When The Money Disappears, So Do The Ticket Cameras
February 18th, 2008 Posted in Red-Light Cameras
From The Daily World in Aberdeen, Washington on January 24, 2008:
“If you don’t want a ticket, don’t run a red light,” said Councilwoman Margo Shortt, who felt safety should trump everything else and the red light cameras would prevent accidents.
“We need to try this to see if it works,” said Councilman Bob McCullough. “The key issue in all this is traffic safety.”
From The Daily World in Aberdeen, Washington on February 16, 2008:
Mayor Bill Simpson will hold off on plans to put red light cameras in Aberdeen intersections in the wake of an initiative Tim Eyman is proposing to reduce traffic congestion.
[...]
Eyman has proposed an initiative that could take any revenue the city would receive from the tickets the cameras would generate and put it into a special account to help reduce traffic congestion statewide.
“That’s not really what we were expecting when we got into all of this,” Simpson said.
[...]
Eyman’s initiative aims to reduce congestion by opening up carpool lanes to all vehicles in non-peak hours, requires traffic signals to be synchronized and insists accidents be cleared from roadways quicker.
But remember, the key issue in all this is traffic safety.
Other Interesting Articles
28 Responses to “When The Money Disappears, So Do The Ticket Cameras”
By jesse on Feb 18, 2008
we had - note had - those in charlotte.
but for some reason the money wasnt going to the school system….
go figure. so the now the program is idle with cameras off.
By xoc on Feb 18, 2008
How do you know the objection wasn’t to the partial end of carpool lanes?
By dustin on Feb 18, 2008
I’m from Aberdeen (I’ve since moved to Seattle for school), and I can tell you that there are no carpool lanes within 100 miles of the town. Aberdeen is suffering a terrible economic situation as the logging and paper companies flee. It’s clear from the article that the cameras were going to be installed mainly for revenue generation.
Watching all the RVs and SUVs speeding through town on their way to the coast every weekend, I can definitely see how Mr Simpson and the city council would want to generate some revenue from that.
By the way, there’s all of about ten traffic lights in all of Aberdeen. This would not have been a very big deal.
By RICK GOLD on Feb 18, 2008
FOLKS,
“SHOW ME THE MONEY”. THAT’S WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT.
RICK GOLD
By Claire on Feb 18, 2008
ewww. Eyman initiatives. I was born and raised in Seattle but later moved for work, and I’m glad to be away from the guy. Almost everything he puts forward is short-sighted, and some of it eventually gets overturned, costing more money later on. Sigh…
By Matt Moore on Feb 19, 2008
Whatever stuff Eyman’s done in the past you disagree with, this proposal is right on. Any law enforcement action that generates revenue should be (preferably) abolished but, barring that, the revenue should be moved into a new and unrelated program.
By FPM on Feb 19, 2008
I used to be a homeless rodeo clown but now I am a world class magician !
By ClueTrain McGillicuddy on Feb 19, 2008
Let’s call a spade a spade — Eyman proposed a poison pill initiative designed to kill the cameras, not reduce traffic or increase safety.
There’s no way a municipality is going to invest in local policing, only to have any benefits from the program be dispersed throughout the state.
Besides, the proposal is asinine: Eyman “insists” that accidents be cleared from the roadway quicker?
Yeah, that’s gonna work… without the traffic cams, the number of accidents will increase. And without the revenue the cameras generate, how does Eyman plan to pay for additional emergency personnel needed to do the job “quicker”?
Just like the retarded logic that believes “I’m not speeding if there’s no cop here to catch me,” Eyman’s proposal is grounded in pure fantasy.
Finally, why shouldn’t law enforcement generate revenue? Do these neo-libertarian “I CAN’T DRIVE 55″ morons think stuff just magically gets paid for? The revenue has to come from somewhere — I’d prefer they penalize speeders and scofflaws (while accruing the benefit of additional safety) rather than raise taxes.
