It's About Revenue

F1nut

Recent studies of the effects and usage of red light cameras at intersections in Texas brought the website The Newspaper to the same conclusion that many motorists have: it's about revenue.

First let's look at some numbers: according to the NHTSA there were 34,017 fatal crashes in 2008, with 11,179 of them - and more than 800,000 injuries - attributed to speeding. Most of those fatalities occurred somewhere other than the Interstate, where the speed limit was under 55 miles per hour. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 260,000 "vehicle incidents" from people running red lights, resulting in almost 900 deaths.

That's 11,179 deaths vs. 900 deaths. In 2006, when traffic fatalities were higher, speeding was deemed the number one cause of death for people ages four to 34.

Yet the IIHS reports that as of December, 2009 only 52 communities use speed cameras. The number of communities that use red light cameras: 442. Almost nine times as many cities employ red light cameras for the stated goal of increasing safety even though speeding appears to be far more deadly.

The problematic issue with red light cameras brings up the same word that describes the problem with speed cameras: "trap." In the case of Texas, short yellow light times have been found to make it more likely someone will enter the intersection after the red begins to glow - and therefore make it easier to issue ticket.

In one case the length of a yellow light in El Paso was shortened by just a four-tenths of a second and citations jumped by 132%. In another case, a yellow light at a 45-mph intersection in Houston that lasted 3.6 seconds rang up 341% more tickets than the yellow lights at other, similar 45-mph intersections.

Opponents of the red light cameras point to the fact that the duration of yellow lights in these scenarios is often less than the minimum durations proposed by national and state traffic engineering bodies. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has a formula for determining how long a yellow light should stay illuminated, but intersections boasting red light cameras rarely follow those informal guidelines.

In 2003, a study by two researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute published a study that resulted in these findings: "(1) an increase of 0.5 to 1.5 s in yellow duration (such that it does not exceed 5.5 s) will decrease the frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent; (2) drivers do adapt to the increase in yellow duration; however, this adaptation does not undo the benefit of an increase in yellow duration; and (3) increasing a yellow interval that is shorter than that obtained from a proposed recommended practice published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is likely to yield the greatest return (in terms of a reduced number of red-light violations) relative to the cost of retiming a yellow interval in the field."

In plainer English: increase the time of a yellow light, reduce the number of accidents. A one-second increase in the yellow light time duration resulted in a 40-percent reduction in crashes and a 53% drop in violations.

Never mind the fact that many red light cameras are not installed at the intersections with the highest accident rates. And never mind the fact that while cameras are said to capture up to 90% of their violations in the first second of a light going red, the large majority of accidents due to people running red lights happens five seconds after a light has turned red.

What makes it easy for to ignore that facts is the huge amounts of money involved. In Coppell, one of those Texas towns studied, one red light camera issued $862,275 in tickets during a 1-year span. That's a healthy addition to the coffers in a town of just 39,000 people. Other, larger cities are known to reap millions from red light camera revenue.

And when it comes to short yellows, statistics and studies will pale in the face of the most important number of all: millions. Given the chance to address a municipal budget - and safety - the length of yellow lights is almost the same as a game of limbo: how low can you go?

And you thought it was about safety because that's what they told you.

treitz3

You're still pissed of about having to slow down to the speed limit for the camera in that one spot, aren't you?

What I think is that your people should contact my people and find out how my people got rid of the same thing you currently have.

That's what I think at least.

dorokusai

Wow, what a shocking article to those of us who knew about that a year ago. Montgomery County is heavy on the school zone cameras yet zero money goes to the educational system. It's "appointed" funds as determined by the county.

F1nut

dorokusai wrote: »

Wow, what a shocking article to those of us who knew about that a year ago. Montgomery County is heavy on the school zone cameras yet zero money goes to the educational system. It's "appointed" funds as determined by the county.

Despite those of us in the know, the majority are still drinking the Kool-Aid.

dorokusai

It sickens me Jesse...just plain ill about it all.

dkg999

We are from the government, and we are here to help

treitz3

dorokusai wrote: »

......yet zero money goes to the educational system.

That was the exact start to the end down here. Seriously, your people need to talk to my people.

janmike

That is truly sad.

I-SIG

Both photoradar and red-light cams are likely to be illegal in AZ after the next General Session.

Wes

zingo

And this is a surprise?

messiah

treitz3 wrote: »

You're still pissed of about having to slow down to the speed limit for the camera in that one spot, aren't you?

What I think is that your people should contact my people and find out how my people got rid of the same thing you currently have.

That's what I think at least.

Yep, it happened around here too! Greedy town got called out, and the cameras are gone.

hearingimpared

We have one here about a mile from my house. All it has done is cause people to come to a screeching halt causing rear end collisions. It's in a 50 mile per hour zone.

TNRabbit

I think a well-placed 30-06 round should take care of that camera~

amulford

treitz3 wrote: »

That was the exact start to the end down here. Seriously, your people need to talk to my people.

They did...

