Red Light And Speed Camera Tickets.........

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: 3311
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
These changes reduced accidents by drivers running red lights to almost zero.

But where would the revenue come from. Where would the campaign contributions come from?

Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Every "high-performing" camera in the San Diego area circa 1990s was directly tied to bad intersection design, which includes yellow light timing vs. speed limit.

The problem is that it was not in the interest of either the city nor the camera contractor to raise these issues, as both took 50% of the revenues.

City of Irvine has budget surplus for many years. Property tax from private and business/corporate alone was more than their budget, adding sale tax and other fees they have more money than they can spend.

They don't need red light camera to get extra revenue. The city just likes to reduce/eliminate accidents at intersections as much as possible. Increase yellow light time and delay green light are as good solution as it can be.

 

[DoubleWasp]

As I said before, allowing a private company to conduct law enforcement is disturbing and should be illegal.

How would you like a company outfit to come to town with a contract on murder cases? Would the city be motivated to take action to reduce violent crimes at that point?

There should be nobody involved in law enforcement who is driven to make sure that laws are broken to generate profit.

Where's the incentive to take action to reduce violations?

 

[Garak]

Here, it's kind of a mix. I believe the equipment is leased, and the company gets a royalty. However, the charge must be sworn by a police officer, and so forth.

May God have mercy on their souls if it's ever ruled to be a money making scheme by a couple of the judges we have here.

 

[GMBoy]

Here in Texas the people voted red light cameras out and the city of Arlington listened - NO MORE CAMERAS!

 

[cmhj]

Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
There is one way to put the red light cameras out of business.

Stopping at the red lights.


Perfect solution

 

[Whimsey]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
ray, "you can't con an honest man". I think I'm going stop going to Captain Pete's Bar & Grill every night after work. Honestly, the only time I've ever received these tickets is after a "few cold ones".


Save your drinking for when you get home and are not going out again. It's a LOT less expensive and safer all around for everybody.

Whimsey

 

[Tdbo]

It's all about the money.
Around here, the city babbled that it was not about the money, it was all about safety. Thus, this provided the rationale for installing red light cameras.
At first, the cameras were only going to be put at the ten most dangerous intersections, because it was all about the safety.
Then, when you look at the city budget, there is 2.5M $ in income included in the city budget from red light cameras.
Meanwhile, the numbers go from 10 to 19 to about 36 red light cameras. The thing that still stays stable is the 2.5M $ in income in the city budget. Guess that could be called a desired revenue target, but remember, it is all about the safety.
Then all h#$% lets loose with the red light vendor, and the CEO is investigated. She states that certain politicians and/or a political party received "incentives" to sign with this company and to renew and expand the contract. Said politicians of course know nothing about it, and of course babble that it is all about the safety.
Then the investigation(s) take place and the e-mails come out that show it was clearly about the money. They did scuttle a plan to put red light cameras on train tracks, however.
Now the FBI is involved, and is investigating the lobbyist involved, and the outgoing mayor and the city council president(running for mayor) are in it to their waists, if not their necks. One city council member apparently decided to get out while the getting was good, resigning and pulling their name from the ballot. City cancels their contract with the vendor, which is a moot point because state law has recently been modified that for a red light camera citation to be issued, an officer must be present at the camera.
However, remember that it is all about the safety and NOT about the money LOL!
It is all about the money!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
ray, "you can't con an honest man".


No matter how many times you say that, it is still stupid! Honest people are the EASIEST to con.

 

[Benzadmiral]

If we still had real Americans, the kind who objected strenuously to stamp and tea taxes, all the red light cameras would have had their lenses sprayed with black paint the first night.

What I do if I'm approaching a known RL camera is this: If I see it's green, I pull over and wait until it goes yellow, then drive up to the light (which by then is red) and wait until the green. If it bothers people, they should consult paragraph one.

 

[Shannow]

With the mobile cameras in this state, the contractor drives a vehicle fitted with the camera, parks it in a layoff, and puts a sign within 300 feet to say that your speed has been checked.

There are increasing numbers of "breakdowns" in front of them, trucks taking a mandatory break in the layoff etc.

