By James Klich on Oct 8, 2008

I live in Charlotte, North Carolina. I know some of the traffic lights in North Charlotte have a short yellow light time.

By Darren on Sep 10, 2008

When one depends on traffic camreas, lights and other things instead of there own wisdom and wit, then we are in poor shape.

By Jerry on May 15, 2008

MIKE M. Do not represent yourself in court..get an attorney if you want half a chance of winning. When it is your word against a policeman’s word in court, the policeman is recognized as an ‘Officer of the Court’…and as, such his/her word carries more value and credibility with the court and you will lose,..EVERYTIME !! That is why everyone loses when they go to traffic court !! Everyone in that courtroom in any official capacity is an Officer of the Court…except YOU !! Your attorney is an Officer of the Court…”Don’t leave home without one” if you are going to traffic court, or you are wasting your time and money. Sad, but true, and expensive if want to keep it off your record….also, find yourself an attorney who is actually willing to work and fight for you. Most of them just take your money and rubber stamp you through court…no matter who wins or loses, attorneys always win…it is no skin off THEIR butt!! Good Luck….hg

By mike mcGuire on May 15, 2008

My wife recieves a traffic violation notice from the stockton police photo enforcement program but pictures me driving. Attached is a “Nomination Notice” asking my wife to identify the driver in the photo that missed making the red light by 2/10 of a second while going 9 miles under the posted speed limit of 40 which also by the way is clearly a “gender mismatch”.

My wife the law fearing good citizen that she is and feeling threatened by the tactics used by the police offered to snitch me out(I’m not upset with that because I helped her fill the thing out. Now a week or so passes and to my supprise is an official ticket addressed to me in my mail box. A lot of research and a court date to see the judge on 5/15/08 at 6:00pm.

I think or hope my only out is the written identification of me by my wife as the driver is clearly hearsay used by the Stockton police department to issue the ticket should be dismissed. Any takes on this due process issue? Do I have a leg to stand on? (in court)

By Todd on Apr 25, 2008

In my little corner of the world, there are speed traps everywhere. Places where the speed limit was a reasonable 50-MPH on a county road, suddenly becomes 25-MPH or 30-MPH, for no real discernable reason and the signs are not readily apparent.

If you actually attempt to travel at the speed limits of any of these roads, you will have a row of cars behind you, riding your bumper, because you are, in reality, traveling too slow for the road, irrespective of the otherwise irrelevant speed limits.

I have come to the conclusion that the whole speed ticket scam is nothing more than a money grab, pure and simple.

This, and other facts of police life (various abuses we have witnessed on youtube, TV, and elsewhere), have contributed to my almost total loss of respect for law enforcement agencies, and their handlers. Apprehension has replaced respect, and I now see every police officer as a potential abuser of my wife, my family, and myself.

Another area of extreme concern is the fact that our country has the highest incarceration rate of any country on earth (per 100,000 of population). Compared with some countries, our rate is 5 to 10 times higher (like Canada and France). When you add to this, the fact that over 50% of our prison inmates are guilty of nothing but non-violent drug offenses, I think we are in the midst of a serious overkill problem, to say the least.

By Ron on Apr 1, 2008

“4) Congestion inspired violations.
the left turn after the light has turned red, even when there is left turn arrow.”

Make ALL Left-turn Green Arrows into the 5-light signals(red, yellow, green, yellow, green arrow). In every light cycle, at least 2 more cars could make the light.

Of course, pulling out into the intersection so that more than ONE car can make the light would also decrease the frustration.

By Joe on Mar 27, 2008

I have to disagree with the those types who post that “most” people run red lights “carelessly” and therefore, we must increase “enforecement.”

These types of issues should be decided rationally, not emotionally. That is, we do not need red light cameras because you feel anger and frustration when you, on some rare occassions, see people running red lights.

We do not need red light cameras because you feel and guess that too many people are careless, or have anger toward drivers talking on cell phones.

Rather, we should look at facts. We should not have to live in a society that enacts misguided laws because you feel frustation sometimes. So, when you have a study that shows red-light cameras are helpful and more than just revenue makers, post it here please.

By Scott on Mar 26, 2008

I have to agree in part with everyone. To a degree. I agree that camera’s are nothing more then revenue for cities that employ them. At the same time they put up a camera, they also shorten the yellow signal to nothing which means you either race thru or nail the brakes.

If cities would care more about the public and not their budgets and their cronies budgets (re: insurance co’s), they wouldn’t use red light cameras but instead fix whats really broken, the placement and timing of signals and the arrangement of intersections.

