Cincinnati, Ohio put it on the books this month. No Red Light Cameras here. Mayor Charlie Luken vetoed a camera ordinance saying, “Let’s be honest with the public– we didn’t think about this until we came up with a budget problem.”
A majority of voters approved an amendment to the city charter prohibiting local officials from ever installing either red light cameras or speed cameras.“This election is further proof that people do not want to have traffic cameras,” Weitzman told TheNewspaper. “Politicians in cities across the country need to take note of this if they plan on getting re-elected.” A would be mayor may put them in but after just a short time citizens will be against the administration and the leaders who came up with the idea. It's political suicide to implement them.
A diverse group of political activists from all ends of the political spectrum banded together to form the “We Demand a Vote” coalition to stop the idea. Members include regional chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Republican Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party and others. The group received more than 10k signatures on a petition to put the subject of cameras on the ballot before the devices even had a chance to issue a single ticket. Political leaders quickly backed-off their support of cameras after seeing public opinion on the matter.
The citizens in many communities are led to believe the cameras will stop red light running and make traffic safer but the studies don't lie. Red Light cameras are purely for revenue generation and do not make cities safer.
Source
Friday, November 21, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
City Council Views a Dog & Pony Show
At Lorain City Council meeting last night, Nestor Traffic Systems presented a sales spiel about how wonderful these red light cameras are. It was an hour long presentation and after a little research proved to be the presentation of their lives.
You see Nestor is having severe financial problems. They had some major losses to the tune of 33.8 million dollars and are currently $27.2 million in debt. It's so bad, the NASDAQ is threatening to drop them from their stock exchange because they've gone below their lowest threshold of stock value at one dollar. It gets worse, Nestor stock is at 3 cents today. That wasn't a misprint. What can anyone get for 8 cents these days, ok you got me, Nestor stock, baa boom.
But what we have to remember, the city is having financial problems so any port in the storm might be appealing to generate revenue, even with a company ready to fold. But we have to view ourselves in future tense, how will this bode in the long run? We have such a wealth of information laid out by those who have been there and done this already. Please review the links on the left.
One after another cities, getting sued, having to pay back millions of dollars in fines, total state bans of these things. Is it any wonder this company is on the verge of bankruptcy? Must we dredge in the mud, knowing where it will eventually take us? Can we learn from others mistakes?
The presenter last night kept mentioning the City of Akron. Funny he didn't mention they are being sued in federal court over their system and it's legality. I imagine this company is named in the suit. Kind of an important detail as well as the financials. But then our City should be checking these companies out too. They have an obligation to determine solvency if they are considering a relationship that will involve millions of dollars. According to the plan, they will be collecting the money generated from tickets and paying us our portion.
So please review the information provided here. Think of Lorain in terms of the future. Think of yourself in the future paying bogus ticket after ticket. Waiting in line at the grocery store complaining to your neighbors about these cameras and then finally deciding to do something about them like so many other cities have. And realize right now we don't have to go down that path and repeat the history of so many cities. We don't have to enter this blindly in the name of revenue. Lets save ourselves the heartache and say no to this poor excuse for a money grab.
You see Nestor is having severe financial problems. They had some major losses to the tune of 33.8 million dollars and are currently $27.2 million in debt. It's so bad, the NASDAQ is threatening to drop them from their stock exchange because they've gone below their lowest threshold of stock value at one dollar. It gets worse, Nestor stock is at 3 cents today. That wasn't a misprint. What can anyone get for 8 cents these days, ok you got me, Nestor stock, baa boom.
But what we have to remember, the city is having financial problems so any port in the storm might be appealing to generate revenue, even with a company ready to fold. But we have to view ourselves in future tense, how will this bode in the long run? We have such a wealth of information laid out by those who have been there and done this already. Please review the links on the left.
One after another cities, getting sued, having to pay back millions of dollars in fines, total state bans of these things. Is it any wonder this company is on the verge of bankruptcy? Must we dredge in the mud, knowing where it will eventually take us? Can we learn from others mistakes?
The presenter last night kept mentioning the City of Akron. Funny he didn't mention they are being sued in federal court over their system and it's legality. I imagine this company is named in the suit. Kind of an important detail as well as the financials. But then our City should be checking these companies out too. They have an obligation to determine solvency if they are considering a relationship that will involve millions of dollars. According to the plan, they will be collecting the money generated from tickets and paying us our portion.