By kevin on Feb 19, 2008
wish i still had the link to studies showing that stoplight cameras INCREASE accidents at intersections — no study that wasn’t financed by a party with a clear conflict of interest has ever shown otherwise.
By Skip on Feb 19, 2008
The Virginia DOT did a study which shows 8 times more front to back collisions with injuries than T bone collisions with injuries when cameras are installed…but said T-bone were more severe. IMHO getting manditory side impact airbags and safer cars would be the safest thing to do. There is an increase in injuries…so how can puting them in be safe.
http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/PubDetails.aspx?PubNo=07-R2
By Joe on Feb 21, 2008
Traffic cams should be used for traffic management, not passive law enforcement and revenue generation. This “offender” tax is as offensive as having “Big Brother” in my bedroom. America, in my 50+ years of existence on earth, has become way to tied up in managing individual behavior instead of managing conditions that cause individual behavior. It’s just plain unfriendly to live in fear of everybody and everything. As for Eyman’s ideas, if cameras are approved and installed, keep the revenue money local, but restrict the spending to non-restrictive traffic enhancements … no additional policing or restrictive ideas, only those that move traffic better (better use and marking of roads, elevated cross-walks, bus turn-outs. that sort of thing).
By Stephen on Feb 21, 2008
Kevin,
Check out these studies on The Newspaper.com
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
The NC one (also on the NMA site) was over 57 months with over 300 intersections in it at least.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/29.asp
Steve
By John on Feb 21, 2008
Actually any revenue the city generates from traffic tickets is a conflict of interest. To make it really fair all money collected from tickets should be put in an interest bearing fund that is returned to all state residents in the form of a check or tax refund on the first of every year. That would help a lot.
By Jim Peel on Feb 21, 2008
In about 1995, the city of Ft. Collins, CO decided they would put in traffic cams. They were charging $40 for every ticket issued. When confronted that this was merely a revenue enhancement scheme they loudly denied it. They claimed that the traffic cams were a safety issue.
The stste passed a law that the fine for a traffic cam violation could not exceed $25 the city exclaimed that at that rate it would just break even.
So they admitted finally that it was revenue enhancement after all. If it were truly a safety issue then breaking even should not have been a bad thing. In fact, breaking even would be the best of both worlds for the city and the drivers if safety were the true issue.
It was, however, not.
By Eva Wild on Feb 21, 2008
Several years back, I recall reading a blurb in the paper about traffic cameras in Mesa or Tempe, Arizona. Obvious though it seems when brought to our attention, I had never thought of this: the number of offenders can be adjusted by simply altering the length of the yellow! I know that I have NEVER in my 44 years of driving, intentionally RUN a red light. We all are making a decision when we approach an intersection. We are judging the point of no return, that point after which any attempts to stop will be ineffective. That point changes with speed and wet and our weight AND the length of the yellow. We have all judged it incorrectly, not do the instant mental chart correctly, and found ourselves glancing up at a freshly turned red, as we have yet to reach the far side of the intersection. OK, now officers are bot necessarily mindreaders, but I would rather take my chances with a human, one who may have decided, based upon his years of experience, that there was no INTENT to run a light. Unless an accident has resulted from the error, there should never be a ticket in the case where the officer has reason to believe there was no intent.
By P Williams on Feb 21, 2008
Eyman’s iniative is statewide. The local town doesn’t “invest” anything. The company installs the cameras and gets a portion of the revenue. It IS a money making operation.
By Joe on Feb 22, 2008
Eva Wild, yea have to remember, there’s no reason for THEM to be concerned. Their on the winning end. What’s the incentive to make the system fairer for the driving public. In fact the incentive is exactly in the opposite end. Practically everybody now knows economics drives these programs. It’s not about safety or fairness. You’ll have to come up with a better reason then fairness to get the program changed and good luck on getting fellow drivers to help.
By JusWondering on Feb 24, 2008
Don’t you people have anything better to do than sit here and rant about THIS?