Honestly, fixing signal timing is a simple process once you survey the intersection for best mobility. Fixing placement would cost as would fixing intersection design however placement would be far less expensive. The problem here isn’t just with traffic signals, it’s with the logic in this country. Greed above all else. A logic that only benifits the wealthy and makes Joe Average broke and broken. I digress.

I have to agree that cell phones cause accidents, largely because most people can not do more then one thing at a time, regardless of what said person thinks. There are plenty of people who can effectively do two or three things at once, however that’s an exception, not the rule. I find gender also makes a difference but that’s another topic. States that have hands-free laws will have less issues, and if said laws prohibits young drivers all together you’ll have even less issues, however it will only help not completely fix the issues. Much like the pilot, who’s able to use a headset to communicate vs a handset.

The last issue I see here is on tailgating. I find that to be a broad remark which could only be valid in smaller communities, which incidentally would have less issues to begin with. If you live in a high population, high traffic city, and you’re driving on the street, there rarely is anything more then a car length between you at any givin ’street’ speed. So while driving on the street, you have to be attentive, nay, everyone has to be attentive otherwise you end up with a domino effect.

The rule of 10mph is one car is only really justifiable on the open highway as braking distances are lengthend. If sitting in a crowded highway, street rules apply. Lastly, while I’ll agree T-Bone accidents can be worse then Rear-Enders, being rear ended can cause injury just the same. Realize cars aren’t made to protect from rear end collisions, however they are made to protect from front and side impacts. Another note on being rear ended at an intersection is the fact that you could be shoved into the intersection and then hit again by oncoming traffic.

In a nutshell, cameras are revenue, if you want to protect the public, fix the system.

By Mark D. Robertson on Mar 26, 2008

In reply to Mark the pilot. Yes you can talk to the tower from your plane all you want. I don’t ever recall seeing planes flying in the air tail to nose, and side by side in multiple lanes. If I recall, most pilots wear headsets for communications right? Or do pilots use cell phones to contact the tower? Let’s compare apples to apples, not watermelons to apples. The way you talk to the tower is considered hands free. Which many cities have enacted laws, for cell phones hands free or have a ticket. And George questions me on stop signs being in violation of the uniform manual. So, don’t tell me tell the authority that put the sign or light up. And, quite often why was that light put up? People screamed at the city, county, or whoever to put it up due to a bad accident or a fatality. So, the public officials took the easy way out. Prove to me red light cameras cause more crashes. Account for people not paying attention. Account for people following to closely. Every 10mph = one car length remember? The evidence will disappear with just these two factors.

By John on Mar 25, 2008

Stop ye whiny apologists and excuse mongers!!The stats reported and reasons for running lights given on this site are so much Bovine Excrement. The majority of red light running I witness is indicatitive of the narcissistic, hooray-for-me and to-hell-with you society that has this country turned inside out and upside down. These individuals run them with the attitude that the RED LIGHT THEY ARE CHUCKLING AT is for the driver behind them and not for them! To the roadside with you! You’ll look fashionable in your orange fatigues…picking up the litter you dumped there the day before!

By George on Mar 25, 2008

How many stop signs are in violation of the manual of uniform traffic control devices, Mark & Robert?
Too many.
How many traffic lights are ill timed, or have intentionally shortened yellow lights to generate ‘revenue’ M & R?

No, the increase of rear end crashes due to red light cameras is fact.

The point is, don’t just deal with the symptoms, deal with the causes.

By Mark on Mar 24, 2008

I cannot agree with the cell phone arguement. I am a pilot. I can land an airplane and talk to air traffic control. Sometimes at the same time. If I can do that, I sure as hell ought to be able to talk on the phone and drive a car. Drivers should be cited for reckless, inattentive driving, whether it is due to cell phone use, talking to the person sitting next to you, or eating a sandwich. We already have laws on the book to handle the situation. The last thing we need is more laws with more uninteneded consequences.

By Jerry on Mar 24, 2008

I agree with the above….anyone driving around with a cell phone in their hand instead of a steering wheel is a moron.

By Robert Boyd on Mar 24, 2008

I agree with Mark. Don’t tailgate and don’t blow through yellow lights and you won’t get a ticket.

By Mark D. Robertson on Mar 24, 2008

We need more aggrressive enforcement of the laws. Every day I go to work people are blowing red lights and stop signs. Why, because if they get caught here in Michigan it is under 100 to 200 dollars. The laws are there for a reason and the incidence of rear end crashes going up due to red light cameras is BULL****.