NJPOLKER

Hopefully the people will do the right things come every election day for years to come.
I like to run my own show and not have others impede on it.

vmaxer

TNRabbit wrote: »

I think a well-placed 30-06 round should take care of that camera~

:eek::eek:hehehe

nooshinjohn

More insidious than the money is the fact that their real goal is CONTROL. At the moment they control us through our wallets, but soon it will be done by what we have to spend and what we can spend our money on. Soon they will be telling us what kind of car we can drive and what we can eat.
Cap and Steal(they call it trade) and the healthcare Obamination are all they need. Once those are in place there will arise a manufactured crisis (total collapse of the system???) that will result in the suspension of the Constitution and that will be that. Welcome comrades to the USSA. The New York Times is already the new Pravda.

brettw22

Red light camera's are for revenue? shocker......

dkg999

brettw22 wrote: »

Red light camera's are for revenue? shocker......

I'll bet you also thought the healthcare bill was about making people healthier :eek:

madmax

I cleared out a whole courtroom after explaining the same things listed in that article. Everyone before me: GUILTY. Everyone after me: INNOCENT.

Once I know where these cameras are I stay away from them. No driving in the area, no shopping in the area. Its too bad everyone doesn't do this, the business owners would put an end to this crap.

madmax

vc69

City of Jackson went through this about a year ago. Those cameras no longer exist here.

Jstas

I don't know what the situation currently is here in NJ but for a long while, speed cameras and red light cameras were argued to be entrapment and it stuck. So the state was camera free for a while. But a few years ago, when the law expired that said State Poopers had to use marked cars and "hide" with head lights on otherwise traffic enforcement was entrapment, I do believe legislation for speed and red light cameras hit the table. They were quickly nicknamed Tax Cams by the local papers. It might still be being fought. Until a state law hits though, local law enforcement agencies can set stuff up and use it until the law becomes enacted.

I haven't seen or heard of anything local yet though.

Then again, people here believe that the State Poopers are using E-Z Pass records to issue speeding violations on the NJ Turnpike even though there is no record available that shows that has actually happened and E-Z Pass has been on the Turnpike for at least 10 years now.

sir_lagzalot

I just got back from my trip to Florida, and when I checked my mail box I received a ticket from Arizona for speeding 79 in a 65 from a photo radar. The thing is I may have been doing a little over 65 but not 79, even the ticket says approximate speed, is this legal? The kicker is they mailed it out on Christmas eve the scrooges.

LessisNevermore

sir_lagzalot wrote: »

I just got back from my trip to Florida, and when I checked my mail box I received a ticket from Arizona for speeding 79 in a 65 from a photo radar. The thing is I may have been doing a little over 65 but not 79, even the ticket says approximate speed, is this legal? The kicker is they mailed it out on Christmas eve the scrooges.

Send them a check for the approximate amount, or a picture of the cash.

sir_lagzalot

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Send them a check for the approximate amount, or a picture of the cash.

I just shot pepsi out of my nose, that's funny.

Rivrrat

sir_lagzalot wrote: »

I just got back from my trip to Florida, and when I checked my mail box I received a ticket from Arizona for speeding 79 in a 65 from a photo radar. The thing is I may have been doing a little over 65 but not 79, even the ticket says approximate speed, is this legal? The kicker is they mailed it out on Christmas eve the scrooges.

Don't respond to it, period. The law here is if you don't respond they have to send a process server to serve you the citation in person. You'll have to pay an extra 25 bucks if they serve you, but what are the chances of that when you're out of state?

Over half of the photo radar tickets here go legally unpaid because of that rule.

jerryj12

madmax wrote: »

Once I know where these cameras are I stay away from them. No driving in the area, no shopping in the area. Its too bad everyone doesn't do this, the business owners would put an end to this crap.

madmax

Fantastic Idea!!!!!
We have them here in Ga. as well.
I plan on writing some of the businesses around them and letting them know I will not be doing business with them because of it.

george daniel

TNRabbit wrote: »

I think a well-placed 30-06 round should take care of that camera~

Now thats a good idea.:)

I-SIG

madmax wrote: »

Once I know where these cameras are I stay away from them. No driving in the area, no shopping in the area. Its too bad everyone doesn't do this, the business owners would put an end to this crap.

madmax

That has actually happened at River and Oracle here in Tucson. Businesses at this intersection have noted a modest drop.

And like you, I avoid the roads and intersections with photo equipment if at all possible.

Wes

I-SIG

Rivrrat wrote: »

Don't respond to it, period. The law here is if you don't respond they have to send a process server to serve you the citation in person. You'll have to pay an extra 25 bucks if they serve you, but what are the chances of that when you're out of state?

Over half of the photo radar tickets here go legally unpaid because of that rule.

+1 on that. I know several people that haven't had a lick of trouble.

Wes

mrbigbluelight

Was listening to a talk radio station on the way to work today, and they were discussing the traffic cam situation. They had a guest speaker from Arizona who was leading a ballot initiative in Arizona that would outlaw traffic cams in Arizona.

The web site for this group is:

http://www.arizonacitizensagainstphotoradar.com/


A local municipality here sent me a demand letter last month, with a picture of my car violating a red light (rear end of the car hadn't completely cleared the far side of the intersection).
The letter states that they aren't ticketing the driver but, rather, the registered owner of the vehicle and as the registered owner they demand I pay the ticket.

Well .... ain't that special !!


Another interesting site for you Arizona drivers:

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/