Guess what...

[Owens]

Well, the ones in Lubbock went bye-bye! Caused more wrecks, woefully short on expected revenue.

[Mike1951]

A short article in the Chronicle's Parade magazine today stated that rear-end collisions had increased 15% where the cameras were installed due to abrupt stops.

[WildBill]

A short article in the Chronicle's Parade magazine today stated that rear-end collisions had increased 15% where the cameras were installed due to abrupt stops.

But, it's all about safety, not collecting revenue!

[srothstein]

I love how they report this paragraph as if it's a problem:

Exacerbating the drain is a new state law requiring that municipalities send half of their net red-light-running camera revenue to Austin and post signs alerting drivers of upcoming camera installations. Also, city records indicate Dallas has lengthened yellow-light intervals on 12 of its 62 monitored traffic signals, giving motorists more time to beat a red light.

So less people are running red lights, and that's a problem. It seems the folks down at The Dallas Morning News are beginning to master the principles or Incsoc and doublespeak.

Oh, they mastered it quite well. Consider that they glossed over the word net. The law says the city can keep all of the revenue that is needed to pay for the camera system. They only have to send in half of the profit from it.

The rest is supposed to be put into a special fund for traffic safety related issues anyway, so there should be no drain on the general fund unless the overall system is not paying for itself.

[ELB]

I'm with Charles -- redlight cameras are about money, not safety.

Some studies and articles you all may be interested in...

Article:
Latest Research Suggests Red Light Cameras Increase Crashes]

Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Florida’s elderly drivers, the researchers recommend.

Study reported on: Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?


Article: Pavement Marking Reduces Red Light Running

New research sponsored by Florida's Department of Transportation suggests a number of effective engineering alternatives can reduce red light running. Using an advanced driving simulator to monitor the reactions of ordinary drivers, University of Central Florida researchers concluded that improving street markings near intersections reduced red light running by 74 percent without increasing the likelihood of rear end collisions.

Study reported on: Red Light Running and Limited Visibility Due to LTV's using the UCF Driving Simulator

Unfortunately, I can't at the moment find the URL for the following report. I saved a PDF of it, but not the url, and I can only find references to it when I search, not the whole report. The report is entitled: AN EVALUATION OF RED LIGHT CAMERA (PHOTO-RED) ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS IN VIRGINIA: A REPORT IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST BY VIRGINIA’S SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION. Here is from the executive summary:

The data from four jurisdictions—Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls Church, and
Vienna—suggested that photo-red enforcement reduced the number of crashes directly
attributable to red light running, i.e., crashes where one or more drivers were charged with
failure to yield to a stop-go light. Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to
a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in
injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes.

and finally, one I really enjoyed:

Ruling to refund 147 PhotoCop fines may be just a startBy Joy Powell, Star Tribune
Last update: October 02, 2007 – 12:30 AM
Thousands of people could reclaim up to $2.8 million in fines paid after their vehicles were videotaped going through red lights in Minneapolis, thanks to a ruling Monday that applies to a smaller number of people who sued.
Hennepin County District Judge Mark Wernick found that 147 people who asked to have their red-light cases reopened should get back $142 apiece in fines they paid because the Minnesota Supreme Court has deemed illegal Minneapolis' use of the so-called "PhotoCop" cameras.
And beyond those people, who filed motions without an attorney, up to 15,000 more vehicle owners who had paid tickets could find relief down the road.
If those "PhotoCop" cases are eventually thrown out, the process could involve refunding anywhere from $2.3 million to $2.8 million paid to the city, said Marshall Tanick, one of the attorneys representing clients in a separate federal suit. It's not as simple as cutting everyone a check, though, because the city gave portions of the fine money to the county.
Still, Tanick said, "We're very pleased with the ruling by Judge Wernick.
"It helps advance the constitutional rights of all of the people who received Photo-Cop tickets," he said. "As far as its effect on the federal class action, we think that it will be very helpful in assuring that all people who paid the fine get a refund."
In the spring, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the program violated statewide traffic laws. The court found that ticketing the owners of cars that were videotaped without proof of who was actually driving the car violated the rights of the owners. The photos did not show who was driving, but the owners had to go to court if they wanted to challenge the ticket.
"They automatically cited the owner, even if the owner wasn't driving," Tanick said.
The state Supreme Court's finding that the city had no authority to institute a system that videotaped cars running red lights had affirmed a March 2006 ruling by Wernick. At that time, about 5,000 such cases were pending; all were dismissed.
Still, an additional 15,000 to 20,000 people have already paid their tickets, and at issue is whether they will get their money back and their records cleared, and how that might happen.
On Monday, Wernick ruled that the 147 claimants who asked that their cases be reopened should have their guilty pleas withdrawn, the charges dismissed and all fines, surcharges and fees returned. Also, anyone who paid prosecution costs as part of a suspended prosecution should get money back, too, he ruled.
The city, which has five days to appeal, is studying Monday's ruling to determine its implications, said Matt Laible, a spokesman for the city. Of the $142 fine payment, the city receives roughly 30 percent and the rest goes to the county, Laible said. The fine itself is approximately $54 out of the $142, he said, and the rest is surcharges and fees, such as for a law library.
City officials will be faced with deciding whether to set up a mechanism to simply dismiss charges and refund fines to anyone else who received such a ticket and has already paid.
Wernick ruled that in the case of the 147 claimants, since the city collected the fine, it will be up to the city to pay it back, even after the money has been split with the county.
Now that the law has been declared invalid, Tanick said, all charges should be rescinded and the money refunded to anyone affected.
"They collected it wrongfully," Tanick said. "Now they should go back and figure out how to get it back."
The "PhotoCop" program began in 2005 and led to tickets issued against more than 26,000 vehicle owners, but not all had paid fines, Tanick said.
He said a hearing is set for November on making the federal claim a class-action suit.
Joy Powell • 612-673-7750
Joy Powell • jpowell@startribune.com