So please review the information provided here. Think of Lorain in terms of the future. Think of yourself in the future paying bogus ticket after ticket. Waiting in line at the grocery store complaining to your neighbors about these cameras and then finally deciding to do something about them like so many other cities have. And realize right now we don't have to go down that path and repeat the history of so many cities. We don't have to enter this blindly in the name of revenue. Lets save ourselves the heartache and say no to this poor excuse for a money grab.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Anti-Camera Petitions Earn Huge Public Support
Anti-red light camera voter initiatives in Washington and Cincinnati, Ohio gather thousands of signatures.
Josh Krekeler, We Demand a VoteVoter initiatives that would limit red light camera use in Washington state and Ohio will almost certainly be placed on November ballots. Although election officials must verify the authenticity of each signature turned in, referendum supporters succeeded in gathering far more signatures than is generally needed to qualify
As of yesterday, a total of 10,421 residents had signed a petition calling for vote to ban red light camera use in Cincinnati, Ohio. Only 6,150 signatures were needed. (view petition)
"We're very encouraged by the public's response to the red light camera issue," campaign co-chairman Josh Krekeler said in a statement. "Most people know about the city's plan and generally agree that it's a flawed approach to safety."
Krekeler is part of a diverse coalition of Republicans, Green Party members and supporters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- eleven groups in total -- who banded together under the label "We Demand a Vote" to fight the city's automated ticketing plan.
Washington's statewide initiative would not actually ban red light cameras. Instead, it the proposal is designed to put the financial pinch on cities that use photo enforcement to boost local budgets. Initiative 985 is a traffic congestion relief measure put forward by frustrated commuters as part of the Voters Want More Choices coalition (view details). On July 3, the group turned in 300,684 signatures, even though only 225,000 were needed.
"Qualifying an initiative for the ballot is one of the toughest things to accomplish in politics," said group leader Tim Eyman. "Such a huge number... guarantees our common sense transportation reform initiative will be on the ballot."
The initiative also would force city and state traffic engineers to synchronize traffic lights at busy intersections. It would pay for engineering and road improvements that measurably reduce congestion -- with the state auditor's office keeping track of performance -- by directing all profit from red light cameras, tolls and several other existing motorist taxes into a new congestion relief fund. It would also open high occupancy vehicle (HOV) carpool lanes to general purpose use during weekends and off-peak hours.
If the experience of North Carolina is any guide, diverting red light camera profit into a congestion relief fund would spell the end of photo ticketing in the state. After the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution required all profits from photo tickets to go to the public school system, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greenville, Greensboro, High Point and Raleigh shut down their red light camera programs.
Experience also shows that because these measures will face a welcome reception among voters. Photo enforcement has lost every time the question has been put to a vote of the people. A 2006 initiative in the city of Steubenville ended with three out of every four voters rejecting camera ticketing. Between 1991 and 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Batavia, Illinois and Peoria, Arizona also rejected the systems by significant margins.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2466.asp
Josh Krekeler, We Demand a VoteVoter initiatives that would limit red light camera use in Washington state and Ohio will almost certainly be placed on November ballots. Although election officials must verify the authenticity of each signature turned in, referendum supporters succeeded in gathering far more signatures than is generally needed to qualify
As of yesterday, a total of 10,421 residents had signed a petition calling for vote to ban red light camera use in Cincinnati, Ohio. Only 6,150 signatures were needed. (view petition)
"We're very encouraged by the public's response to the red light camera issue," campaign co-chairman Josh Krekeler said in a statement. "Most people know about the city's plan and generally agree that it's a flawed approach to safety."
Krekeler is part of a diverse coalition of Republicans, Green Party members and supporters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- eleven groups in total -- who banded together under the label "We Demand a Vote" to fight the city's automated ticketing plan.
Washington's statewide initiative would not actually ban red light cameras. Instead, it the proposal is designed to put the financial pinch on cities that use photo enforcement to boost local budgets. Initiative 985 is a traffic congestion relief measure put forward by frustrated commuters as part of the Voters Want More Choices coalition (view details). On July 3, the group turned in 300,684 signatures, even though only 225,000 were needed.
