Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Red-Light Cameras Arenít the Bonanza Cities Expected
Miami Herald ^ | Saturday, 07.23.11 | DAVID WALTER

Posted on 07/23/2011 11:57:32 PM PDT by nickcarraway

The defendants stood before the hearing officer, traffic citations in hand, each accused of running a red light in Miami Gardens, as captured by one of the city’s 29 intersection cameras.

Within minutes, seven of the cases were dismissed, with the hearing officer ruling they had tripped the cameras while making a legal right turn on red.

The remaining three, who will now have to pay a $277 ticket, were sent off with a cheerful “Have a good day … and drive carefully.’’ While presumably those three violators weren’t happy with the outcome, neither are the municipalities in South Florida that expected the red-light cameras to rev up city revenues. The financial windfalls haven’t come, partially because of the costs involved in operating the red-light programs and also because they’ve proven surprisingly susceptible to court challenges.

This summer, officials in several cities have raised the possibility of ending the programs or renegotiating their contracts with the provider.

Twenty-six municipalities use red-light cameras across Miami-Dade and Broward counties. In the future, the cameras’ fate in these cities and towns will likely hinge on a question that has already proven easy to debate but might be hard to answer definitively: Are the safety benefits the cameras may deliver worth the cost to towns in money and resources?

Last July, when a state law gave cities explicit authority to operate the cameras, fines from the cameras were projected to bring in millions to cities at a time when the tough economic climate was drying up other revenue sources.

But cities aren’t getting the windfall they anticipated. Miami, which has 63 cameras at its intersections, predicted $8 million in revenue from the cameras in its 2011 budget. As of June, the city has collected only $1 million. Hollywood, with 18 cameras, originally projected $1.8 million in revenue but now expects closer to $500,000. And of the money the programs do pull in, cities should expect to hang onto only a sliver.

Take Fort Lauderdale, for example. The city anticipated $3.2 million in revenue from its six cameras, but as of Thursday they had generated a little more than $1 million. Of that, nearly half goes back to the state as required under the 1-year-old law; the city will pay $300,000 to American Traffic Solutions, the company that installed and operates the cameras in Broward and Miami-Dade; and court and administrative costs to the city will take out another chunk, said city spokesman Mark Little. Not every city has been disappointed. Last year, North Miami anticipated $369,080 in red-light-camera revenues and actually collected $977,159. This year, Aventura has already collected $787,007, more than what it expected for the entire year.

Even so, no city can claim a significant source of revenue from the cameras, which doesn’t surprise ATS’ spokesman Charles Territo.

“Over time, red-light safety cameras change driver behavior,” Territo said. “And that behavior leads to fewer violations, and fewer violations leads to less revenue.”

Focusing on revenues misses the point, Territo said. “The role of enforcement is not to generate revenue for a city,” he said. Rather, the goal of camera enforcement is to save lives, and should be judged on those terms. Still, even a city like Pembroke Pines, which did not factor camera revenues into its 2011 budget, is considering a new deal with ATS that would have the city pay nothing to the company until its cameras start operating in the black.

Pembroke Pines’ busiest camera, at eastbound Pines Boulevard at 129th Avenue, has generated 2,280 citations since last July 1. But another camera, located northbound on Southwest 136th Avenue at Pines Boulevard, has generated only four citations since that date.

Territo said his company is willing to negotiate flexible arrangements for other cities in the region to ease concerns about profitability.

Abandoning the cameras altogether is harder to do — as Hialeah has found out.

In June, the Hialeah City Commission voted 4-1 to end the program, which during the previous year brought in about $125,000.

“Our citizens made it very clear that they were opposed to those cameras,’’ said Mayor Carlos Hernandez. “They pretty much understood that it was a matter of revenue, not a matter of decreasing accidents.”