If people were NOT tailgating the car that slams on its brakes for the red light that would reduce accidents. Oh, how about if the driver were not talking on their cell phone and paying attention would that make a difference? And I have a personal vendetta against cell phone drivers, my wife was rearended by a cell phone a**hole. And my parents were ran into a ditch by an idiot passing a semi in whiteout conditions talking on the cell phone. If a cell phone driver hits me, they will have the phone shoved down their throat. Driving has rules for your safety, if you don’t want to follow them get the HECK off the road.

By Jerry on Mar 20, 2008

VINCENT THAT IS GOOD ADVICE…IT ALSO DOESN’T HURT TO LOOK BOTH DIRECTION BEFORE YA GO.

By VINCENT NATELLI on Mar 20, 2008

Forgot to add this. The absolute best advice I got about driving safety besides not driving while impaired was from an officer at a driver ed class from my insurance company you know to lower the insurance cost. This was the simplest advise I have ever gotten it was simply “when the light turns green count to 3 then go, most accidents happen in that time frame”

By Jerry on Mar 20, 2008

Excellent article that shows the real deal on red light cams….furthermore I submit that the majority of traffic fines/enforcement are designed to be a revenue producing growth industry. This can be seen in any traffic court where I live as to the hundreds of people in attendance every day, not to mention the people who just go ahead and pay the fine…we are talking bazillions here folks…public budgets would collapse without it. There is no such thing as a small fine for a minor traffic infraction anymore..so multiply that by the number of people pumped through the system and your looking at some serious cash. I have seen production lines in court processing huge crowds so efficiently that they would put Henry Ford or any other high tech manufacturing facility to shame.

By VINCENT NATELLI on Mar 20, 2008

IN CASE ANYONE HAD ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH MY POST ON WHY THE STUPID SPEED LAWS ARE ENACTED, I SAID BECAUSE THE TOWNS/CITIES/STATES ARE USING THEM AS PROFIT CENTERS. SOME READERS DISAGREED. SO. READ THIS FROM A MSN ARTICLE.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/
IN THE EVENT SOME OF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME AND WILL NOT GO TO THE SITE TO READ THE ARTICLE I HAVE INCLUDED A COPY OF IT HERE ALSO.

MSNBC.com
Do red light cameras work too well?
Some cities rethink devices as drivers pay heed, reducing fine revenue
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
updated 7:59 p.m. ET, Thurs., March. 20, 2008

Last week, Dallas officials reviewed the numbers and decided that a quarter of the cameras they had installed to catch motorists running red lights were too effective. So they shut them down.

They are not alone. Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections — resulting in fewer ticketable violations and ever-shrinking revenue from fines — municipalities across the country are reconsidering red light cameras, which often work too well.

At the heart of the discussions taking place in city councils and county commissions is tension between the twin benefits that were touted when local governments began installing cameras about a decade and a half ago. Officials were promised that the cameras — which generally speaking take snapshots of busy intersections at the instant the light turns red, capturing the license plates of any cars that are still in the intersection — would simultaneously save lives and generate millions of dollars in extra fines.

The first half of that equation is arguably true: A federal study found a small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some kinds of collisions.

It is the second half of the equation that may be beginning to collapse. As drivers learn where the cameras are, they are more careful. Fewer of them run red lights. Local governments collect fewer fines.

Fewer violations = less revenue
Sometimes, as in Dallas, cameras generate so little revenue that they can’t even pay for themselves.

Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.

But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections. On the face of it, that, too, is a good thing — but not, necessarily, if you rely on traffic fines to make up a healthy chunk of your budget.

Dallas lawmakers originally estimated gross revenue of $15 million from their 62 cameras this fiscal year, which ends June 30. But City Manager Mary Suhm estimated last week that the city would fall short by more than $4 million.

So last week, the city turned off about a quarter of the least profitable cameras, saying it couldn’t justify the cost of running them.

Safety benefits questioned
Dallas was just following the lead of several other cities that have shut down red light cameras in recent months:
# City officials in Charlotte and Fayetteville, N.C., recently turned off all of their red light cameras, concluding that a state law diverting much of the revenue they generate in fines to schools meant their general funds were actually losing money, NBC affiliate WNCN of Raleigh reported.
# San Diego temporarily shut down all of its red light cameras late last year pending a lawsuit that sought $27 million in damages, alleging that the city’s system was unconstitutional because it was run by a private company. The city’s system faces a separate class-action suit targeting evidence gathered by cameras as illegal.
# Officials in Bolingbrook, Ill., ended their red light camera program after statistics showed a 40 percent drop in ticketable offenses.