"Qualifying an initiative for the ballot is one of the toughest things to accomplish in politics," said group leader Tim Eyman. "Such a huge number... guarantees our common sense transportation reform initiative will be on the ballot."
The initiative also would force city and state traffic engineers to synchronize traffic lights at busy intersections. It would pay for engineering and road improvements that measurably reduce congestion -- with the state auditor's office keeping track of performance -- by directing all profit from red light cameras, tolls and several other existing motorist taxes into a new congestion relief fund. It would also open high occupancy vehicle (HOV) carpool lanes to general purpose use during weekends and off-peak hours.
If the experience of North Carolina is any guide, diverting red light camera profit into a congestion relief fund would spell the end of photo ticketing in the state. After the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution required all profits from photo tickets to go to the public school system, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greenville, Greensboro, High Point and Raleigh shut down their red light camera programs.
Experience also shows that because these measures will face a welcome reception among voters. Photo enforcement has lost every time the question has been put to a vote of the people. A 2006 initiative in the city of Steubenville ended with three out of every four voters rejecting camera ticketing. Between 1991 and 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska; Batavia, Illinois and Peoria, Arizona also rejected the systems by significant margins.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2466.asp
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
5 Proven Ways To Stop Light Running
November 5th, 2007 Posted in Helpful Information, Red-Light Cameras
While most cities choose to take the easy way out and install red-light ticket cameras to profit from this problem (without solving it), there are several proven ways for communities to stop red-light running at their intersections.
1) Increase the yellow-light time
This is an easy way to reduce red-light violations. It has been effective from Virginia to California in preventing accidents and saving lives.
• A study by researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute illustrates the positive safety impact of even a modestly longer yellow light.
• The Virginia Department of Transportation noted a significant decrease in violations at an intersection in Fairfax County when the yellow light was lengthened by 1.5 seconds.
• Critics of longer yellow lights claim there is no long-term benefit because the public will grow accustomed to the longer lights, but research shows this is not the case.
2) Add an all-red clearance interval
A yellow light allows drivers who cannot safely stop to pass through the intersection before the light turns red. Occasionally, even safe and attentive drivers may misjudge the time it takes to make it completely through an intersection.
Adding an all-red clearance interval (a brief period where the lights in all directions are red) after the yellow-light phase reduces unnecessary accidents. AAA of Michigan and the city of Detroit partnered to make intersections safer and they found an all-red clearance interval to be effective.
3) Make traffic lights more visible
There are a number of reasons motorists might have difficulty seeing traffic lights at intersections. Making traffic lights more visible decreases red-light violations and intersection accidents. Here are three simple things that can be done to help all motorists see traffic lights better:
• Make the lights bigger. With AAA of Michigan’s help, Detroit installed several new lights that were 50 percent larger. This small change helped to decrease both accidents and injuries at problem intersections.
• Add metal backers to lights. This is especially important for lights that face either east or west and can be easily affected by glare from the sun during certain parts of the day.
• Remove any other obstructions. If an intersection has above average red-light violations or accidents, transportation officials should make sure that no signs, trees, transit stops, or buildings obstruct motorists’ view of the traffic lights.
4) Improve intersections for motorists
Anything about an intersection that confuses or frustrates motorists increases red-light violations. Communities can do all of the following to make intersections safer:
• Repaint lane markings at intersections, especially turn lane markings. This alone had a major impact in the Detroit trial project mentioned above.
• Improve signage. Signs should clearly indicate that a signal is ahead and which lane(s), if any, are for turns only.
• Add traffic lights at certain intersections, especially those that rely on only one light suspended in the air to direct all traffic.
• Build new turn lanes, especially on roads where development has added a significant amount of new traffic volume.
• Provide advance warning lights at high-speed intersections to notify motorists of pending light changes.
5) Retime Traffic Signals
Engineers can adjust the timing of traffic lights to reduce the number of red lights a driver encounters. This process of signal optimization reduces congestion, travel time, gas consumption, and driver frustration. It also helps to reduce red-light violations.
