Marklar

And when they ARE enforced? Before you go to bat against the state, realize that they have the power, the money, and the guns. You need a really good case to step up to the plate against them, something better than not wanting to pay a ticket that you earned.

Socket7

Do the crime, Pay the fine. Doesn't matter if it's officer friendly or CameraCo that catches you. Only people lacking in character would argue that they don't deserve a fine, or don't need to pay it, because it's a civil offense rather then a criminal.

Red light cameras do not exist to make profit, and they really do reduce traffic fatalities when deployed properly. I don't have any scientific studies on hand regarding this but I'm sure I could dig them up if I had the time.

I'm surprised this thread wasn't locked when people began posting photos of people running red lights, ON PURPOSE. That right there, is pure douchebag status. Way to stick it to the man by endangering innocent people, jackass.


Speed cameras on the other hand, I will fight to the death to get rid of. I couldn't care less about red light cameras, because I don't run red lights. I'm OK with people speeding to some extent. I'm pretty much never OK with people who blow through red lights at 20 miles an hour.

Yes, the OP had clear visibility. Yes, there was no oncoming traffic. Yes, what he did to get this particular fine wasn't endangering anyone because of the first 2 things I said. However, the fact he didn't even notice a camera was there at all to take a picture of him running the light makes me wonder if he really did check that nobody was coming or if it was just blind luck; and that's why he deserves the fine, and should pay it.

Davey's RX-8

iTrader: (1)

I wouldn't argue that one but, and you need a good solid case behind you if you're going to argue constitutionality of a law and be prepared to take it to a much higher court. I would also point out as someone who pays attention to laws that many are incredibly poorly written. As in recently enacted laws.

Ex: California recently had tax law changes designed to increase revenues. One of them was an acceleration of the timing people need to make payments throughout the year from 25%/quarter to 30/30/20/20. Not fair, but it is what it is, right? Not so fast. California rules for timing of the application of withholding follows federal rules, which are 25%/quarter. So the literal writing of the law is such that the average Joe who has just a W-2 and pays his tax through withholding and might not otherwise owe tax at the end of the year, will owe an underpayment penalty because the standard application of his withholding on a quarterly basis will be deficient for the first two quarters.

Was this also designed as a revenue raiser? No, the oh so wise people in Sacramento engaged in an increasingly common practice known as sloppy legislating.

Davey's RX-8

iTrader: (1)

You won't find scientific studies, of that I am sure. In most areas, traffic safety measures are a code word for revenue raiser.

Marklar

Yes that sucks. But bureaucracy and oppression are different things. The government will always stink, no matter how much it is cleaned up.

Fact is, a certain number of tax dollars are needed by the government. They get that money from the people, one way or another. And often the taxpayers get screwed over, because the legislators get to write the law. Happens. It's always been this way.

Socket7

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html#cite1

The objective of photo enforcement is to deter violators, not to catch them. Signs and publicity campaigns typically warn drivers that photo enforcement is in use. Revenue is generated from fines paid by drivers who continue to run red lights, but this is a fundamental component of all traffic enforcement programs. Independent audits of red light camera enforcement have found that these programs generally do not generate excess revenue. For example, the California state auditor reported in 2002 that red light cameras were not generating large amounts of revenue.18 The financial status of only two of the state's seven camera programs was break-even or better. The US General Accounting Office reported in 2003 on the contribution of federal funds to local use of photo enforcement technology and the amount of revenue generated by these programs.19 The report found that photo enforcement program revenues were lower than program costs in three jurisdictions, while the revenues in two other jurisdictions exceeded program costs.

Socket7

A nationwide study of fatal crashes at traffic signals in 1999 and 2000 estimated that 20 percent of the drivers involved failed to obey the signals.1 In 2006, almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 144,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html#cite1

It even cites sources for all it's claims.

Red light cam's help prevent fatal crashes. Period. People who run red lights are dangerous. Period.

Flashwing

You should care about Redlight cameras. Where do you think cities got the idea to deploy speed cameras from? Cities and States will always outspend the increase in revenue which means sooner or later it will be time for more camera deployments. Technology is already in place for emissions cameras, HOV lane cameras, Noise Violation cameras, tire tread cameras and much more.

RedLight cameras do exist to make a profit. For an example, let's check out Ohio!