But the cameras aren’t being switched off yet. The city may have to negotiate a settlement with ATS in order to extract itself from the multiyear contract it signed with the company, which installs the cameras for free. As Hialeah mulls its options, the two cameras in use at the time of the “no” vote will remain in operation, though several others that had been installed will not be switched on. And Hernandez will continue to rail against what he sees as unwarranted government intrusion. “I don’t believe that those cameras are legal. And that is being shown in many courts right now,” he said. While Miami-Dade courts have generally accepted camera practices, several Broward judges have seen fit to dismiss red-light tickets, questioning the very constitutionality of the program.

Most daunting for towns are the cases that are dismissed because defendants hire attorneys like Ted Hollander. His law group, the Ticket Clinic, has led the fight against red-light fines in Broward and Miami-Dade. It even offers a no-conviction money back guarantee.

Their tactics have been especially effective in Broward. In one Broward traffic court, out of 830 tickets challenged between July 2010 and May 2011, only 44 were upheld.

“The statute is so poorly written. There’s so much that’s unclear,’’ Hollander said. “We go to court and fight for hours and hours and hours.”

The Ticket Clinic also challenges the citations on constitutional grounds. In a June victory, Hollander persuaded a Broward judge to find the cameras violated the constitution’s equal-protection guarantee. He argued, somewhat counterintuitively, that it wasn’t fair that a red light ticket from a police officer leads to a $236 fine and points on a license, while a camera citation leads to a $158 fine and no points. Lawyers for the state are appealing the ruling.

Another constitutional issue raised is that owners whose cars were caught on camera zipping through a light while someone else was driving must somehow prove they weren’t the person behind the wheel. The burden of proof, lawyers maintain, should always be on the prosecution.

Hollander expects the various legal challenges to make their way through Florida’s higher courts in the next few months, in what he sees as a decisive period for the cameras’ future.

“These issues will go up on appeal,” he said, “and hopefully these cameras will be gone once and for all.” Territo had an opposite prediction.

“As judges become more familiar with how these programs operate, there will be fewer and fewer dismissals,’’ he said.

And, he added, the majority of those who receive citations simply pay the ticket rather than fight it. That’s because the ticket comes with a photo of the car after it has entered the intersection against the red light. The recipient is invited to access a website where there is a video showing the transgression in progress. Confronted with pictorial evidence — and cognizant of the fact that it costs $158 to pay by mail but $277 if you lose in court — most simply choose to pay by mail. Or at least they did in the beginning of the program.

But therein lies another constitutional issue. Lawyers argue that it is improperly coercive to penalize citizens for availing themselves of the courts. A logistical problem with the cameras is that they are tripped whenever a car enters an intersection against the red light. The problem: It is legal for drivers to enter against the light — provided they stop first — when making a right turn. That means the tapes must be reviewed before mailing out the ticket, an additional burden on cities.

Now, it would appear, even those right-turn tickets that passed the initial smell test are being routinely dismissed in court.

One Broward judge has caused further headaches for municipalities by insisting that they send a legal representative to red-light ticket hearings. That ups the cost for the cities, but if they fail to do so, the ticket is tossed out.

For all the aggravation that the citations cause, and for all their difficulties in the courts, there’s some indication that the cameras are at least working to change accident statistics for the better. In Hialeah, which voted to end the camera program, traffic fatalities decreased 17 percent from 2009 to 2010, when the city began the camera program.

Aventura reported a 60 percent decrease in accidents at one of its most dangerous intersections — at Northeast 199th Street and Biscayne Boulevard — under its own camera program. In North Miami, traffic accidents fell by 60 percent at red-light camera intersections in 2010, the year they were installed.

But camera opponents don’t think there’s any correlation between the red-light cameras and safety records. “There’s no evidence that these cameras do anything to stop accidents,” Hollander said.

Territo of ATS accused critics like Hollander of distorting a public-safety issue to suit their own needs. “People who get tickets more often than not frame themselves as victims,” he said. “The real victims are those who are injured or lose loved ones.”


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; cameras; redlightcameras; traffic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2011 11:57:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Tell that to our mayor in Houston. The voters voted it out. She recently turned them back on without a peep to the voter until the day she turned them on.

Can we say under the table deal?