An informational report from the Institute for Transportation Engineers concluded that the process has a benefit to cost ratio of 40:1. Another study in Oakland County, Michigan showed that retiming the traffic signals had a benefit-cost ratio of 175:1 and 55:1 respectively for each of the two phases of the project.
http://www.motorists.org/
While most cities choose to take the easy way out and install red-light ticket cameras to profit from this problem (without solving it), there are several proven ways for communities to stop red-light running at their intersections.
1) Increase the yellow-light time
This is an easy way to reduce red-light violations. It has been effective from Virginia to California in preventing accidents and saving lives.
• A study by researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute illustrates the positive safety impact of even a modestly longer yellow light.
• The Virginia Department of Transportation noted a significant decrease in violations at an intersection in Fairfax County when the yellow light was lengthened by 1.5 seconds.
• Critics of longer yellow lights claim there is no long-term benefit because the public will grow accustomed to the longer lights, but research shows this is not the case.
2) Add an all-red clearance interval
A yellow light allows drivers who cannot safely stop to pass through the intersection before the light turns red. Occasionally, even safe and attentive drivers may misjudge the time it takes to make it completely through an intersection.
Adding an all-red clearance interval (a brief period where the lights in all directions are red) after the yellow-light phase reduces unnecessary accidents. AAA of Michigan and the city of Detroit partnered to make intersections safer and they found an all-red clearance interval to be effective.
3) Make traffic lights more visible
There are a number of reasons motorists might have difficulty seeing traffic lights at intersections. Making traffic lights more visible decreases red-light violations and intersection accidents. Here are three simple things that can be done to help all motorists see traffic lights better:
• Make the lights bigger. With AAA of Michigan’s help, Detroit installed several new lights that were 50 percent larger. This small change helped to decrease both accidents and injuries at problem intersections.
• Add metal backers to lights. This is especially important for lights that face either east or west and can be easily affected by glare from the sun during certain parts of the day.
• Remove any other obstructions. If an intersection has above average red-light violations or accidents, transportation officials should make sure that no signs, trees, transit stops, or buildings obstruct motorists’ view of the traffic lights.
4) Improve intersections for motorists
Anything about an intersection that confuses or frustrates motorists increases red-light violations. Communities can do all of the following to make intersections safer:
• Repaint lane markings at intersections, especially turn lane markings. This alone had a major impact in the Detroit trial project mentioned above.
• Improve signage. Signs should clearly indicate that a signal is ahead and which lane(s), if any, are for turns only.
• Add traffic lights at certain intersections, especially those that rely on only one light suspended in the air to direct all traffic.
• Build new turn lanes, especially on roads where development has added a significant amount of new traffic volume.
• Provide advance warning lights at high-speed intersections to notify motorists of pending light changes.
5) Retime Traffic Signals
Engineers can adjust the timing of traffic lights to reduce the number of red lights a driver encounters. This process of signal optimization reduces congestion, travel time, gas consumption, and driver frustration. It also helps to reduce red-light violations.
An informational report from the Institute for Transportation Engineers concluded that the process has a benefit to cost ratio of 40:1. Another study in Oakland County, Michigan showed that retiming the traffic signals had a benefit-cost ratio of 175:1 and 55:1 respectively for each of the two phases of the project.
http://www.motorists.org/
Judges crack down on controversial traffic cameras in Ohio
COLUMBUS - Judges, angry motorists and some sympathetic state lawmakers are coming down on Ohio cities that use high-tech cameras to catch drivers who speed and run red lights.
A judge in northeast Ohio ruled this summer that a camera program used to catch speeders in Girard, near Youngstown, was unconstitutional and ordered the city to stop using it. A driver later sued Toledo, saying a $95 ticket she got for running a red light was improper because, among other things, no police officer was present as a witness.
"I made a right turn on red. I gave ample time to stop. I did not run through it," said the driver, Ann Lewicki, 24.
Also looming is a possible vote this fall in the state legislature on a bill that would restrict the use of cameras to the point where critics say it won't be worth installing them.
"It seems to me that the legislature, for whatever reason, is going to destroy something that works and saves lives," said George Speaks, deputy director of public safety in Columbus, which began using cameras at four intersections in March to catch drivers who run red lights. The number of citations fell from 1,408 to less than 700 over five months, proving that the cameras are a deterrent, he said.
