellow and camping out until safe to turn is allowed here also. So in short, I have nothing against red light cameras, but dislike the "added options" city bureaucrats throw in to pump up their budget.



Intersection Speed Cameras: Intersection speed cameras are the same units that record red light violations. However, they are specially programmed to also register the speed of a vehicle as it enters the intersection. If the speed of the vehicle is over the ‘enforcement’ speed, the cameras will activate and record the speed violation. A citation will then be generated for the speeding violation in the same manner that the red light citations are generated.



Can I receive citations for other offenses as a result of my red light camera or photo speed citation?

Yes.



Left Turns



Improper or ill-timed left turns are one of the frequent causes of automobile collisions. When making a left turn at an intersection enter the middle of the intersection when the light turns green and wait for a safe time to turn. Do not wait at the stop line of the left turn lane and turn when the light is yellow or red. Make the turn to the left lane immediately available for your direction of traffic. When you are turning left at an intersection you must yield the right-of-way to oncoming vehicles and pedestrians.



If I am already in the intersection when the light turns red, will I get a citation?



No. Citations are only issued when a vehicle enters the intersection AFTER the light has turned red. If you enter the intersection on a green or yellow light you will not be photographed by the photo enforcement camera system. In most of the United States, a traffic intersection is considered to start at the painted stop line or at a crosswalk. In Arizona, an intersection starts at an invisible line defining the extension of a between the two curbs.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#32

[quote name='flash' timestamp='1412903754' post='162918']

i hear these arguments all the time, but they lack merit. the cameras are NOT in there to generate revenue, and in fact ALWAYS lose money. that's exactly why some cities have pulled them, even though their intersection accident rates fell. they are there only for safety. anybody who says otherwise is listening to the wrong people.



i have never heard of a camera being wrong. they are incredibly accurate. they absolutely do not trigger unless you entered late, and they clearly show you in the intersection after the light changed. pretty hard to argue with that. yes, they have failed to take the shot, but cops often miss things too. just today i watched a taxi run a light on a left turn, right in front of a cop who did nothing. i had to wait for the clown to clear the intersection before i could make my turn on the green light i had been waiting for. if there were a camera, that guy would have gotten a well deserved ticket. i suppose i could have just stepped on it and rammed him.



this has nothing to do with government surveillance or privacy or any of those lame arguments. there is no expectation of privacy in your car, on the street, or out in public. get used to that. you only have the governments limited permission to drive a car. they can set the rules on how you do that. this is the best solution we have. not doing anything is clearly the wrong thing. so, unless somebody can come up with a better idea, this is it, and we should support it, as it is better than doing nothing.



that being said, i'd love to say "screw it" and have no laws whatsoever. i'd love to see us all carry guns and settle it in the street. we could all wrap our cars in big bumpers, and go slug it out in the street. unfortunately that doesn't work if you want any sense of order in a society.



more than half the country lives in crowded urban areas. cameras are what's coming. they'll hit a blip along the way, as social dinosaurs object on some meritless arguments of privacy and such, but rest assured that you are under surveillance every minute of every day already. there's no going back now. i fully expect that in 10 years or less every car will have the kinds of cameras i have on the X5, and they will all be tied to a central computer somewhere that is recording everything. my car already talks to the central computer at bmw regularly. your GPS is already tracking your movements. your cell phone too. you can actually go online and track somebody on your own. they are already doing it with your phones and your computer. the technology is already there, in place, and working. every call, every key stroke, and every web page is monitored and recorded. you can thank the satellites and digital technology for that. the minute we went away from hard lines, it became very easy. it was a little unnerving when i first saw it in action, but given what's going on in the world, i can see why it's done.



at least red light cameras have some real benefits

[/quote]



Wow, you are almost completely wrong on every single point, that is a new record for you. Read the article I posted.



jay
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#33

lol - nope - not wrong at all. it's been a big thing in the news here lately. every single city that has them is losing money. those that keep them are doing so purely due to their success at reducing traffic accidents and improving flow. san francisco is probably the most successful program. the costs of the third party operation, coupled with the administrative and court costs, generally push the citation processing cost to over double what they charge for the fine. that's just for citations that don't get challenged in court. those are often 4 times the amount of the fine, which is why they then also attach surcharges. this presumes the best scenario of actually being able to collect those fines. keep in mind that only 60% of tickets in los angeles are ever paid.



the fact of the matter is that the cameras are a great idea that is horribly implemented and managed. the alternative though is worse.



nothing is perfect. but to complain about something that is showing benefit, failing a better alternative, is just whining. that's best left to the girls at the hair salon.







there is a ton of real stuff out there, but here is a small sample of some real information:



http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/.../fleck.pdf



http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/...ssetti.pdf



http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magaz...e_id=72011



http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/red-li...ning/qanda



http://www.chron.com/spring/news/article...893350.php



http://www.townofsurfsidefl.gov/Pages/Su...e/RedLight





i welcome a better idea, and highly recommend that anyone who comes up with one should speak up to their local city council. if it works, you could make millions.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com



"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
Reply
#34

"bulti - it's because the cities farm out the operation of the cameras. they really should own them and operate them. that would make it profitable."



Not over here they don't. It's even until recent years that private companies can write you a parking ticket, that's it. Even that was a BIG issue over here because they had to ask the Police for the licence plate info, to be able to get the address and sent the ticket.