Now they are trying to make "blocking the view" of a robot camera illegal.

 

[RoadRaceJosh]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
It is a privacy issue when my wife opens up the ticket and finds out the location I was at.


It's illegal to open another person's mail. I used to have this conversation with my wife. She's no longer my wife.

Now if Dear Wife's name is also on the registration...

I was caught by a red light camera some months ago in a moment of distraction, but I was driving her car that is only in her name. Oregon doesn't send a ticket if the apparent gender of the drive doesn't match the registration. I have thought about starting a transportation company so that my name doesn't appear on the reg.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
With the mobile cameras in this state, the contractor drives a vehicle fitted with the camera, parks it in a layoff, and puts a sign within 300 feet to say that your speed has been checked.

There are increasing numbers of "breakdowns" in front of them, trucks taking a mandatory break in the layoff etc.

Now they are trying to make "blocking the view" of a robot camera illegal.


I'll never understand why governments just insist and insist on pushing things that they know are unpopular.

 

[javacontour]

East St Louis tried this on I64 a few years ago. They got a picture of the BACK of my Protegé5 allegedly speeding.

I didn't worry about it and a few months later a judge threw them all out and said they can't run their mobile speed camera operation.

I think the MO supreme court said some local programs were unconstitutional with respect to the MO constitution.

 

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
Anyone else sick and tired of those red light camera??!!! It seem Chicago has them at 30% of all the intersections. It's a $100 ticket and if you don't pay doubles. I find it an invasion of privacy. It's also shown that these Red Light cameras INCREASE rear end collisions. I'm a pretty safe driver (exception for a couple of DUI's) and average about one Red Light ticket per year.


The reason we NEED red light cameras is because of people like you. "One red light ticket a year"? Seriously, you need to get off the road before you kill someone....jeez.

 

[qwerty1234]

I think some of you are missing the constitutional angle on this. Safety or not, it is a VIOLATION OF PRIVACY. What right does the government have to know where I drive my car? I'm tired of the government trying to tell me how to drive. Seat belt laws are another issue that I'm totally against.

 

[spasm3]

I don't see it as an issue of privacy. I see it as an issue of being able to face your accuser. How can you put the camera on the stand and ask it what the traffic conditions behind the intersection were. Can you question the camera about who might have walked up to your car necessitating an escape through the intersection. Not that those things happen but you can't question an inanimate object. I think you should only be ticketed by a flesh and blood person, and face that person in court. That is the rub for me.

 

[qwerty1234]

spasm, it's about the money. In Chicago, the Red Light cameras have better resolution than the Blue Light "crime and shot spotting" cameras. Chicago has terrible winters and I received a red light ticket because I couldn't stop in time (due to ice) and was forced to barrel through. I appealed the ticket and lost.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
spasm, it's about the money. In Chicago, the Red Light cameras have better resolution than the Blue Light "crime and shot spotting" cameras. Chicago has terrible winters and I received a red light ticket because I couldn't stop in time (due to ice) and was forced to barrel through. I appealed the ticket and lost.


I agree, its about money.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
What right does the government have to know where I drive my car?

If you blow a red light in front of a cop, he's going to write you a ticket, and the "government" will know where you're driving your car. The same goes if you blow through a red light with a red light camera. You do not have an expectation of privacy in public.

You're really worried about this? I'm more worried about the proliferation of cameras among the general public. If I blow a red light and the government "knows about it" by catching me, well, they're doing their job. I don't need a video of me on Youtube because I forgot to zip up my fly in the morning.

There is one sure way to avoid being told how to drive, be it by the government, a safety agency, MADD, the guy in the next car, or your significant other. Don't drive. By exercising the right not to drive, no one will ever tell you how to drive.

 

[philipp10]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I think some of you are missing the constitutional angle on this. Safety or not, it is a VIOLATION OF PRIVACY. What right does the government have to know where I drive my car? I'm tired of the government trying to tell me how to drive. Seat belt laws are another issue that I'm totally against.


Well buy a big piece of land, put roads on it and drive wherever you want. But when you are on PUBLIC roads, we have the right to do anything necessary to keep the public safe....and blowing red lights IS a safety hazard...