The cameras are used in about 200 U.S. cities, including eight in Ohio. Akron, which experimented with a pilot program last year, intends to launch a permanent speed-surveillance program in school zones by the end of August, city officials said.
Most cities use the technology for red-light enforcement, not speed enforcement, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group in Arlington, Va.
At least two states - Wisconsin and New Jersey - have banned the cameras, and the National Motorists Association opposes their use, saying intersections could be made safer by lengthening yellow lights and improving lane markings.
Supporters point to the Federal Highway Administration, which studied the use of red-light cameras at 132 intersections in seven cities for a 2005 report. The cameras reduced front and side crashes by 25 percent. However, the same report noted a 15 percent increase in rear-end crashes.
The cameras work by snapping photos of vehicles and their license plates. In Columbus, like many cities, the fine is mailed to the vehicle's registered owner. The ticket is considered a civil violation, not criminal, so no points are recorded on a driving record.
If the vehicle's owner was not the driver, there is an appeals process.
Cleveland and Toledo are among a smaller group of cities that use the cameras to also target speeders. Cleveland's program, which began in December, generated $2.3 million in revenue as of July.
That bothers state Sen. Jeffry Armbruster, a Republican from North Ridgeville who chairs the Senate's Highways and Transportation committee. He calls Cleveland's camera program little more than a high-tech speed trap.
"Cities are doing this just for money," Armbruster said. State regulation is needed to set some standards and avoid an abuse of power, he said.
A bill pending in the Senate bans cities from using cameras to ticket speeders unless a police officer is present to witness the infraction. Also, cities that use cameras for red-light enforcement must remove the devices from intersections if accidents increase over a two-year period, and the bill gives the Ohio Department of Transportation authority to define the type of intersections that are dangerous enough to warrant camera monitoring.
Critics say the bill violates a city's home-rule authority, and the provision requiring an officer to be present is cost-prohibitive because it duplicates services.
"I think cities should be able to run their programs in any manner they see fit," said Speaks, the Columbus public safety official.
But cities are running afoul of the state constitution, argues attorney Sam Kaplan, who represents Lewicki in her lawsuit against Toledo. Among other noted problems, Kaplan said there's no provision in state law allowing cities to decriminalize traffic offenses by treating them as civil matters.
In his July ruling against the city of Girard, Trumbull County Common Pleas Judge John Stuard agreed. Girard scrapped its camera program and will return $175,000 collected in fines, said city public services director Jerry Lambert.
Steubenville, a city in eastern Ohio, suspended its traffic-camera program this summer, pending the outcome of a lawsuit there. The city's cameras nabbed about 3,000 speeders and red-light runners during the brief month that it operated, said city law director S. Gary Repella.
"Frankly, we were shocked that so many people weren't obeying our laws," he said.
And that's the point, said Sean Mentel, an attorney for Scottsdale-Ariz.-based Redflex Traffic Systems, which supplies Columbus with its traffic cameras.
"I think there's no disputing the safety benefits of these programs," Mentel said. "The legal issues, that's something for Ohio authorities to decide."
http://media.www.bgnews.com/media/storage/paper883/news/2006/08/21/State/Judges.Crack.Down.On.Controversial.Traffic.Cameras.In.Ohio-2222317.shtml
A judge in northeast Ohio ruled this summer that a camera program used to catch speeders in Girard, near Youngstown, was unconstitutional and ordered the city to stop using it. A driver later sued Toledo, saying a $95 ticket she got for running a red light was improper because, among other things, no police officer was present as a witness.
"I made a right turn on red. I gave ample time to stop. I did not run through it," said the driver, Ann Lewicki, 24.
Also looming is a possible vote this fall in the state legislature on a bill that would restrict the use of cameras to the point where critics say it won't be worth installing them.
"It seems to me that the legislature, for whatever reason, is going to destroy something that works and saves lives," said George Speaks, deputy director of public safety in Columbus, which began using cameras at four intersections in March to catch drivers who run red lights. The number of citations fell from 1,408 to less than 700 over five months, proving that the cameras are a deterrent, he said.