JUST WALK!
By James Young on Feb 24, 2008
Don’t you people have anything better to do than to allow the erosion of your civil liberties by those with evil intent?
Just submit.
By Joe on Feb 25, 2008
JusWondering, Go troll somewhere else.
By Steven D on Feb 28, 2008
I live in the Dallas area and these red light cameras are popping up everywhere. It’s a trap. Yellow lights are being shortened to generate revenue. The private companies managing these for the cities are making huge profits! It’s not about safety.
I recently read that the new speed cameras in Australia were wrongfully ticketing city buses and cars. After thousands of victims, Victoria Police decided to remove all red light and speed cameras.
Until the municipalities see the flaws in these systems, we need to do something to protect ourselves. I’ve purchased a spray that blocks the cameras flash and it’s given me a sense of relief.
http://www.phantomplate.com/affiliatewiz/aw.aspx?A=3482&Task=Click
By Jim Peel on Feb 28, 2008
Steven D,
Wait for the biggie to start raising its ugly head. It has been demonstrated at every one of these cities which have installed these cameras that as the word gets out the number of rear end traffic accidents goes up.
An article on DC RLCs. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/082izwax.asp
A 2003 study by the Ontario, Canada government is availabe as a PDF file. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/288.asp
Maryland RLCS.
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/maryland-countys-red-light-cameras-net-2-85-million-increase/
A 2005 study by the Virginia DOT is availabe as a PDF file.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp
I could go on but this has been a known hazard for many years and now opens the cities to litigation because they cannot say they did not know of this hazard.
By Tom McCarey on Feb 28, 2008
To all Philly NMA members:
Please write, email, fax, call, and visit City Councilmen, Representatives, Senators, talk-show hosts, radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers, and urge them to repeal the red light ticket camera program on Roosevelt Boulevard before someone gets killed, and before this traffic cancer spreads throughout Pennsylvania. Thanks.
Tom McCarey
By FRESNO BOB on Mar 2, 2008
HERE IN FRESNO, CA, a few years ago they installed red light cameras at a few problem intersections for “safety” reasons. a private contractor installed and owned the cameras, which were projected to bring in millions per yr. within a yr or two, they were gone, revenues had dropped. had “safety” dropped? what a joke.
today they have a new and even more wonderful solution. apparently ,in the past, all traffic citation fines are process through county courts, and the funds go to county coffers. with actual crime going on, police rightfully didnt want to waste resources and manpower on “minor” traffic violations. so, an agreement was reached between the city and the county. now, traffic fine revenue are shared, and the police portion is supposedly
only spent on traffic enforcement. ddoesnt sound too bad, right? problem is, these 70+ traffic cops unleashed on our streets are paying their own salaries with the tickets they write. if they dont write tickets, they are out of a job. what does this mean? it means they are going to write tickets no matter what. and they dont care what tickets they write. they would rather write a nuisance(seatbelt,turnsignal,5mi. over limit) ticket than 1 redlight ticket. they can write nuisance tickets nonstop all day long. more lucrative. so much for “safety”. drive 1 to 10 miles in this town w/ no seatbelt, and you’ve got a ticket. guaranteed. but i have seen many redlight offenses go unnoticed while the cops write garbage tickets. THE COPS #1 PRIORITY IS SECURING THEIR FUNDING. SO MUCH FOR TRAFFIC “SAFETY”. parasitic government. charging us to protect us from ourselves, and not delivering.
By Yates on Apr 9, 2008
what about cities like downtown north little rock, ar which have used recent federal grants for intrusive surveillance measures? i.e., corner cams and remote helicopters w/ multiple cam attaches and crazy deep pockets? Don’t forget to wave!
-Yates
By steve on Apr 23, 2008
Great News. Nestor, a maker of speed cameras, got delisted on the stock exchange today. Stock once worth $48 is now worth 21 cents. I am glad anybody who invested in Nestor lost money.