For any idiot who thinks it's about safety

[Cobrabill]

MSNBC
updated 11:12 p.m. MT, Thurs., March. 20, 2008
Last week, Dallas officials reviewed the numbers and decided that a quarter of the cameras they had installed to catch motorists running red lights were too effective. So they shut them down.

They are not alone. Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections — resulting in fewer ticketable violations and ever-shrinking revenue from fines — municipalities across the country are reconsidering red light cameras, which often work too well.

At the heart of the discussions taking place in city councils and county commissions is tension between the twin benefits that were touted when local governments began installing cameras about a decade and a half ago. Officials were promised that the cameras — which take snapshots of busy intersections, capturing the license plates of any cars that are running the light — would simultaneously save lives and generate millions of dollars in extra fines.

The first half of that equation is arguably true: A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.

It is the second half of the equation that may be beginning to collapse. As drivers learn where the cameras are, they are more careful. Fewer of them run red lights. Local governments collect fewer fines.

Fewer violations = less revenue
Sometimes, as in Dallas, cameras generate so little revenue that they can’t even pay for themselves.

Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.

But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections. On the face of it, that, too, is a good thing — but not, necessarily, if you rely on traffic fines to make up a healthy chunk of your budget.

Dallas lawmakers originally estimated gross revenue of $15 million from their 62 cameras this fiscal year, which ends June 30. But City Manager Mary Suhm estimated last week that the city would fall short by more than $4 million.

So last week, the city turned off about a quarter of the least profitable cameras, saying it couldn’t justify the cost of running them.

Safety benefits questioned
Dallas was just following the lead of several other cities that have shut down red light cameras.

City officials in Charlotte and Fayetteville, N.C., recently turned off all of their red light cameras, concluding that a state law diverting much of the revenue they generate in fines to schools meant their general funds were actually losing money, NBC affiliate WNCN of Raleigh reported.

In Bolingbrook, Ill., meanwhile, officials ended their red light camera program after statistics showed a 40 percent drop in ticketable offenses.

Nor is money the only reason cameras have been removed. In Lubbock, Texas, the City Council shut down all its cameras last month, citing a report that showed statistically significant increases in rear-end collisions at intersections, including those with cameras.

Rear-end collisions, in fact, have been cited in numerous reports and lawsuits questioning the benefits of red light cameras. Opponents claim that the cameras actually create more hazardous conditions.

“When people know there’s a red light camera, they change their driving behavior, and they slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket,” said Tom McCarey, an activist for the National Motorists Association. The association, which is based in Waunakee, Wis., calls itself a 6,000-member group “dedicated to representing and protecting the rights and interests of North American motorists.”

[427sharpe]

And they are moving them to 'newer' locations.......pretty soon a shell game for redundant taxation.

[Seagull81]

Austin is in the process of installing cameras as we speak. I'll bet they got a good deal on them from Lubbock. Can you say big brother?
Steve

[4RE KLR]

I can tell you that on those lights with cameras I WILL LOCK UP THE BRAKES if that damn thing even thinks about turning yellow. I do not give a damn about the person behind me. If they hit me they will pay for the wreck.

I cannot begin to tell you how many wrecks we have here at intersections with cameras. The cities will shorten the yellow light so that the damn thing just barely blinks and goes to red and then you get a ticket. That is why I will hit the brakes.

I have seem people hit from behind probably 20-25 times since the cameras went up. That is only the ones I saw.

Hitting the breaks and letting the person behind you hit you is a win / win. The city gets to send out an officer to do an accident report, you get a new back bumper and paint job and the case against those damn light cameras is going up in flames.

I have not yet been hit but I have a big honking trailer hitch just waiting to get a BMW grill!

[terry251]

Check your jurisdiction, but I'll bet you will find that the red light and speed camera systems in place are operated by private companies. They process the film, send out the notices and collect a major fee on each ticket, and pass on the small remainder of the fine to the local government. In most cases, if you ignore the summons they send a collection agency after you...not the cops. Their summonses and notices of adverse action look very official, but they are, in fact, a collection notice, not a threat to arrest from the local law enforcement agency. They don't personally serve the original ticket or the failure to pay notification, and they can't arrest you for ignoring them.

In my experience, if the private company doesn't see the expected amount of revenue from a particular location (speed camera or red light camera) they lobby for shortening the yellow light or lowering the speed limit. That is garbage. Our elected officials should be setting these parameters based on advice from their traffic engineers, not a private company that profits from the decision.

By the way, I don't dispute the potential effectiveness of the technology. I just don't think a private company should profit by using tax payer supported law enforcement to enrich themselves. If the technology and results are effective as purported - government should purchase and operate it themselves. The reason they don't...because they collect a fee without expending any resources.

Rant Off.