The cameras are used in about 200 U.S. cities, including eight in Ohio. Akron, which experimented with a pilot program last year, intends to launch a permanent speed-surveillance program in school zones by the end of August, city officials said.
Most cities use the technology for red-light enforcement, not speed enforcement, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group in Arlington, Va.
At least two states - Wisconsin and New Jersey - have banned the cameras, and the National Motorists Association opposes their use, saying intersections could be made safer by lengthening yellow lights and improving lane markings.
Supporters point to the Federal Highway Administration, which studied the use of red-light cameras at 132 intersections in seven cities for a 2005 report. The cameras reduced front and side crashes by 25 percent. However, the same report noted a 15 percent increase in rear-end crashes.
The cameras work by snapping photos of vehicles and their license plates. In Columbus, like many cities, the fine is mailed to the vehicle's registered owner. The ticket is considered a civil violation, not criminal, so no points are recorded on a driving record.
If the vehicle's owner was not the driver, there is an appeals process.
Cleveland and Toledo are among a smaller group of cities that use the cameras to also target speeders. Cleveland's program, which began in December, generated $2.3 million in revenue as of July.
That bothers state Sen. Jeffry Armbruster, a Republican from North Ridgeville who chairs the Senate's Highways and Transportation committee. He calls Cleveland's camera program little more than a high-tech speed trap.
"Cities are doing this just for money," Armbruster said. State regulation is needed to set some standards and avoid an abuse of power, he said.
A bill pending in the Senate bans cities from using cameras to ticket speeders unless a police officer is present to witness the infraction. Also, cities that use cameras for red-light enforcement must remove the devices from intersections if accidents increase over a two-year period, and the bill gives the Ohio Department of Transportation authority to define the type of intersections that are dangerous enough to warrant camera monitoring.
Critics say the bill violates a city's home-rule authority, and the provision requiring an officer to be present is cost-prohibitive because it duplicates services.
"I think cities should be able to run their programs in any manner they see fit," said Speaks, the Columbus public safety official.
But cities are running afoul of the state constitution, argues attorney Sam Kaplan, who represents Lewicki in her lawsuit against Toledo. Among other noted problems, Kaplan said there's no provision in state law allowing cities to decriminalize traffic offenses by treating them as civil matters.
In his July ruling against the city of Girard, Trumbull County Common Pleas Judge John Stuard agreed. Girard scrapped its camera program and will return $175,000 collected in fines, said city public services director Jerry Lambert.
Steubenville, a city in eastern Ohio, suspended its traffic-camera program this summer, pending the outcome of a lawsuit there. The city's cameras nabbed about 3,000 speeders and red-light runners during the brief month that it operated, said city law director S. Gary Repella.
"Frankly, we were shocked that so many people weren't obeying our laws," he said.
And that's the point, said Sean Mentel, an attorney for Scottsdale-Ariz.-based Redflex Traffic Systems, which supplies Columbus with its traffic cameras.
"I think there's no disputing the safety benefits of these programs," Mentel said. "The legal issues, that's something for Ohio authorities to decide."
http://media.www.bgnews.com/media/storage/paper883/news/2006/08/21/State/Judges.Crack.Down.On.Controversial.Traffic.Cameras.In.Ohio-2222317.shtml
Stop-Light Cameras: Safety Feature or Revenue Stream?
Recently, cameras positioned to catch potential red-light runners have come under fire from cities and local municipalities. From Dallas, Tex. to Mill Creek, Wash., city governments are discovering that red-light cameras don't make as much sense.
In Mill Creek, for instance, the cameras do not catch enough red-light runners to make the cameras worth the cost. In Dallas, where the cameras have in some intersections accounted for a 50% reduction of drivers running red lights, the city has idled over one-fourth of its cameras. The system is too expensive to maintain and the revenue has come in at least $8.6 million short of the city's initial projection.
This raises the question: What is the purpose of the cameras? Are they meant to actually improve safety, or are cities simply using them to increase revenue through fines? Or both?
As we previously reported, several studies have shown that stop-light cameras can actually increase accidents because drivers who spot the cameras tend to slam on their brakes and end up getting rear-ended. Couple this with a Tennessee judge who ruled that the city of Chattanooga had to refund paid red-light tickets because the yellow lights were improperly timed, and one begins to see the problem.
