Red Light Cameras: The Media Wakes Up
Until recently, the media has generally supported red-light cameras.
In past years, they would often print quotes from the ticket camera companies as fact, they didn’t question the statistics given to them by local government, and any dissenting opinions were relegated to one sentence at the end of the article.
Things have changed over the last year or so though — the tables have turned and now the majority of articles on ticket cameras are negative. All across the country, local newspapers and TV stations are investigating the reality of their cities’ ticket camera programs and they’re not pleased with what they’re finding.
This editorial by the Las Cruces Sun-News (which has supported the cameras in the past) is just one example:
From the beginning, we’ve maintained that red-light enforcement cameras could potentially serve as an effective traffic safety device at some of our city’s busiest intersections. But, we’ve also been troubled by the city’s secretive administration of this policy.
If every there were an effort that demands total transparency, the red-lights cameras would be it. Instead of paying upfront to have the cameras installed and monitored, the city has contracted with a private company called Redflex Traffic Systems. For every $100 ticket issued, $50 goes to Redflex, $25 to the city and $25 to the state. Obviously, Redflex has a strong incentive to issue as many citations as possible.
[...]
What we haven’t learned yet is whether the cameras are having any effect, other than monetarily. Have accidents been significantly reduced at the intersections where the cameras have been posted? For what it’s costing local drivers, one would certainly hope so.
Thanks to the efforts of everyday citizens, and organizations like the NMA, these kind of editorials are becoming more and more common. The impact that this kind of press can have is substantial. Ticket cameras have been voted down in every city where they’ve been on the ballot.
Whenever you get a chance, take the time to send a letter to editor to your local newspaper or write your legislators and let them know how you feel about ticket cameras. Let’s keep this momentum going.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Every time you get into a car it's dangerous. Putting cameras up everywhere is not going to MAKE people FLAWLESS in their driving, no matter how much you fine them. You could sit here and say well maybe we need cameras in all cars. That way no one will get into an accident. That's the same logic you are using here Randy. I don't know anyone who runs red lights ON PURPOSE! do you? Trying to make it through a light before it changes yes, but your not TRYING to PURPOSEFULLY run the light. Ihave a ran a red light before. Was it on purpose? Hell no! I don't want to get into an accident. I've done it many times in DC because they are on the side of the road where you are not looking, not a plcae i travel to often, I hate driving there. I didn't do it on purpose. If a cop pulled me over, fine I ran the light. To sit here and to say that these people are running red lights on purpose is ridiculous. Even you yourself Randy I'm sure has done it before. Did you do it purpose, I highly doubt it. Some people get distracted and run a red light, does it make it ok? No. but I'm sure if they saw the light they would stop. Unless your in an emergency, or your running from the police or someone is chasing after you, these are situations where someone would run a red light.
Now stop signs thats a different story people "run them" all the time with their slow down and go stop, also called a rolling stop and many other names. This is certainly on purpose and dangerous in my Opinion. it really bugs me. I'm not going to say i dont occasionally do it myself, but i dont agree with it nor do i do it often, almost never. I'm not calling for stop sign cameras.
Guadalautern yes this was a very short article but NMA purposefully left out the statement "An officer does monitor footage from those cameras to determine if an infraction has been committed,"
This kind of thing is done on almost every report. NMA if you are going to print 90% of the article do not take things out that may not be what you are trying to prove. If anyone looked at this from an unbiased view they would say that the NMA writers need to find another job than to write. This is a very good example of the kind of lies that NMA prints.
"An officer does monitor SOME footage from those cameras to determine if an infraction has been committed"
Corrected for the newspaper… it's been shown that a lot of footage is simply ignored and not checked, as proven by people getting tickets for parked cars and turning right on red where it's legal to do so.
ok Schwinn, since there is at least one serial killer out there that means we are all serial killers. Just because it is found that one person does not do his job does not mean that we all do a bad job. I think that you should be fired from your job because someone across the world does the same kind of work and does a poor job so you should be fired from your job because you are going to do a bad job.
What is the remedy to those that suffer because someone "did a bad job".
If a surgeon does a bad job, the surgeon will have to answer for the bad job and if it continues may lose his license.