It’s not always lower revenue that leads municipalities to question whether red light cameras are worth it.

In Lubbock, Texas, for example, the City Council shut down all cameras last month, citing a report that showed statistically significant increases in rear-end collisions at intersections, including those with cameras.

Rear-end collisions, in fact, have been cited in numerous reports and lawsuits questioning the benefits of red light cameras. Opponents claim that the cameras actually create more hazardous conditions.

“When people know there’s a red light camera, they change their driving behavior, and they slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket,” said Tom McCarey, an activist for the National Motorists Association. The association, which is based in Waunakee, Wis., calls itself a 6,000-member group “dedicated to representing and protecting the rights and interests of North American motorists.”

Federal study largely inconclusive
Research by the Federal Highway Administration bears out McCarey’s argument — at least, as far as it goes.

In 2005, the agency released the first systematic national study of accident rates at intersections where cameras monitor red lights, compiling projections and hard data from seven cities from Maryland to California. The report tabulated 14.9 percent more rear-end crashes than would have been expected if the intersections had no cameras, resulting in 24 percent more injuries.

“Red light cameras don’t make intersections safer. They make them more dangerous,” McCarey said. Which is true — if all you’re worried about is rear-end crashes.

But the FHA study compiled numbers on all accidents at the relevant intersections, and it found that right-angle collisions — also known as “T-bone crashes,” when a car comes across the intersection and whacks you from the side — came in 24.6 percent below projections, with 15.7 percent fewer injuries.

This is where both sides acknowledge that you can make statistics say anything you want.

Opponents of cameras highlight rear-end crashes, noting that they make up more than 71 percent of accidents at intersections. Removing the cameras would lessen the most common kind of accidents.

But advocates point out that right-angle crashes are far more dangerous, causing 64 percent of the injuries at those intersections.

“We would prefer to have minor rear-end collisions, rather than broadside collisions, which lead to serious and fatal injuries,” said Art Acevedo, chief of the Austin, Texas, police.

Small reduction in injuries cited
What is clear in the study, when it is taken overall, is that red light cameras led to no real change in the number of accidents (4,059 with versus 4,063 without). But they did reduce the number of people hurt in those accidents, by just less than 5 percent (459 versus 482).

The FHA concluded that cameras provide, at best, a “modest aggregate crash-cost benefit.”

That benefit is so modest that the National Motorists Association has a standing offer of $10,000 to any community that can empirically prove that red light cameras can prevent violations and accidents better than a schedule of traffic engineering steps it recommends, which include proper signal timing, better signal design and improved intersection design.

Other opponents say that even if the cameras made driving far safer, that still doesn’t justify what they call the systematic violation of drivers’ constitutional rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union joined a lawsuit brought by an Iowa man who received a $125 ticket in the mail after his vehicle was photographed doing 49 mph in a 35-mph zone in Davenport in March 2006.

The man, Thomas Seymour, argued that he was denied due process because he couldn’t confront his accuser — an inanimate camera. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last week.

Earlier this month, a California Superior Court judge dismissed 250 tickets issued under San Diego’s camera program, which is administered by Lockheed Martin Corp. under a private contract. Because the evidence is not gathered by an official police agency, it is “unreliable” and “untrustworthy” and therefore inadmissible in court, the judge ruled.

In a separate class-action lawsuit, four groups of plaintiffs argue that Lockheed Martin had an illegal incentive to design a system that would catch as many drivers as possible, because it collected $70 from each $271 ticket.

Opponents contend that that is what is really at the heart of debates over red light cameras — profits. Some government officials, like those in Dallas, don’t dispute that.

In Springfield, Mo., officials wanted to begin ticketing motorists caught on red light cameras last June 1. But the state Legislature was considering a law that would have diverted some of the revenue to state programs.

So Springfield officials postponed issuing the tickets. Only after it became clear a few weeks later that the Legislature would not act on the bill did Springfield start sending out tickets, NBC affiliate KYTV reported. The cameras began breaking even in January.

“It’s all about the money, and it’s not just about the $100 fine,” said McCarey of the National Motorists Association. “It’s millions for the city and billions for insurers.”
NBC affiliates KRIS of Corpus Christi, Texas; KPRC of Houston; KSHB of Kansas City; KSDK of St. Louis; KSND of San Diego; KYTV of Springfield, Mo.; KXAN of Austin, Texas; KXAS of Dallas; WCAU of Philadelphia; WHO of Iowa City; WMAQ of Chicago; and WNCN of Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2008 MSNBC.com