Author Topic: Accidents at red light camera intersections up 90 percent (Read 8029 times)

K Frame · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:13:05 AM »

The mechanical layout of the circle doesn't mean squat when it's the people traveling on the STRAIGHT road (Route 50/29 west) who are the ones who routinely grease the red lights. It's hard to claim that the layout of the circle is responsible for that act when the road in question is a straight shot through the circle.

As with Nutley and 29, running the lights is routinely a CHOICE, not an "oopsie, I didn't see it."

"And photographic evidence of my car going through an intersection is not proof that I was driving it."

That's why NO points are assigned to what otherwise would be a moving violation. It's the same as with a parking meter violation.

"unless I, as a software engineer, have the right to inspect the source code of the camera, how can it be proven that the picture was taken at the right time and not as the result of a software error? And if the photo shows my car in the intersection and the red light in the same frame, can it be proven that the photo is not a fabrication?"

Oh please, ad absurdum.

You can claim that anything and everything is fabricated, including the testimony of an officer who observed you driving through a red light.

Paddy · « **Reply #26 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:17:44 AM »

I remember a story of a guy who got a photo of him running a red light along with a demand for $200 fine from some city. In return he sent them a photo of $200. They sent him a photo of handcuffs, and he paid up. laugh

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:27:45 AM »

When the red-light issue came up last year I spent a couple of hours on the web researching it. The conclusion, by at least a half-dozen university studies and twice that many state DOT studies, was conclusive in the extreme. Retiming the lights to an extended yellow (minumum 1 second per 10 mph of speed limit) with overlapping reds (minimum 1 second) dramatically reduces the number of accidents, even after people become used to the new lighting intervals. In some cases the reduction rate was more than 90 percent. The studies were also conclusive that, in general, redlight cameras don't work as a "safety" device. Period. The only thing they are effective at is generating revenue. Retiming the lights is a far more effective counter to red light violations.

For those wondering, the State of Texas requires a clear picture of both the driver and vehicle in order to issue a moving violation via camera. Cities and counties have gotten around that little inconvenience by making it a violation of city ordinance for the vehicle to be involved in a red light infraction. What this means is that the vehicle owner is being cited, not the driver. What this also means is that you, as the owner of a vehicle, can be cited for the violation even if you aren't in the vehicle at the time. Now tell me how that has anything to do with safety?

It's a money grab, pure and simple.

Brad

BrokenPaw · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:30:29 AM »

Quote

You can claim that anything and everything is fabricated, including the testimony of an officer who observed you driving through a red light.

I can. But a cop, I can question, and the judge or jury can determine credibility. With a camera, there's no such avenue. Unless there can be proof that the camera software was functioning properly, in a simple enough way to convince a software layman, then there is no valid evidence to convict.

And with regard to "no points, like a traffic ticket": so? I'm still being fined for an activity that it has not been proven that I participated in. Explain the legitimacy of that.

If, back in the day when you were an HOA despot, your HOA had levied fines on homeowners for things they may or may not have done, how well would that have stood up in court when they fought you on it? After all, it's just a fine...

-BP

K Frame · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:34:10 AM »

"It's a money grab, pure and simple."

OK, even if we drop back to that concept, that it's nothing more than a money grab and it has no effect on injuries, to that I still say...

So what?

As I said below, if you don't want to be part of the revenue stream, don't commit the infraction. I'd rather have the stupid, the inattentive, and the "Driving anyway I want is my right as an American, so get the ()*&^%()*&$% out of my way" paying for their actions and pumping some money into the system that may serve to keep my taxes down.

K Frame · « **Reply #30 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:36:52 AM »

"Unless there can be proof that the camera software was functioning properly, in a simple enough way to convince a software layman, then there is no valid evidence to convict."

Sorry, but that's not the case. Courts, even those with no vested interest in a jurisdiction's revenue stream, have routinely ruled that the photograph and associated documentation IS valid grounds for issuance of a summons.

In essence, you are facing your accuser.

But, to be perfectly fair, there have been a number of recent rulings that have fallen on your side of the fence, as well.

BrokenPaw · « **Reply #31 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:52:21 AM »

In all fairness, if I received a summons with a pic of me in the car, and the red light in the same frame, I'd pay it without argument.

If it didn't show me, my objection would be on the grounds of being fined for something I cannot be proven to have done.

If it didn't show the light as red, I would object on the premise that there's no way of knowing whether the camera just took photos willy-nilly, whether the light was red or not.

If it showed just the back of my car, my objection would be that the state wasted a hell of a lot of money on a camera system that took unenforceable snapshots.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #32 on:** October 17, 2007, 08:59:11 AM »

Quote

If it showed just the back of my car, my objection would be that the state wasted a hell of a lot of money on a camera system that took unenforceable snapshots.

That's on of the biggest rubs. They didn't spend a dime. Most of the time the camera manufacturers put up the cameras at no charge in return for a percentage of the revenue.

Also, rarely is the state the ticketing agency. Most of the time it's a city or county function.

Brad

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #33 on:** October 17, 2007, 12:17:23 PM »

The courts which uphold the cases where the car is cited, are probably the same ones which uphold large cash confiscations without evidence of a crime.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #34 on:** October 17, 2007, 12:25:00 PM »

Quote from: Sergeant Bob on October 17, 2007, 11:17:23 AM

The courts which uphold the cases where the car is cited, are probably the same ones which uphold large cash confiscations without evidence of a crime.

Since it's a civil infraction (code violation) chances of you getting it reversed are slim to none unless you have a pile of money and a good lawyer. The picture is (supposedly) viewed as ironclad proof that the infraction ocurred.

On the upside it's not a moving violation and doesn't affect your driving record.