2 posted on 07/24/2011 12:03:53 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The city anticipated $3.2 million in revenue from its six cameras, but as of Thursday they had generated a little more than $1 million. Of that, nearly half goes back to the state as required under the 1-year-old law; the city will pay $300,000 to American Traffic Solutions, the company that installed and operates the cameras in Broward and Miami-Dade; and court and administrative costs to the city will take out another chunk, said city spokesman Mark Little. Not every city has been disappointed. Last year, North Miami anticipated $369,080 in red-light-camera revenues and actually collected $977,159. This year, Aventura has already collected $787,007, more than what it expected for the entire year.

Wow, that's a lot of monetary public safety!

Why with revenues like THAT Ft. Lauderdale HAS to be the safest city in the country to drive in.

It give a warm a fuzzy feeling knowing that public servants have such caring hearts for the well being of drivers to take so much of their money.

3 posted on 07/24/2011 12:03:54 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

lol!!

This is great.


4 posted on 07/24/2011 12:09:22 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
But camera opponents don’t think there’s any correlation between the red-light cameras and safety records. “There’s no evidence that these cameras do anything to stop accidents,” Hollander said.

If they were for safety's sake they wouldn't use them.

There have been reports of intersection accident rates in some area's going up after implementing them.

5 posted on 07/24/2011 12:11:40 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Cry me a river.


6 posted on 07/24/2011 12:14:28 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

When revenue drops, they shorten the yellow lights...


7 posted on 07/24/2011 12:16:07 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
“The role of enforcement is not to generate revenue for a city,” he said.

Bull. Most of the cities installing these devices gave a lot of lip service to increasing safety, but what really sold them was the representations by the vendor of increased revenue. Some vendors even convince the municipality to decrease the yellow-light duration as a way of further augmenting revenue.

And I wonder if any studies have examined the effect of these devices on rear-ender accidents caused as panicked drivers slam on their brakes instead of safely proceeding through the intersection?

8 posted on 07/24/2011 12:17:18 AM PDT by Spartan79 (I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

More on previous comment: some evidence that cities shorten yellow light duration to increase revenue:

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/


9 posted on 07/24/2011 12:28:22 AM PDT by Spartan79 (I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79; All

Government/socialism at all levels local, state and federal is the cancer that is destroying America and our way of life.


10 posted on 07/24/2011 12:33:59 AM PDT by Democrat_media (Why is no government creating a product we can hold in our hands like a cell phone..?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79

There are many; the supermajority show that the cameras do increase the number of rear-end accidents at intersection.

Other studies show that if the concern is T-bone accidents at intersections, *lengthening* the yellow light at an intersection actually reduces accidents an average of about the same amount as the best case presented for the cameras. Cost to city: $0.

These cameras are ALL about revenue.


11 posted on 07/24/2011 12:34:35 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Back in the 90’s in Anchorage the problem quickly became how to keep people from shooting them in town. It got outta hand quick, and the Az Company left town with their cameras; of course the city had to pay a big fee to get out of contract and it about destroyed Begich’s career as he was the crook behind the scam. State passed a law for future, no red light cameras anywhere in Alaska.


12 posted on 07/24/2011 12:52:06 AM PDT by Eska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: microgood

Back in the 90’s in Anchorage the problem quickly became how to keep people from shooting them in town. It got outta hand quick, and the Az Company left town with their cameras; of course the city had to pay a big fee to get out of contract and it about destroyed Begich’s career as he was the crook behind the scam. State passed a law for future, no red light cameras anywhere in Alaska.


13 posted on 07/24/2011 12:52:27 AM PDT by Eska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eska

Alaskan’s bring a smile to my face.....


14 posted on 07/24/2011 1:13:02 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

Sadly, they learned from the Alaska experience and when they brought them to Texas, they encased them in armored boxes and put a surveillance camera high above on another pole to watch the entire installation.


15 posted on 07/24/2011 1:27:55 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

Yes they do!

They’ve been caught at it several times, but get away with flimsy excuses, correct the lights temporarily, and the cycle starts over again, and again, ......