Even though numerous studies have shown that longer yellow lights decrease traffic accidents, the yellow lights had been reduced from 4.5 seconds to three seconds without any authorization.
We have to ask: Do cities simply see traffic-light cameras as a means to pad floundering budgets? Let us know what you think. Have you ever gotten a ticket from a traffic-camera?
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/04/stop-light-came.html
In Mill Creek, for instance, the cameras do not catch enough red-light runners to make the cameras worth the cost. In Dallas, where the cameras have in some intersections accounted for a 50% reduction of drivers running red lights, the city has idled over one-fourth of its cameras. The system is too expensive to maintain and the revenue has come in at least $8.6 million short of the city's initial projection.
This raises the question: What is the purpose of the cameras? Are they meant to actually improve safety, or are cities simply using them to increase revenue through fines? Or both?
As we previously reported, several studies have shown that stop-light cameras can actually increase accidents because drivers who spot the cameras tend to slam on their brakes and end up getting rear-ended. Couple this with a Tennessee judge who ruled that the city of Chattanooga had to refund paid red-light tickets because the yellow lights were improperly timed, and one begins to see the problem.
Even though numerous studies have shown that longer yellow lights decrease traffic accidents, the yellow lights had been reduced from 4.5 seconds to three seconds without any authorization.
We have to ask: Do cities simply see traffic-light cameras as a means to pad floundering budgets? Let us know what you think. Have you ever gotten a ticket from a traffic-camera?
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/04/stop-light-came.html
Six US Cities Tamper with Traffic cameras for Profit
Six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the amber cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. The local governments in question have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.
The cities in question include Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, Springfield, MO, according to Motorists.org, which collected information from reports from around the country. This isn’t the first time traffic cameras have been questioned as to their effectiveness in preventing accidents. In one case, the local government was forced to issue refunds by more than $1 million to motorists who were issued tickets for running red lights.
The report goes on to note these are just instances that have been identified, and there may be more out there, and urges visitors to send in their own findings.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/six-us-cities-tamper-with-traffic-cameras-for-profit.html
Red-light cameras bring backlash
By Larry Copeland, USA TODAY
ATLANTA — State Rep. Barry Loudermilk recently introduced a bill to ban red-light enforcement cameras in Georgia. Among his objections to the traffic control devices: the absence of human involvement.
"If you run a red light and a police officer witnesses you running it, he walks up to you and checks your identification. He's citing you, not your car," says Loudermilk, a Republican from northwest Georgia. "He's a witness. He sees you commit the act. He conducts something of an investigation.
"With a red-light camera, it's like convicting a gun for murder. You have to prove your innocence instead of the government proving your guilt. That might seem trivial to people. But it's a slippery slope with the Constitution."
Loudermilk, a third-year legislator and businessman, says another concern is that a red-light camera violator is treated differently from a driver nailed by a police officer for running a light. The first simply pays a civil fine. The second is charged with a criminal misdemeanor. He acknowledges that his bill probably won't pass, although he says support is growing.
"A lot of people do object to red-light cameras," he says. "There's as many opinions about why they shouldn't be here as why they should be."
Loudermilk's complaints are part of a nationwide debate about whether the cameras are an appropriate tool to discourage drivers from running red lights and endangering other motorists and pedestrians:
•Legislatures in at least six states — Connecticut, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Virginia — are debating action to permit red-light cameras. In Virginia, which allowed an experimental camera program in six communities and Virginia Beach to expire in 2005, the House of Delegates this month gave preliminary approval to a measure that allows cities that have at least 10,000 residents to use the cameras.
•Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox ruled last month that cameras cannot be used to ticket drivers. Only police officers who witness violations can write tickets, he ruled.
•Red-light cameras are the subject of litigation in at least three states. In Ohio, an Akron woman's lawsuit alleging that cities using the cameras have turned red-light violations from a criminal to a civil offense is headed to the state Supreme Court.
Oral arguments in the Minnesota Supreme Court over Minneapolis' suspended camera program are scheduled for next month. In North Carolina, Charlotte and several other cities ended their camera programs this year after the state Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that most proceeds from signal violations must go to local schools. The case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court.
