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 Related Articles
38 Responses to “When The Money Disappears, So Do The Ticket Cameras”
By jimpeel on Oct 24, 2008
Officer Josh,
“They drastically have been proven in baltimore city to raise crime solving.”
Have they actually solved any crimes; or are crimes down in those areas because the criminal element simply moved to where there are no cameras? This is what happened in Britain.
It also happened in Los angeles but not due to cameras. Real police work started cracking down on the Crips and Bloods there and crime fell drastically. However, crime escalated in Omaha because that is where they migrated to avoid the L.A. crackdown.
Crime never goes away. It merely moves around.
By Officer Josh on Oct 23, 2008
Jimpeel,
I absolutely agree that red light camera’s are a bad idea. I’m talking about city camera’s not on red lights but on city blocks in problem area’s. They drastically have been proven in baltimore city to raise crime solving.
By jimpeel on Oct 23, 2008
Officer Josh,
The problem is creeping escalation in the use of the cameras, which were supposedly placed for nothing more than traffic control, and which would “never be used as a crime control measure”. Recently, there was a picture of two men in a stolen car on the front page of the local newspaper. The picture was taken by — drumroll please — a red light camera. With increased use comes increased abuse as those in Britain have found out.
The biggest problem with the red light cameras at intersections is the inherent increase in rear-end accidents which accompany them. I have posted numerous articles and sources here on that fact. In many cities, they have taken them down as a safety factor.
Then there are those cities, such as Fort Collins, CO, which I also cited, which claimed early on that the cameras were for safety reasons, not revenue enhancement. Then the state set the maximum fine for red light camera citations to $25 and the city cried “Foul”. It seems that they were concerned that they would barely break even on the cameras. It seems that the $15 they lost (they were charging $40 fines) was for, you guessed it, revenue enhancement.
The cameras are simply another hidden tax on the people of the cities in which they are installed. Most people will simply pay the fine, sent to them by mail from a faceless bureaucrat, alleging that they were spotted, by an entity they cannot interrogate at trial, committing some offense. No matter what they do, pay or fight, they keep those bureaucrats in their jobs doing what they do best — screwing their fellow citizens and living the lie.
By Officer Josh on Oct 22, 2008
Jim peel,
I read the article you provided and I absolutely agree that a system such as “big brother” needs to be closely monitored and controlled. However I dont see the real problem with it. Also, England has very different laws and the judicial system works differently too. When Baltimore City installed camera’s in troubled blocks around the city, the citizens of the area embraced them. They are still lobbying for more camera’s in other area’s because they have worked so well.
By jimpeel on Oct 22, 2008
Officer Josh,
So how about this. I’m sure DPP chief Sir Ken Macdonald is not “committing crimes” yet he has concerns about surveillance technology.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4984788.ece
From the story:
(begin)The Director of Public Prosecutions has given a warning of the dangers of plans for a massive expansion of “Big Brother” state surveillance and of the growth of a “security state”.
Sir Ken Macdonald, who heads the Crown Prosecution Service, said that the “enormous powers of access to information” that technology had given the state should be used with great care.
He told an audience in London last night: “We need to take very great care not to fall into a way of life in which freedom’s back is broken by the relentless pressure of a security state.”
(more)
By Officer Josh on Oct 19, 2008
Yates,
I’m still not understanding what your “actual” concern is here? What do you care if there is a camera outside in the park while your walking around? Are you committing crimes? Is that why you want them gone? I can understand traffic or “red light” cameras, there garbage and easily beat in court, but street camera’s? What about the camera in the store when you go to 7/11 to get some food? Are you against those? I just dont see the problem, this isnt England and we dont rely on the camera’s we just have them to help.
By jimpeel on Oct 19, 2008
“Just last year they have solved 30% more murders, robberies and assults because of those cameras.” — Officer Josh
When cities first started installing the traffic cameras they were challenged that this was nothing more than their spying on the public. The authorities stated that the cameras were strictly for traffic control and would never be used as a crime fighting tool or to spy on the unsuspecting public.
The truth will always out. All it takes is some time.
Look at the cameras in Britain where a citizen is never out of range of a camera. They are under constant surveillance. They have even been told that large headgear is frowned upon if it shields the face of the common citizen.
Read these articles and see what those there go through.
Observation:
http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Surveillance/smile-youre-on-state-run-candid-camera
Opinion: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/03/why-surveillance-cameras-dont-reduce.html
By Officer Josh on Oct 19, 2008
Yates,
How are “corner cams” intrusive? There openly in the public and therefore not intrusive. I’ve been to little rock and in N. little rock they really do need them. We have them here in Baltimore there easy to see cuz they have a bright flashing blue light on top of them. Just last year they have solved 30% more murders, robberies and assults because of those cameras. If its in public it is not intrusive, if its in your home, it is.
By Jim Peel on May 20, 2008
“I’m suprised that someone hasn’t invented a devise to circumvent the camera …”
They have.
http://www.photoblocker.com/
There is a spray and there are several overlay shields available.
By Ken on May 20, 2008
I’m suprised that someone hasn’t invented a devise to circumvent the camera,maybe a laser beam or electronic signal to cancel out the electronics. Remember back in the C.B. radio craze people had outrageous high output linear “kickers” that just about blocked out all transmissions when they keyed the mic.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 Joe on Feb 25, 2008
JusWondering, Go troll somewhere else.
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 JusWondering on Feb 24, 2008
Don’t you people have anything better to do than sit here and rant about THIS?
JUST WALK!
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 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 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 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 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.