[KBCraig]

Always good reading:

http://thenewspaper.com/

Check out the sentences for "showing disrespect to a camera" in the UK. They also have an article on the Trans-Texas Corridor and the slimy deals being made.

[WarHawk-AVG]

Always good reading:

http://thenewspaper.com/

Check out the sentences for "showing disrespect to a camera" in the UK. They also have an article on the Trans-Texas Corridor and the slimy deals being made.

http://thenewspaper.com/news/22/2273.asp

Whaaaaaat!?!?!

And they give a real criminal a slap on the wrist

[3dfxMM]

A short article in the Chronicle's Parade magazine today stated that rear-end collisions had increased 15% where the cameras were installed due to abrupt stops.

But, it's all about safety, not collecting revenue!

To be fair, the article also stated that the number of side-impact collisions is down by quite a large percentage. It also stated that side-impact collisions are typically more dangerous than rear-impact collisions.

[Briankey]

Isn't there a way to get around those redlight cameras?, how about a dirty License plate on front and back?, would seem to me that if the Robot can't see the letters, then you can't get busted?.
Just curious.

Brian

[srothstein]

Lots of ways around the red light cameras, including stopping for the light.

A dirty or obscured license plate may get you around the cameras, but it is more likely to get you stopped other times. The law specifically says the license plate must be clean and readable. It forbids such things as covers that change the color or reflectiveness of the plate. That was part of the big stink two years ago. The law forbid a frame which obscures any design element of the plate, and the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that even one star blocked was illegal. That part was fixed last year so now it is the letters and the state name that must be visible.

[Liberty]

I think the English have started to take this seriously.

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

[melkor41]

What happened to the right to face our accuser?

[justinb138]

What happened to the right to face our accuser?

They get around that with the whole 'civil fine' thing.

[stevie_d_64]

Supposedly, there is a video that they check to see if you entered the intersection on the yellow light.

In Dallas, when you receive your notice in the mail, you also get a link to your video.

Charles - in reference to your rant: there are plenty of officers in Dallas that agree with you on this one. The media up this way has been showing lots of reports where they've found that the city has "decreased" the length of the yellow light from what it was prior to the cameras being installed. They said that it's still within guidelines but the reporters have found several instances where they are short cycling. The various city reps say that's too bad but they are keeping them this way.

Red Light Cameras almost got banned during the last legislation session so that might be the only way to stop them.

Oh yeah, Speeding Cameras are just around the corner. You think that Red Light Cameras cause controversy, just wait until speeding cameras start going up all around the state. The media ran a story about a town in North Texas that put one up and the residents were going crazy about it. It's portable so it gets moved all the time.

It's portable??? hmmmmm, idea creeps into muh head...poof...there it went...

[stevie_d_64]

What happened to the right to face our accuser?

Well, you may have a point there...If the camera is not there when I go to court to fight this...I could make a motion for dismissal...If I receive a citation...

To this date, I have not...