16 posted on 07/24/2011 1:41:29 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition (Loyal Sedition, often described as "To the right of Attila The Hun"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
Corrupt politician's sure are sneaky. There has to be a way to spray paint them....will take some reconnaissance from someone Use a paint that cannot be cleaned off. Like rustoleum...(OK one can dream )....:O) take out the high surveillance first...
17 posted on 07/24/2011 1:46:30 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

— and cognizant of the fact that it costs $158 to pay by mail but $277 if you lose in court — most simply choose to pay by mail. Or at least they did in the beginning of the program.
But therein lies another constitutional issue. Lawyers argue that it is improperly coercive to penalize citizens for availing themselves of the courts.

Glad to see I am not the only one to notice this constitutional issue.

Of course our MSM is very busy indoctrinating us to believe that we really do not have ANY rights, cops are infallible, they always KNOW who the guilty party is immediately on meeting them. etc.
Pay attention to the activities of “Law Enforcement” on any TV show, our “Rights” are smirked at and skirted at every opportunity.
Warrant-less searches “I think I hear some one inside, hand me that rock”, intimidation of “suspects” - Yah Sarge, he tripped, and hit his head”, it goes on and on.

The cameras ARE for revenue, our rights are ignored in the quest for unenumerated taxes.

And politicians wonder why they are despised!


18 posted on 07/24/2011 1:52:19 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition (Loyal Sedition, often described as "To the right of Attila The Hun"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

I’ve seen those other studies. If it was about safety, the yellow light can be lengthened a minute amount and make a huge difference. But, as you said, this is about revenue.


19 posted on 07/24/2011 1:54:30 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

Time for some clever FR person with an interest in electronics to give us the plans for portable tightly focused microwave energy emitters.

Aw gee, the camera overheated again!

A good laser might do some good too, and they are already available.


20 posted on 07/24/2011 1:56:17 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition (Loyal Sedition, often described as "To the right of Attila The Hun"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Government fascism at its best. There is nothing more intrusive and feels more coersive than have citizens under constant surveillance by their government, and to be shaken down for every little break in the myriad of government rules, rules that citizens rarely have a say in how they are set (who sets where red lights should be, how long is the yellow light, what the speed limit should be), or whether the use of judgment in the application of those rules would be better.

Think about it: what would you say if there ws a camera to catch everybody who didn’t come to a complete stop at a stop sign? Would a rolling stop really decrease safety? What if the state prevents people from say, braiding hair for customers (a recent example in the excellent Stossel report) without a liscence and irrelevant training that costs $3K, if there was a way of detecting every perpetration of the “crime”, would citizens be for it? This is just government encroachment to legally shake down its citizens and grow its size using its coercive powers.
Even in the extreme case of real red light violations, we have been so conditioned to think that stopping at a red light is ALWAYS the thing to do, that we stopped questioning whether judgment shouldn’t be used there too. After all, if you see a red light and you have clear visibility that there is no other car coming to the intersection for long distances, why would logic dictate to stop and wait for a stupid red light to tell you to proceed?


21 posted on 07/24/2011 2:04:14 AM PDT by winner3000 (ss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

Knowing how smart freepers are there are probably a lot that could solve the problem and not get caught....I like the laser idea.....LOL


22 posted on 07/24/2011 2:11:42 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Are the safety benefits the cameras may deliver worth the cost to towns in money and resources?

...fines from the cameras were projected to bring in millions to cities at a time when the tough economic climate was drying up other revenue sources.

Anyone care to guess which of these is a real concern to the clowns who claim to care for municipalities?

23 posted on 07/24/2011 2:11:53 AM PDT by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

I do agree that say at 2:00am it is ridiclous to be sitting at a traffic light for two minutes with no moving traffic around. The places I have seen cameras at in my area are ones to avoid due to traffic backed up. I’ve also noticed in my area senior ranking Cops retiring to go to work to shill for these companies.


24 posted on 07/24/2011 2:19:52 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6
When revenue drops, they shorten the yellow lights...
In at least one country I could name, the traffic lights digitally display the time in seconds remaining before a light change.
'Course that wouldn't work in an advanced country like the United States . . . </sarcasm>

25 posted on 07/24/2011 3:03:01 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (DRAFT PALIN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Recently I watched six cars make their left turn after the light had changed to red.