============================================================
(Usually one can use visual clues to determine whether a car is moving or not.
If the officer can not determine if the car is moving or not then the ticket should not be issued.
====================================
Serial killer?
M1THRAND1R you miss the point. If a surgean does a bad job you die. If a driver makes a mistake you die. If a polceman does a bad job looking at a video you pay a small fine or have to either go to court or get it taken care of another way. Which would you rather have?
You are making assumptions here.
You could die from a bad job by a surgeon. It is not a guarantee.
A policeman could possibly make your life a living hell or get you killed if he does a poor job. Again, it is not a guarantee.
For some people that small fine could be a big difference.
I would rather not have have neither. (Bad Dr or Bad Police)
One could die from a driver that drives below the regular PSL.
(I will agree that is POSSIBLE (but NOT a certainty) for one to die if another driver runs a red light or drives in an unsafe manner)
Although not scientific data, I have seen enough idiot drivers on highways (and local roads) that were not speeding, but still were imo a potential accident waiting to happen.
========================================================
I do not think that RLC are wortt the expense or hassle. You do. We differ in opinion. Imo, RLC will not guarantee the safety of other people.
M1THRAND1R we agree to disagree on this one. You believe a very slight chance that a policeman will get a ticket wrong is more worrisome than someone running into you at 70 mph. You are thousands of times more likely to be injured or killed by the people who break the law on purpose such as running red lights or speeding or driving drunk than you are by a policeman. I agree we should not have to have Red Light cameras but with 30+ years of driving I have never seen any time during those years that drivers were driving so badly with an anything goes attitude. In the past you did not need such devices because people did not run red lights and speed like they do today.
If you drive a car… you can die. If you walk outside in the winter, you could slip and die. This type of statement is just typical sensationalism intended to tweak emotions. It's not based on any logic or facts.
The point is, you take risks doing everything. The doctor risks surgery to save your life – he doesn't do it if you're healthy (except for plastic surgery, which is a whole different ball of wax). So, it's "do or die" for the surgery.
In the case of RLCs, there is no "do or die". RLCs, overall, have not shown any improvement in accident rates… and have often shown increased accidents. So, why are we doing them at all? That's the point we are trying to make. Prove it's helpful and beneficial… that's all. Show me the data. If it supports the statements, then I'm all for it.
As for getting it "fixed" in the courts, that assumes the court system works, which it does not. Police lie in court all the time. Hell, even radar cops don't follow proper procedure when handing out tickets – in most states, they can't just sit by the road with the gun running, until it shows a "bad" number… they're supposed to use the gun AFTER finding a car's visually estimated speed… yet they lie to say they did this before turning on the gun. You can bring this up all you want in court, but then it's just hearsay, and the judge isn't going to listen to you over the cop.
Furthermore, in MA for example, we can't even SEE a judge until AFTER paying fees to defend ourselves, and going through a magistrate. So, we pay a fine, lose two days for court visits, to simply prove our innocence in a broken court system.
And after all this, the cop STILL has no accountability. If his tickets get overturned, does he suffer any penalty? At least the doctor does…
schwinn red light cameras have been shown to decrease the most severe types of intersection accidents. The ones that people like you speed up and run the red light a second or two after it is red and run into the side of another vehicle. That has been shown in all reports except possiblly for a few that only show a half dozen accidents during the reporting period .
Prove it. Show me a valid study that doesn't ignore rear-end collisions where accident rates are reduced at the intersection. You can't, and hence you're an idiot for believing everything you read without thinking for yourself.
schwinn you need to leave you are so stupid. Look at almost any report and it will show a reduction in right angle crashes which is the main reason for red light cameras. The reports that show increased rear end crashes I have disproved because they occur during a time of increased distractions of cell phones and other things. You are too stupid to remember those things and keep bringing your slanted reports up as fact.
Prove it with facts and data. So far, you have done nothing of the sort.
Hell, even the cities and towns all around the world filled with politicians can see that RLCs are not helpful… you're the only one who still thinks they are.
But of course, everyone in the world is stupid, except you. You are the genius savior! Smarter than everyone in the world! And smarter than all the facts and studies performed by real scientists and engineers!
This Editorial isn't negative. It only raises questions. Larry Flint would have done a much better job.