Why Red Light Cameras Suck

[Pro Stock John]

A freelancer named RacerX sent this article to us...

http://www.planetlsx.com/buzz/Why_Red_Light_Cameras_Suck/137

[Andrew @ PlanetLSX]

Red light cameras have one purpose: revenue generation. They're not there for safety. Anyone who says so is lying or naive.

Camera companies will install the cameras for free, send the bills out for the city, and then give the city a cut of the revenue. Makin' money. That's what it's all about.

[ProjectCamaro]

That same friend was enraged when she incurred a a you-took-too-long-to-turn-left-lady $75 ticket

This isn't true, red light camera's only take a picture when you cross the stop line after the light as already changed to red. If you have already crossed the stop line and are simply waiting for a clear spot and the light turns red while doing so you will not be given a ticket.

Red light cameras do nothing but ticket people for breaking the law.

[Richiec77]

Chicago is one of the worst cities doing this. But, Daley turns around and gives the revenue away to a contractor who then raises the prices of everything involved. It's all revenue driven.

I hate red-light cameras.

[Jano4]

Chicago is one of the worst cities doing this. But, Daley turns around and gives the revenue away to a contractor who then raises the prices of everything involved. It's all revenue driven.

Ugh don't get me started with Chicago and their ways to get revenue.

[demonspeed]

What suck out most in that piece was the mention of

http://theartofaccessories.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/potbelly.jpg

[WILWAXU]

This isn't true, red light camera's only take a picture when you cross the stop line after the light as already changed to red. If you have already crossed the stop line and are simply waiting for a clear spot and the light turns red while doing so you will not be given a ticket.

Red light cameras do nothing but ticket people for breaking the law.
Sorry... that may be the intent, but they do get it wrong. I've received a ticket in D.C. the same way. Backed up traffic, got caught in an intersection. 3 weeks later a nice gift shows up in my mailbox.

[Slowhand]

Red light cameras do nothing but ticket people for breaking the law.

red light cameras raise the accident rate because of people slamming on their brakes because they see them... in my city the number of accidents rose 52% at intersections with red light cameras in one year and dropped 2.9% in those without... it also cost the city more money to upkeep the cameras than they were bringing in...

fortunately they came to their senses and took them down

[HYBRED]

I recall reading a news article about the light cameras in either Houston or Dallas; supposedly, the amount of time between yellow and red was shorter, in most cases even below the legal limit, on lights with cameras when compared those without. There was a huge hubbub about it and the lights got pulled. As far as "increasing safety," friend of mine hit a lady and totaled his car because she slammed on her brakes halfway through an intersection when the light turned yellow, out of fear of getting a ticket (she didn't have insurance)

Article was a good topic, but it just seemed like an intro without any supporting facts or discussion. I was actually sad when I hit the end and realized that was all there was :(

[tones2SS]

I don't know?
On one hand I say it's a revenue thing and on the other, it helps keep the law. Leaning a little more towards the revenue way though. I mean, we all know the law and the consequences,(accidents/fatalities), if you don't stop at a red light. I think it's a city's way to make some "easy money".

[Jano4]

Its all revenue as far as I'm concerned. More traffic jams and more accidents. At least 30% of people don't even turn right on red anymore out here; they just wait till its green.

[HYBRED]

Its all revenue as far as I'm concerned. More traffic jams and more accidents. At least 30% of people don't even turn right on red anymore out here; they just wait till its green.

Interesting factoid for the day...the national "right on red" laws were implemented in the 1970's at the suggestion of the EPA, to reduce idle time at lights and thus reduce fuel consumption.

[Jano4]

Interesting factoid for the day...the national "right on red" laws were implemented in the 1970's at the suggestion of the EPA, to reduce idle time at lights and thus reduce fuel consumption.

Didn't know that. The EPA should help the fight to remove these camera's :). Chicago has had quite a few protests so far (some successful).

Surprising we legalized window tints to help conserve the energy used on the AC system.

[1FAST02FORMULAHAWK]

I hate them.

As someone mentioned previously, the time on the yellow to red change is quicker on the intersections with the cameras. I have noticed this on multiple occaisions in my adventures across Houston. That to me, is just an obvious sign of revenue driven agendas.

Also as for the safety, i feel that for the reason stated above it actuall makes those intersections more dangerous, for reasons already stated in this thread. (slamming on brakes, or 2nd person trying to run the YELLOW light speeds up and then the 1st person changes thier mind, stops, and gets rearended)



Interesting factoid for the day...the national "right on red" laws were implemented in the 1970's at the suggestion of the EPA, to reduce idle time at lights and thus reduce fuel consumption.