There are legitimate concerns about the way people “obey” traffic lights.


26 posted on 07/24/2011 3:18:05 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Recently I watched six cars make their left turn after the light had changed to red.

There are legitimate concerns about the way people “obey” traffic lights.


27 posted on 07/24/2011 3:18:20 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Recently I watched six cars make their left turn after the light had changed to red. There are legitimate concerns about the way people “obey” traffic lights.

The places I usually see that happen the traffic light is not set for the traffic flow and lines are backed up pretty far waiting too turn. IOW one 18 wheeler gets out and no one else. Or two or three slow poke dawdling Nerds in no hurry whatsoever in their pulling out and turning. They make it through the light slowly but surely but you catch it.

28 posted on 07/24/2011 3:30:38 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Spartan79

Shortening cation light timing is common.

In Georgia, the State passed a law a few years back mandating that caution light timing conform to Federal timing recommendations. In no time, cities started shutting down their red light cameras because normal yellow light timing cut ticketing so much that the scam started costing more to operate then it brought in.


29 posted on 07/24/2011 3:45:15 AM PDT by phoneman08 (Reagan conservative union member. Not as rare as you think!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Are the safety benefits the cameras may deliver worth the cost to towns in money and resources?

Saftey??
It is not about safety. It is about money


30 posted on 07/24/2011 4:02:04 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If anyone cared to look, I believe they would find that most of the serious t-bone accidents at lights aren’t caused by people pushing the amber but by people just not seeing the light at all. If they are not intentionally violating the law, the cameras are not going to do a thing to stop the accidents. But, as pointed out by others, the cameras are not intended to save lives but to generate revenue.


31 posted on 07/24/2011 4:08:02 AM PDT by magslinger (Zombies make up much of the Democrat's base.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

When people elected to run the city start budgeting fines as a source of revenue. The voters need to start electing new responsible people to run and manage the city.


32 posted on 07/24/2011 4:10:57 AM PDT by org.whodat (Speaker West, name sounds good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

LOL, you need to be from a country that has traffic lights to know what they are for.


33 posted on 07/24/2011 4:13:57 AM PDT by org.whodat (Speaker West, name sounds good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr
Other studies show that if the concern is T-bone accidents at intersections, *lengthening* the yellow light at an intersection actually reduces accidents an average of about the same amount as the best case presented for the cameras. Cost to city: $0. These cameras are ALL about revenue.

I recall reading a study that stated "lengthening the yellow lights 2 seconds decreased accidents by almost 50%".

I believe that study was paid for by the insurance industry. Their reasoning that fewer claims paid out for rear end collisions where red light cameras were located and fewer T Bone wrecks at intersections without red light cameras.

As a wise person once said "When it comes to studies and new laws, always follow the money trail".

Cities want the red light revenue, insurance companies want less claims and I want less injures. I don't heal as fast as I once did.

34 posted on 07/24/2011 4:15:45 AM PDT by TYVets (Pure-Gas.org ..... ethanol free gasoline by state and city)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

“There have been reports of intersection accident rates in some area’s going up after implementing them.”

Anecdotal evidence indicates more rear end accidents due to people stomping the brake when the light turns yellow. Where I live, the mayor is a Marxist. The city has clearly adjusted the yellow timing to roughly 1/3 what it was. Also, the cops have set up speed traps and are ticketing for a few miles over the 30 mph limit, which is WAY too low for roads and conditions.


35 posted on 07/24/2011 4:18:06 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Here's a link to a video report about red light cameras in Virginia Beach, Virginia from earlier this year.

About revenue? $2.5 million in red light fines last year.

Virginia Beach's red light cameras investigated

Busier intersections may have a camera while dangerous intersections won't have a camera.

36 posted on 07/24/2011 4:29:09 AM PDT by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
How to stop speeders !