Brad

thebaldguy · « **Reply #35 on:** October 17, 2007, 01:23:58 PM »

Here in Minneapolis, the courts ruled the red light cameras unconstitutional. The city however, is hesitant to give the fines back. They have already spent the money, and don't have it. Now people who paid the fines are fighting to get their money back.

SteveS · « **Reply #36 on:** October 17, 2007, 04:22:17 PM »

Quote from: thebaldguy on October 17, 2007, 12:23:58 PM

Here in Minneapolis, the courts ruled the red light cameras unconstitutional. The city however, is hesitant to give the fines back. They have already spent the money, and don't have it. Now people who paid the fines are fighting to get their money back.

Do you have a link? On what basis were they found to be unconstitutional?

As an aside, do any of those reflective sprays that are supposed to make reading your license difficult work?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 17, 2007, 05:25:21 PM »

I am pretty sure Texas has some sort of state law that prevents localities form issuing criminal violations with a camera. I think that is why they are going the civil route. I think in Houston, you are not even billed by the city. You are billed by the company who put up the lights from somewhere out of state. Last I heard there was a lawsuit open trying to sue saying they didn't have a right to ding your credit if you didn't pay. It hasn't stopped them from putting up more cameras though.

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #38 on:** October 17, 2007, 06:28:29 PM »

Quote from: SteveS on October 17, 2007, 03:22:17 PM

As an aside, do any of those reflective sprays that are supposed to make reading your license difficult work?

The Mythbusters "BUSTED" that one.

bedlamite · « **Reply #39 on:** March 16, 2008, 01:21:08 PM »

I realize this is an old thread, but it seems appropriate to post this:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/15/dallas-is-considers-shutting-off-red-light-cams-since-theyre-w/

Quote

Dallas considers shutting off red light cams, since they're working too well and harming revenue

Posted Mar 15th 2008 9:41PM by Paul Miller
Filed under: Digital Cameras, Transportation
There's just one, fairly ironic, flaw to the otherwise totally lovable red light cameras that adorn Dallas: they work too well. Turns out the cams have curtailed red light infractions by 50 percent, which in turn has put a budget crunch on City Hall. The city is now considering stopping its planned rollout of more cameras, or shutting down the cameras on a rotating basis -- upkeep when off is next to nothing, but the city pays $3,799 per month per online camera to its service provider. That sounds like quite a spendy broadband bill, but we're not the experts here. Just remember kids, your government wants what's best for you, and what's best for you is a well-funded government, alright?

Scout26 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 16, 2008, 02:32:08 PM »

Stoplights timed for 35 mph are also timed for 70...... grin

K Frame · « **Reply #41 on:** March 16, 2008, 06:11:23 PM »

Funny this should pop back up again.

Yesterday I was getting ready to cross 50/29 at Draper Drive, which is less than half a mile west of Fairfax Circle, which I describe below.

The car in front of me got broadsided by an idiot who ran the red light.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2008, 09:05:29 AM »

Ours came down three weeks ago. I guess having your accident rate almost double in less than six months after the cameras went up was quite the eye-opener. They could have avoided eating all that crow if they'd just read the mountain of evidence out there predicting that very scenario.

Brad

grislyatoms · « **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2008, 09:12:22 AM »

State of New Mexico tried to get it's mitts on Albuquerque's red light camera revenue. Mayor said hell no and turned 'em off. laugh

K Frame · « **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2008, 09:34:58 AM »

While accidents went up, I bet the number of serious injuries went WAY down.

As I've continually said, T-bone accidents caused by people trying to eek their way through the light are FAR more serious than a tail ender.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2008, 09:42:01 AM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on March 17, 2008, 08:34:58 AM

While accidents went up, I bet the number of serious injuries went WAY down.

Rate of serious injuries stayed the same.

Brad

MechAg94 · « **Reply #46 on:** March 17, 2008, 11:23:43 AM »

What happens to the T-bone drivers? Do they get put in jail or get their license revoked?

There is one intersection I have to go through every day leaving work. A small road turning left onto a 6 lane road. The lights are often timed so that about 20 cars are still screaming to a halt by the time you get the yellow light. A guy I work with got T-boned there a few years back. Hurt his back. That was a pure red light running though. Deliberately ran the red light because they were late delivering a part. He said that other driver was even trying to restart her engine to drive off after he finally got out to go talk to her. Pretty bad.

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #47 on:** March 17, 2008, 11:25:48 AM »

They will get a ticket for failure to stop. If injuries are involved, they will probably also be cited for that. Depending on the situation, they may also be charged with felony vehicular assault.

Brad

Fly320s · « **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2008, 01:55:40 PM »

Quote

Turns out the cams have curtailed red light infractions by 50 percent, which in turn has put a budget crunch on City Hall.

Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here? Why should a city be allowed to rely on revenue from law-enforcement cameras to pay for the cameras and cops to enforce the laws that people are breaking? Which of course will be caught on camera... <spiral into oblivion>.

Every once in a blue moon I have a desire to be a judge who oversees cases such as these. I'd give the city a royal butt kicking for that type of thinking.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #49 on:** March 17, 2008, 02:13:27 PM »

Quote

My daughter was rear ended at a standard light and the dumb as# said "why the hell did you stop, you could have made it"

I would have punched the idiot. I don't push it when driving. Even though I drive a fullsize truck (which is my baby), I am very conservative in my driving. I make sure that the crossing traffic stops when their light turns red. I saw a really bad accident one day, when some idiot ran a red light on a busy road and t-boned another car. The vehicles must have jumped 4 feet or so in the air. That's a lot of energy dissipating- I think the red light runner was going about 45 MPH.

I hate driving. Way too many idiots out there. Yet, when people learn that I am a pilot, they invariably mention their fear of flying. Go figure.

News:

Author Topic: Accidents at red light camera intersections up 90 percent (Read 8029 times)

Paddy