Privacy-laws are not a joke around here. I've seen more than once regular police officers empty the speed traps for the filmrolls, or digital readout.



We got a bunch of governments here, and each one gets its piece of the pie. A lucrative pie that is.



I can respect camera's at schools and busy intersections for what they are trying to do. But if proven they don't work (see Speed does not kill thread - scientific, solid facts, and no government people who wrote it) they don't work.



It started all with good intentions but the lawmakers got greedy and the credibility is gone now.



Conclusion: eat more speedtraps!
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#35

Here's how the fine breaks out in Show Low Arizona. I guess one could say the goverment as a whole, gets well compensated.



Chief Shelley reviewed a breakdown of a typical photo enforcement citation. The total fine was $248.00, with a base fine of $91.49 split between the City ($43.49) and Redflex ($48.00, an amount that was reduced after certain levels), state surcharges of $75.93, an additional assessment effective 2011 of $13.00 (split between the state for $6.50 and Navajo County for $6.50), a state probation assessment of $20.00, a court user fee (split between the City for $20.00 and the state for $16.60), and a court automation fee of $10.98 (split between the City for $6.00 and the state for $4.98). Of the total $248.00 fine, the state took $124.01 (50%), the City received $69.49 (28%), Redflex got $48.00 (19.4%), and the county received $6.50 (2.6%). Chief Shelley explained that some of the city fees paid for the sergeant that oversaw the City’s traffic enforcement program and all the citations.



They also have video built in:



Edward Tiedje said he was the account manager for Arizona for Redflex Traffic Systems. The company was based in Phoenix, with 400 employees, and serviced over 200 systems in over 250 cities. He explained that it was a fixed-camera system with three cameras in each box – a scene camera, a video camera (which, when triggered, ran for 12 seconds, showing 6 seconds before the violation occurred and 6 seconds after), and a license plate camera.



Also noted;



The corruption and bribery charges in Chicago only served to erode that trust even further. The letter announced aggressive changes in top leadership and that the executives who engaged in appropriate conduct were no longer employed by Redflex, which made him think they had all been involved in the bribery scheme.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#36

This is a classic case of once again the government addressing the symptom, not the problem. The problem isn't that people run red lights. To dig a little deeper, we have to ask why people are running red lights. Maybe the problem is that people are stupid, inconsiderate, selfish, uneducated, undisciplined, daydreaming, texting, etc.



But then once I was one of them. Got a red light ticket on a left turn arrow, moving maybe 3-5 MPH, heavy traffic, I was kinda just following the car in front of me, got nailed by about 250 milliseconds (they post the video, so I watched it again and again trying to find an angle to beat the ticket). It is silly, in my case it was one more instance of the government punishing victimless crime. I was daydreaming. Now I specifically refuse to shop in that town ever again -- so if towns want to loose sales tax revenue, by all means install red light cameras.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#37

that's an overreaction, and really "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".



if was victimless in that situation. it might easily not have been.



running a red light is a very real problem. it should be severely punished. i have been hit by drivers who ran a red light three times. once, it nearly killed my father, who was in the passenger seat. another time it put my friend in the hospital. another time it totaled my car. those drivers should have permanently lost their license, and gone to jail. what they did was really reckless endangerment. if i had been killed, it would have been manslaughter. the only reason that none of that happened was my reflexes and driving skills allowed me to maneuver at the last second and mitigate some of the impact. it could easily have gone another way.



this goes beyond revenue. this problem is real and is dangerous and has to be stopped.



perhaps they are addressing the symptom and not the cause. but, how do you take those drivers off the road? perhaps we need to require monitoring devices in cars, to see what someone's driving habits are, and then revoke the license of those who put things at risk, and resolve it before it happens. now, there is big brother for you.



p.s. - some car insurance companies are already doing something like that.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com



"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
Reply
#38

Send them to Liberia as volunteers instead of our soldiers!
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#39

pretty tough to have the impartial, objective analysis necessary to set laws and penalties - especially extreme ones - and consider any unintended consequences (e.g. privacy concerns) for the general public with strong personal experiences on one side of an argument. Had I had such experiences I would feel as strongly, of course. And I totally agree that running red lights is a serious problem. But the thread is why do people hate red light cameras, and there certainly are good reasons for doing so.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.
Reply
#40

i have no feelings on the subject at all. i rarely have any feelings about anything. i am not an emotional sort to begin with. i have experiences, but they are merely facts that support the idea that there is a problem.



i haven't heard any good reasons to hate the cameras yet. all i have heard so far is out of context references, misinterpretation of facts, and weak unsupported arguments. the fact of the matter, as proven in study after study, is that they work, and reduce accidents and save lives. there is nothing about privacy that is lost, as there is no privacy in your car to begin with. it really does not matter whether they make money or not.



the only thing that i can conclude is that people find them inconvenient. they don't like being told they can't do something. news flash: you don't get to drive any way you want. the state grants you a conditional license with permission to drive. you can't do it without their permission. you have to do it the way they tell you to. this is not a freedom or right. it is a temporary privilege. it seems that "feelings" are exactly why people hate them. as with anything that people "hate" it seems irrational and unsupported by fact.
Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com



"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
Last Post by ds968
05-29-2015, 06:39 PM
Last Post by AJG
06-30-2012, 06:11 AM
Last Post by ds968
05-30-2010, 12:54 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)