Terry

[427sharpe]

On private companies and public $;
Our esteemed Gov., Rick Perry, has tried for some time to sell roads in Texas. Basically, a foreign company agrees to build a roadway to TxDOT spec, then gets to make it a tollway....forever. He still tries to sell this as a good idea. Makes you wonder where all that lotto money goes, 'cause it sure isn't into education!

[trularin]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

[1ntCobra]

A Philadelphia TV station did a story where people in a funeral procession (which is allowed to go thru red lights) got tickets for running the red lights.

[Great Asp]

Originally Posted by 427sharpe

Makes you wonder where all that lotto money goes, 'cause it sure isn't into education!

I don't know, that seems smart to me

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by terry251

...

I just don't think a private company should profit by using tax payer supported law enforcement to enrich themselves. If the technology and results are effective as purported - government should purchase and operate it themselves. The reason they don't...because they collect a fee without expending any resources.

...

Actually I don't understand why the local government should benefit from collecting the fines. I have not gotten a ticket in a while, but someone in my office got one recently and there was all kinds of line item amounts for categories of money collected for different reasons. I think it included the fire department and some fund for buying personal computers for something or other. Maybe the local governments should not benefit at all from traffic fines, the money could be used to pay down the national debt or something.

[fsstnotch]

Steve, it's funny that you mention the trailer hitch! We just moved form OK to PA and apparently in PA you can't leave your hitch in when you are not towing. My wife got pulled over a couple months ago and the officer told her she had to remove it. he said the law is there to protect someone who could rearend you! Well what about PROTECT THY SELF!!!! Why should I not be allowed to cover my rear from a motorist talking on a cell phone or eating a salad?!

[meat]

Originally Posted by 4RE KLR

I can tell you that on those lights with cameras I WILL LOCK UP THE BRAKES if that damn thing even thinks about turning yellow. I do not give a damn about the person behind me. If they hit me they will pay for the wreck.

Umm... Not necessarily.

If you "lock up the brakes" for no other reason than a light turning yellow, that's reckless driving; you're the one at fault. You'll pay for the wreck.

Your pal,
Meat.

[Sharroll Celby]

Too literal of an opinion.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by meat

Umm... Not necessarily.

If you "lock up the brakes" for no other reason than a light turning yellow, that's reckless driving; you're the one at fault. You'll pay for the wreck.

Your pal,
Meat.

Once more Meathead proves his lineage.The person re-ending the car ahead is ALWAYS at fault.It's called following too close.

[Aussie Mike]

All the new stuff is IP based, no film required.

Speed cameras are big business down here. Australians contribute a significant ammount of money to the government coffers via "Speed Tax"

One of the projects I'm working on is developing the Police traffic monitoring systems for India. Most of the IP traffic is one way (from the camera to the police HQ) but they are looking at ways of better utilising the down stream traffic. One of the ideas is screens at intersections with traffic info displayed on them along with advertising to watch while you wait for the lights to change

There's more than one way to make a buck out of them.

Cheers

[4RE KLR]

Originally Posted by meat

Umm... Not necessarily.

If you "lock up the brakes" for no other reason than a light turning yellow, that's reckless driving; you're the one at fault. You'll pay for the wreck.

Your pal,
Meat.

NOPE, not in Texas,
If you are hit from behind it is because the car behind you is following too close and the car that actually makes or causes physical contact is the one doing the reckless driving. I will hit the brakes at a yellow light period. "Don't follow too close now ya hear!"

There is an exception being that you could be impeding traffic but in that case the offending car would have to have pulled out in front of you. However if you are both going the same direction and you hit the car in front of you, you'd better have insurance.

[fsstnotch]

Same here. unless hte person in front of you is somehow in reverse or somehting, you are liable if you hit someone in the rear. So, what do you do when you leave a safe distance and that idiot next to you realizes he needs to turn at the next light so he moves into your lane giving you no distance to brake?

This is why i leave my hitch on!!! It might do more damage to the rear car, but I bet next time, they'll pay more attention!

[Rich A]

DUH!!! What did they think was going to happen.

[Ron61]

Meat,

I am not sure about down in your area but I asked a CHP here about this and he told me that if you slowed or stopped suddenly for a yellow light and was hit from behind the driver that hit you is at fault. One exception he gave me was an emergency vehicle coming from in back of you and if you have no way to get out of the way to run the light even if it is red.

Ron

[terry251]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

Once more Meathead proves his lineage.The person re-ending the car ahead is ALWAYS at fault.It's called following too close.

Not always. A recent "road rage" type encounter on E470 in Colorado led to a murder conviction for the guy that got hit from behind. He was weaving in and out of traffic and brake-checked the victim after swerving in front of him.
Pretty extreme case, but traffic investigators are increasingly cautious about assigning fault in rear end collisions due to road rage and fake insurance cases.

Terry