Ohio City Lays Off Workers as Red Light Camera Revenue Falls

Third Ohio City Proposes Camera Ban

The State of Arizona deployed over 100 red light and speed cameras for the purpose of balancing the state budget.

There were areas around the country where this occured. What usually occurs is attempts to shorten the yellow light period, or with speed cameras to decrease the margin where you're photographed for speeding.

Sorry, there's numerous reports that show while fatal crashes might decrease, the total amount of crashes actually increases quite a lot.

Houston Red Light Camera Report Undermines TxDOT Camera Study

Avondale, Arizona Red Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents

There's well over a dozen reports showing red light cameras cause more accidents.

greg985

Majority of cities report and increase of wrecks at intersections with red light cameras.

http://ticketcams.wordpress.com/2008...oot-up-wildly/

http://www.motorists.org/ma/RLCstats.html

04RX8man

I know for ppl around here they just really odn't have even with red light cameras ppl still run them haha

Socket7

You know. I'm totally cool with an increase in non fatal crashes if it means less fatalities. So someone slams on their brakes and the person behind them rear ends them at 10 mph. 2 bumpers are destroyed, but nobody gets killed, just some bumps and bruises.

Yup. Human life. Totally worth it. Metal is easy to replace. Meat is not.

Davey's RX-8

iTrader: (1)

Yawn. Just like DUI checkpoints are for the public safety too right? Do you really believe waiting in line for 15 minutes to tell the officer, "No zipperhead with a badge, I haven't been drinking" is a minimal intrusion in the interests of public safety?

I don't dispute people running red lights are dangerous. Unlike you, I know how politicians think and understand why they do the things they do.

Just like on the thread for instituting a miles tax instead of a gasoline tax, the reason is because revenues from the gas tax are declining. Why do you think so many roads and bridges that had tolls instituted to pay the bonds issued to pay for the project still have tolls, usually twenty times higher than initially imposed, DECADES after the bonds were paid off? Or that there is no such thing as a temporary tax increase?

At some point you need to understand that the bureaucracy of the government needs to be expanded to sustain the bureaucracy of the government, and that the government watching and intruding on every aspect of our lives is NOT a good thing. Doesn't it bother you in the least that laws are constantly being enacted to prevent you from inflicting accidental harm to yourself? Given the inherent stupidity on constant display from our elected officials, do you truly believe they are smarter than you and know better? Or truly care about anything other than their own power base and are indeed concerned with their constituency for its own sake?

I sat at a fundraiser two years ago for a local politician who spoke to my company about voting for his chosen candidate for governor, and he mentioned how felt a certain law the state had passed was somehow unconstitutional. I then asked him, why if he felt it was so wrong, it was a unanimous vote in favor when it passed. Silence.

I disagree. I value my car far more than I value most people.

Flashwing

While I won't lay the blame at the feet of pedestrians, people crossing intersections have a responsibility for their own safety. Having lived in/near a major city all my life and attending a 40,000+ student university, I can tell you that 90% of the pedestrians have no idea how to handle intersections.

First and foremost, the car has the right of way. I know the law says different but physics trumps law. The fact is, the car is much bigger than you.

Keeping yourself safe from red light runners is as simple as looking both ways, watching traffic and paying attention.

Now, the same can be said for people who run red lights. I don't agree with people who feel it's ok. Still, I recognize that the purpose of cameras is to capitalize on the crime by generating revenue.

There's statistical evidence to show that most people who get speeding tickets don't slow down after getting the ticket. The deturrent factor doesn't work if it's not effective.

You all might not care about red light cameras cause you don't run red lights, hell you might not care about speeding cameras cause you don't speed. Sooner or later there will be traffic enforcement which directly impacts you but it will be too late to reverse the process.

You won't find a single person that doesn't break at least one law every day. How sick are we as a society that an average person is made a criminal all in the name of balancing the budget!

If the government was interested in public safety they would attack the problem at the source which is driver's education.

State governments should work with insurance companies to provide discounts for drivers taking performance driving classes or participating in local race events where education is given. I've been autocrossing for a year now and I'm 100% more of a better driver than I was last year.

Proper evaluation of highways and local roads should be conducted so accurate speed limits are set. If it's found that an average speed of a 75mph highway is 80mph then the limits need to be risen. People should be allowed to drive at a speed which they are satisfied with.

Instead of making criminals out of average citizens, we should be making sure people know how to control their vehicle within it's limits.

Davey's RX-8

iTrader: (1)

I did some research last year on the speed limits on some roads in the area as I was trying to dertermine if I had a CA speed trap defense on a speeding ticket. The traffic and engineering office is supposed to conduct speed surveys of non-federal highways no less than once every seven years. They do in fact comply with that. The purpose is to determine what the posted speed limit should be based on the 85% percentile of the speeds observed at a location, rounded down to the next 5 mile an hour increment, unless there is compelling reason (accident rate or unique factors) to lower it further. In most cases, it was in fact lowered beyond that 5 mile increment with the only explanation being as a reference to a state agency guideline, which of course when you get to the agency's guidelines, they are completely irrelevant to the road and survey you looked at.

In other words, if the survey's 85% percentile was 52, the posted speed limit should be 50, instead I found it would be set at 45. Big difference? Eh, in the overall scheme of things, it really matters only if you're speeding and that 5 mph impacts how far over you are and the associated fine. It's more indicative of the mentality behind traffic enforcement, and I'm certain most cops (except CHP) take that into consideration when they are making stops if they make it at all.

Let me make one thing clear: Blowing a red light for any reason other than life or death should not be tolerated and it is a public safety issue. My beef is using technology to always be looking over people's shoulders. If Texas truly felt this was a public safety issue, the ticket would be a point on the driver's license (or whatever Texas calls it) in addition to the fine. Making it a civil offense/infraction/parking ticket with a small fine is a waste of time other than to raise money.

cjkim

your friend is a moron. running a red is a dumb mistake. running a red on purpose is just retarded.

Flashwing

Very interesting. It's clear that some roads warrant speed limit changes due to their surroundings. Arizona typically has a 65/45 mph common occurance. Highways are normally 65mph and surface roads 45mph.

I'm curious about your research but it sounds typical of what I would expect. The fact remains that if the limit was set close to what people drive that there would be less speeding and therefore reduced revenue.

Next time you pass through a "speed trap" be sure to note the road conditions, surroundings and overall conditions. What you'll find is there are no changes to the road, it's surroundings or any other factor which would warrant a speed limit change.

Highways in Phoenix are great examples. When you get close to downtown, the limit drops from 65mph to 55mph, then it goes back up to 65mph when you leave the downtown area. The highway and overall construction remain unchanged.

That can make a pretty big difference when you factor in photo radar. With 10mph or less of a buffer it's easy to see why people would get caught doing 55mph in a 45...cause that speed feels safe!

100% Agreed. The reason Texas and now Arizona decided to forgo points, and insurance notification is to passify the public. They don't want you fighting tickets, they want you paying them. If people were facing skyrocketing premiums or losing their license they would be clogging the courts with ticket challanges.

As I said, the government can claim all day it's about public safety. It's not. Even worse is government realize the cameras will cause an increase in traffic accidents.

The AZ state budget set aside funds to reinforce the rears of police cruisers and add fire suppression equipment because the government anticipated a higher risk of rear end accidents from camera deployments.

Razz1

Is there anything wrong with stopping before making a right hand turn?

Be safe.

Keep it on the track if you want to take risks......

greg985

that picture was actually from a speed camera

Socket7

Makes me wonder why you people vote for politicans who shorten yellow lights to make traffic cameras a source of profit.

I think that, and the resulting increase in accidents caused by shortening yellow lights is a failure of your politicians, not the camera systems.

Red light cameras in California have been really beneficial with regards to traffic accidents. They are placed at high risk intersections only, they don't shorten the yellow lights. After seeing someone take a LEFT on red just the other night and miss being T-boned by INCHES. I think we should have more cameras out there, as well as a cop who does nothing but serve people with their court dates for running red lights.

But yeah. None of these systems would make any money at all if you, you know, stopped at red lights.

I guess that's hard for people though.

RX8-Frontier

No they're not...

They are observation cameras, but they're for accident observation, and to direct EMS to the scene faster.

Only time you use cameras to count traffic is if you're too freaking scared to go put out tubes on an multi-lane interstate... Traffic volumes are counted either by hand for intersection turn movement counts, or they're done with ground loops (either temparary or permanent) with automatic counters. They're not done by camera very often at all... You want turn movement counts, you send two people out with counting boards to an intersection for the AM and PM peak traffic hours, and they bash buttons like they're playing some sadistic game of bingo... Then you take the info. you get back to the office, play with numbers for a bit to adjust for months/days... Take those numbers into your signalling software and work a little magic to come up with your yield time, turn movement times, and any particular signal timings you need to do. Basic software is boring like an excel spreadsheet...advanced software builds a full model you get to play with like you were a little kid again with play cars in your play-land....

RotaryResurrection

iTrader: (3)

What must it be like to live in such a neat, black-and-white world, where there is never any doubt as to the right course of action. I envy you my friend.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

(Flashwing please don't take any of this as an angry flame, I respect you very highly, my comments are not targeted at you personally. Just my counterpoint to yours)

Interesting. The best arguement against red light cameras I have ever seen. Still...

...this.

It's all about responsibility. If you don't want to let the red light cameras be a source of revenue to the city, then don't run a red light and you will be denying them that fee every single time. And if the moron behind me hits me because he was expecting me to run the red light, well, his insurance gets to pay for some upgrades, and I might just have saved someone else's life preventing him from running it. At no point am I willing to transfer fault of accident from the guy behind me to myself along with a drastically increased risk of injury.

Please don't complain the city/state is collecting your money when you have every opportunity to keep it to yourself, and you are simply too lazy to make that effort, and too irresponsible to acknowledge that your wrongful action was actually your own fault.

I have 1, or more, close calls every single day from people running red lights. I am HAPPY when I see the bulb flashes go off. Just maybe they might not come so close to killing someone after they get the ticket, and just maybe their fine dollars will improve an inch of the road surface I drive on every day. I am no angel. I speed. Hell, I have done it excessively. (I am really working on improving that) Ask blackenedwings on here, and my >10 speeding tickets, 3 speed trap tickets, and 3 suspensions (all over 3 years ago). But I DON'T run red lights or stop signs. As soon as a light is turning yellow, I begin braking, and have been known to be at a complete stop at the light just prior to it turning red. I don't do this carelessly of the person behind me, but I also do not allow their impatience to 'push' me through the intersection.

Cameras or not, there is no possible justification that would put me 'in the right', and my 8, my finances, my insurance, and my health can't afford to take that risk.

Can yours?

marvin_rock

Not trying to get into whether it's morally correct or what portion of the debate, just pointing out what I saw with my own two eyes in a Virginia court a number of years back.

Police officer or someone of the law was the "prosecutor" and there was a father up on a ticket of running a red light that was caught on a red light camera. The Defendant said he wasn't sure who was driving as it was the holidays and that's the family car they were all trucking around in that day. Wasn't visible at all in the picture just like the OP's picture. Judge dismissed the case. Roughly 4 more cases followed and all 4 people followed the first defendants statement - didn't know who was driving. All four were dismissed.

So I dunno if it's diff in Virginia or what, but all 5 cases I watched were considered innocent until proven guilty.

Socket7

I can count the number of times I've run a red light on 1 finger, and that one time I skidded to a halt in the middle of the intersection and had to change my pants. Ever since that one time I wasn't paying attention I've been much more careful.

How many times have you run a red light? How many times have you been caught by a red light camera? None? Once, by accident?

What kind of bizzaro world do you live in where red means go?

I never said that I never break the law, I have always maintained that if you break the law and get caught you need to suck it up and pay the consequences. I hold myself to the same standards as I'd hold anyone else. If adhering to my own standards and expecting others do the same if they want praise from me means I'm an elitist *****, well at least I'm an elitist ***** who doesn't believe that it's ok not to stop at a red light.

You can argue the merits of red light cameras, you can argue it being a civil or criminal violation, you can call people ******** if you want too. None of it changes the fact that going through an intersection when you don't have right of way is dangerous for both you, and those around you. Doing anything but condemning such behavior is enabling reckless driving.

Davey's RX-8

iTrader: (1)

That was exactly what I determined on the road I looked at first doing my research. The road I was on, I was paced doing over 60 on a posted 45. The stretch of road from red light to red light has no intersections, no homes, no businesses, no sidewalks, and no parking is allowed. It has a fairly steep descent into a canyone and equally steep ascent out, and a couple of winds to the road but nothing that requires much effort to negotiate. Oddly enough, the traffic survey for the opposite side of the road had an 85th percentile of 48mph and had the same posted 45 as the side with an 85th percentile of 52.