•New Mexico state Sen. William Payne, who calls Albuquerque's 15 cameras a "money-generating trap," introduced a bill this month that would require communities using the devices to install warning signs and beacons on streets leading to intersections where they are positioned.
He says Albuquerque has issued 80,000 $100 citations in the past 18 months. Those fines went directly to the city as civil fees rather than to the state as motor vehicle violations, he says. Payne, a third-term Republican from Albuquerque, says he's also concerned because of studies showing that rear-end crashes rise when traffic cameras are installed, although more deadly side-impact crashes go down.
An increase in rear-end crashes in some communities immediately following the installation of red-light cameras is usually temporary, says Jeff Agnew, spokesman for the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, an advocacy group funded by traffic-camera firms.
Public opinion surveys repeatedly find about 75%-80% support for cameras, says Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an industry group. But he acknowledges, "This is a very contentious issue because there are very strong opponents of red-light cameras."
Aaron Quinn, communications manager for the Waunakee, Wis.-based National Motorists Association, which defends drivers' rights, is one of them. He says there are "more appropriate" ways to reduce red-light crashes, including having traffic lights at all corners of intersections show red for one second, creating a margin of error in case of red-light runners.
"We feel municipalities put in the cameras basically for revenue-generating purposes," says Quinn, whose group helped repeal the federal 55-mph speed limit.
DC Lawyers Bring Class Action To Stop Traffic Cameras
Two lawyers in Washington, DC have filed suit against the city in Superior Court to return all fines paid by persons who received a ticket via a camera photo.
The two litigators are seeking to represent the entire "class of automobile owners" ticketed since the red-light camera program began July 31, 1999, and since the photo-radar program started Aug. 6, 2001. "There is no proof that the owner is driving the car and the only way to get out of the ticket is to submit an affidavit identifying the person who was driving your car," Mr. Ruffin said.
Judges in other jurisdictions, such as Denver and San Diego have invalidated the camera programs. A lot of money is at stake in D.C.
The District has collected $26,451,367 from radar cameras since the program began through last month, according the data available on the Metropolitan Police Department's Web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov). The city has mailed out 510,667 citations, and 356,315 motorists have paid the fines. The red-light cameras have generated $20,983,495 for the city in nearly five years of enforcement, with 242,748 motorists having paid the fines out of 361,464 tickets issued.
Update: Kirk Parker notes in the comments section that the conservative Weekly Standard has a five part series on what's wrong with the DC red light cameras:
Red-light cameras are all over Washington--and coming to a city near you. The science behind them is bad and the police are using them to make money, not save lives. It's much worse than you thought."
What's Wrong With Red Light Cameras Five Part Series
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/04/17/595/79127
The two litigators are seeking to represent the entire "class of automobile owners" ticketed since the red-light camera program began July 31, 1999, and since the photo-radar program started Aug. 6, 2001. "There is no proof that the owner is driving the car and the only way to get out of the ticket is to submit an affidavit identifying the person who was driving your car," Mr. Ruffin said.
Judges in other jurisdictions, such as Denver and San Diego have invalidated the camera programs. A lot of money is at stake in D.C.
The District has collected $26,451,367 from radar cameras since the program began through last month, according the data available on the Metropolitan Police Department's Web site (www.mpdc.dc.gov). The city has mailed out 510,667 citations, and 356,315 motorists have paid the fines. The red-light cameras have generated $20,983,495 for the city in nearly five years of enforcement, with 242,748 motorists having paid the fines out of 361,464 tickets issued.
Update: Kirk Parker notes in the comments section that the conservative Weekly Standard has a five part series on what's wrong with the DC red light cameras:
Red-light cameras are all over Washington--and coming to a city near you. The science behind them is bad and the police are using them to make money, not save lives. It's much worse than you thought."
What's Wrong With Red Light Cameras Five Part Series
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/04/17/595/79127
SCAM Uncovered. Red light and speed camera are for PROFIT
Watch and be aware. The city makes a contract with the camera company and they make money off these cameras. The contract gives a quota of the number of tickets to be issued or violations found so they make a certain amount of money. What the city then has to do is adjust the length of the yellow light to catch more offenders who are expecting a certain time on the yellow light create a speed trap and making the contract with the camera company fulfilled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)