AH!Believable-Vol. 1-"Ridiculous Speed Sign"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b2xnWYx8YK8

37 posted on 07/24/2011 4:36:55 AM PDT by TYVets (Pure-Gas.org ..... ethanol free gasoline by state and city)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
Oppps

Try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2xnWYx8YK8

38 posted on 07/24/2011 4:53:58 AM PDT by TYVets (Pure-Gas.org ..... ethanol free gasoline by state and city)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
here on Long Island NY they are starting to install them...they do not put them where you can legally turn right on red....so there is no confusion on that issue(at least the ones I have seen)....

I am still not sure when I would get a ticket...if I am fully in the intersection when it turns red does that mean I get a ticket or that I made it and do not get a ticket...no one seems to know the facts on that one...I get different stories...

39 posted on 07/24/2011 5:10:43 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
In one NJ city, there has been a significant reduction in traffic volumes at the camera equipped intersections by drivers taking a parallel route around the camera equipped intersections. Some of these parallel routes are in residential neighborhoods and the roads were never designed as main thoroughfares.

There already has been an increase in traffic accidents coincident with the installation of the cameras and the increasing use of the parallel routes as word spreads.

One of the largest categories of violations is a driver failing to make a COMPLETE STOP before making a RIGHT TURN ON RED.
40 posted on 07/24/2011 5:12:27 AM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

simple...you shoot the surveillance camera high on the pole first...from a distance...with armor piercing bullets...then take out the offending ones last....also with armor piercing rounds...

I Kid....I Kid...


41 posted on 07/24/2011 5:15:04 AM PDT by Vaquero ("an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

But, but, but....those cameras were installed only for safety reasons!!! That’s what they told us!!!!!


42 posted on 07/24/2011 5:17:28 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
If you want, you can set your GPS to warn you about upcoming cameras while driving:

http://www.trapster.com/

43 posted on 07/24/2011 5:55:40 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
There has to be a way to spray paint them....

How about those paint ball weapons? They could probably hit the cameras from out of the range of their surveillance cameras.

44 posted on 07/24/2011 6:41:11 AM PDT by Dilbert56 (Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

The constitutional issue that concerns me is the lack of “due process” in these red-light camera proceedings.

The burden of proof should legally be with the prosecution. To get a conviction, an assistant DA should have to be present and make his case by showing not just that a moving violation occurred, but how they identified the driver. Lacking positive ID, the case should be dismissed.

It’s not against the law for me to simply be the registered owner of a car that runs a red light. It’s only against the law for me to be driving the vehicle when it runs the light.

It’s ridiculous to just look at the photo of the license plate, and mail a notice to the person they assume is the registered owner of that vehicle. The license plate might not be clear in the photo, or that plate might not be on the right vehicle, or the car might have recently been sold and not re-registered. And even if they get all that right, they still should have to positively ID the driver.

I also don’t think the registered owner of the vehicle should be coerced into helping the prosecution identify the driver.


45 posted on 07/24/2011 8:06:56 AM PDT by 04-Bravo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

In the part of the country where I live at least 5 of the 6 cars were native Americans. Probably 6 of 6.


46 posted on 07/24/2011 8:15:32 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I didn’t see it in the article, but an additional thing against red-light cameras is the fact that many people who normally might drive through a particular area, will avoid the area with red-light cameras to not risk getting a ticket. That means lost revenue for businesses and merchants. Plus all the extra people crowding the docket leads to increased expenses for the court. Red-light cameras are a bad idea whose time has passed.


47 posted on 07/24/2011 8:18:31 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

In other parts of the country, there has been a 15 to 18% increase in the number of hit and runs, cops are trying to determine what is the cause, give them ten are twenty years. They may come up with an answer


48 posted on 07/24/2011 8:21:59 AM PDT by org.whodat (Speaker West, name sounds good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Then how did I know at least a week or 2 ago that the cameras were going to be turned back on? I heard it on the radio and saw it on TV.


49 posted on 07/24/2011 8:23:03 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
They caught a guy in Knoxville tn last year doing that.
50 posted on 07/24/2011 8:24:03 AM PDT by org.whodat (Speaker West, name sounds good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson