Interesting Article on Red Light Cameras

Obviously as stated in the article, "the camera lights generate a huge source of revenue." I do feel that they make driving more dangerous since the majority of people are scared when they see a yellow light, panic, and slam on the breaks or jerk the car to one side. More often than not it is safer to run a red light then slamming the brakes.

 

Sorry but that is the stupidest thing in the world to blame a red light camera in an intersection for the two idiots behind you rear ending you. Camera or not what if there is a pedestrian or an ambulance going threw the intersection are you going to blame the ambulance for the two idiots behind you rear ending you? What a Stupid article.....I am sick of reading this dribble about people wining about red light cameras. Ok I am off my soap box...

 

I'm kind of with you on this. Seems like the most common avoidable accident occurs from someone running a red light. If everbody plays by the rules, things are pretty safe. Having or not having a camera at an intersection shouldn't have an effect on whether or not someone stops at a red like they should, it just identifies those that don't.

For me, the only thing that is really altered in my driving habits are this. When I'm approaching an intersection that I know has cameras, & has a stale green light, I will tend to increase my speed more than normal just to make sure I clear it. In doing so, I am still fully prepared to come to a stop should the light change to red.

 

If someone stops in the middle of the intersection and your left out there to get photographed that is the risk you are willing to take. But it doesnt mean you are going to rear end the person in front of you to avoid getting photographed.....

 

I vote for removing the red light cameras and the corresponding requirement for front license plates

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1zIGPyJunI&feature=player_embedded

This one is my favorite...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85NCqSZAEmw&feature=related

 

Public needs to fight back! We need more of this...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T43LtGNFLPw

 

I think the point was when a driver decides to stop prematurely(realizing that there is a red light camera) just to be sure that he does not get ticketed, and the following cars get surprised when the the car at the front suddenly decides to stop.

I agree with you 100% that one should be prepared to stop no matter what happens at the front. What IS wrong is the "sales pitch" that these devices help prevent accidents, when the real motive is the profit for the city and the company that installs and manages these devices.

 

That makes sense....

 

Brilliant!! And very James Bond.

I agree, no issue with red light cameras.

My issue is with fixed speed limits, regardless of conditions, time of day, traffic flow, etc. I spent 4 years of my life (college) driving on 55 mph Interstates across the flat, empty state of Ohio. If we're going to fix stupid traffic laws, I would start there.

 

If the posted sign says "speed limit", that is a recommended speed, and not an absolute limit. It is actually legal to exceed that limit if it is reasonably safe to do so(except for school zones and as long as you do not go over 55mph which is the maximum limit for undivided highways). Likewise, if the conditions are very bad, you can theoretically get a ticket for driving at the speed limit.

If the posted sign says " maximum speed", then that is the absolute maximum speed which you cannot exceed even if it is safe to do so.

 

Now that I've moved to Louisiana (the other LA), I've come to see a great deal of corruption behind these systems. A friend of mine got a SPEEDING ticket from one of these camera systems that is installed in New Orleans and when she showed it to me, I realized a huge hole in the way the system is administered.

Unlike in CA, the tickets here are issued to the owner of the vehicle, and regardless of who was operating the vehicle, it is the owner's liability to pay the ticket or risk having the vehicle impounded. They do not take a picture of the driver when snapping red light and intersection speeding tickets, just the rear license plate.

I spoke with the "customer service" employee and questioned why someone would be held liable for the actions of someone else. After all, if I lend my car to a friend, and he plows into someone else, it is not considered my fault. Driving a vehicle is legal.... driving it recklessly is an individual behavior.

The loop they are using is treating the tickets as a civil offense, which is supposedly much harder to contest. The problem is that the city/county/state that gets into bed with these vendors has a guaranteed source of zero cost revenue. The average red light ticket here is $85 (I know, cheap compared to CA standards), but $35 of each ticket goes to the vendor in AZ. They provide all of the setup and maintenance of the cameras and web site.

As long as the local gov't can claim safety has improved, they have a limitless ATM machine that goes straight into the coffers. I think this is a serious issue and needs to be sent up to the supreme court to be decided upon. Many states have already ruled these cameras to be illegal.

 

There is a minimum standard amount of time (set by each state's DOT) based on the individual speed of that road for the amber light cycle. Most places will mess with this cycle time in order to ensure revenue collection.

This is not only illegal (and it is worth asking who creates the law here, who decides what is appropriate, etc) - it is highly unsafe. There is direct correlation and causation between shorter amber cycles and accidents, and the opposite. If safety was the goal, yellow light times would be longer. And more radical (though not really) but much safer would be the advent of dual-light systems (full red, red/amber, amber, amber/green, green).

To fight this, one needs to root out systemic issues with policy and address those. The people have rights, they just need to enforce them.

 

My wife got flashed by a red light camera in Los Angeles several months ago and she was quite surprised at how fast the light turned to red. Fortunately, we never received the citation notice by mail because the car was registered under my name. In California, the photo has to prove the identity of the driver.

 

Interesting. Is that last sentence true? I thought that the way CA worked (legal or not, I don't know) is that the notice is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, and that it is the owner's responsibility to provide the name of the driver if not himself.

 

Yes, the photo has to be clear enough to prove that it was you who was driving. Since they only have around 15 days(if I recall correctly) to send you the citation for the citation to be valid, they really do not have enough time or the means to try to find out the identity of the driver if it is not the registered owner. Even if you do go to court and admit that it was your wife who actually drove the car, she was not named in the citation and by that time it would be too late for them to cite a different person.

 

So all motorcyclists are effectively exempt (assuming their helmeted heads will prevent positive identification)?

 

I would think so.

 

Lots of articles on red light cameras if you look around - e.g:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp

which is a great deal more comprehensive than the first article, and

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_redlight_orwell.htm

San Diego has been in the news a lot - largely because of people fighting back against the cameras.


Thing that I think is reprehensible is the use of reduced yellow light time in order to increase the number of tickets - so people begin slamming on their brakes when the light is yellow even when they can't safely stop before the intersection.

Other interesting sites:
http://www.hwysafety.com/
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

 

We are beating most of the red light tickets in LA and Orange County. One commissioner in OC threw out all Santa Ana red light camera tix because the contract with the vendor, redflex, was not "cost neutral". Others have been tossed on yellow light timing, or under the evidence code as inadmissable hearsay, or the municipalities failure to properly warn drivers under the code. There are a dozen hoops they have to jump thru to prosecute these. All you need to do is know the rules. Unfortunately, many pro se defendants just roll over when they see the pic. Thats where the fun begins!

 

You don't have to pay.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=328068

 

Great! So only the responsible people were paying their tickets, while the lazy, stubborn, forgetful and/or deadbeats carried on with no consequences? Can the IRS work like this too?

The cameras were a stupid idea and I'm glad they will soon be taken down. It's just like playing musical chairs. I have a mini anxiety attack every time I go through an intersection.

 

Drivers can disregard red-light camera tickets in L.A.

Richard M. Tefank, executive director of the city's Board of Police Commissioners, told the Budget and Finance Committee that the tickets are part of a "voluntary payment program" without sanctions for those who fail to submit fines.

"The consequence is somebody calling you from one of these collection agencies and saying 'pay up.' And that's it," said committee member and Councilman Bill Rosendahl. "There's no real penalty in terms of your driver's license or any other consequences if you don't pay."

Never got one myself but have friends who did and paid.

Kinda sucks,

Bill