Another interesting fact. When gas prices were redonkulos a few years back, UPS re-arranged thier normal routes to include the most possible right hand turns at intersections to save on fuel cost. (DISCLAIMER, i never researched this, but it seems highly likely.)

[Richiec77]

Didn't know that. The EPA should help the fight to remove these camera's :). Chicago has had quite a few protests so far (some successful).

Surprising we legalized window tints to help conserve the energy used on the AC system.

Good to know the EPA did something helpful in terms of driving better.

I think I may start writting up a couple congressmen here in Texas to see if we can push thru some similar reform on the Tint Laws. Legally, you can't have more than 35% on the front windows, but you can have 15% on the back. I don't like that look on a car with enough window space to see the difference in tint levels.

Austin, Houston, DFW I get alerted about stoplight camera's all the time on my Escort 9500i. San Antonio I think I've only seen it light up downtown. Don't believe I've seen them anywhere else out here by me.

[cam]

Crap on a stick its all about the dough

[demonspeed]

I think I may start writting up a couple congressmen here in Texas to see if we can push thru some similar reform on the Tint Laws. Legally, you can't have more than 35% on the front windows, but you can have 15% on the back. I don't like that look on a car with enough window space to see the difference in tint levels.

That's better than PA -- anything over 35% on the sides and rear is illegal. There can be no tint on the front.

[NJSPEEDER]

It is funny how every effort made to enforce a traffic law somehow gets talked down to as just another way to generate revenue. Yes, traffic enforcement is a way of bringing money into local municipalities, but it is also the law.

Personally I would rather see traffic enforcement done by actually putting police out and having them enforce it. I am sure they would in my town if they weren't so deep in conversation about important police stuff at the back of the high school parking lot.

At the end of the day, if you don't try to beat lights and avoid driving like a tool you will be fine and won't have to worry about what cops or cameras are up to.

-Tim

[Pro Stock John]

In my experience, there are red light cameras that are not a big problem for me because the intersections are not super busy. On the other hand there is an intersection three blocks from my house that I try to avoid at all times. It's a very busy intersection so you have a great many drivers either trying to fly through it, or playing it too conservative so you don't "make the light" about four times instead of two. The cameras in this situation create a traffic snarl.

A friend of mine rearended someone at one of these cameras. The person in front started going and stopped, paralyzed by indecision.

Where have these cameras been removed?

[Andrew @ PlanetLSX]

At the end of the day, if you don't try to beat lights and avoid driving like a tool you will be fine and won't have to worry about what cops or cameras are up to.
-Tim

Not true, you have to worry about the idiot in front of you locking up their brakes as they try to halt in the intersection. ;) I do allow for reasonable following distance, but someone locking up their brakes in order to avoid a camera is pretty much an unacceptable safety hazard IMO.

[Pro Stock John]

The other super lame aspect of these tickets is that they are impossible to contest.

Don't get me wrong, I've gotten tix for pulling bs and even was arrested for speeding once, but these cameras are abusive.

Fight the power!

[Jano4]

Where have these cameras been removed?

Schamburg, IL. Huge petition that everyone would stop going to the mall so they were all removed. Des plaines has been putting a bunch up though. So now I get stuck waiting a full light at every light since nobody turns right anymore.

Not true, you have to worry about the idiot in front of you locking up their brakes as they try to halt in the intersection. ;) I do allow for reasonable following distance, but someone locking up their brakes in order to avoid a camera is pretty much an unacceptable safety hazard IMO.

Agreed.

[Pro Stock John]

Removed in Schaumburg? Awesome. There was protest by some nearby cameras, these things really bug people.

[NJSPEEDER]

Not true, you have to worry about the idiot in front of you locking up their brakes as they try to halt in the intersection. ;) I do allow for reasonable following distance, but someone locking up their brakes in order to avoid a camera is pretty much an unacceptable safety hazard IMO.

Where ever you go and what ever you drive you always have to wonder if the people driving around you know what they are doing. We have no traffic light cameras around me and I see accidents at the major intersections all the time for the same reasons so many here seem to think are a symptom of the cameras.

If you wanna talk about the real root of the problem how about talking about how people get "taught" to drive. We learn little if anything about actual car control, sight lines, or emergency maneuvers, but instead get taught what is or isn't a ticket.

There are a lot of unsafe drivers out there, they were here before the traffic cameras and they will be here until someone decides to actually start teaching people how to drive.

-Tim

[AlexTheGreat]

I could care less about them, we don't have any here.

[J-R10-5]

Chicago is one of the worst cities doing this. But, Daley turns around and gives the revenue away to a contractor who then raises the prices of everything involved. It's all revenue driven.

I hate red-light cameras.

Hopefully my opinion won't get be banned from this site.

Seriously, if that's what Daley does with the collected money - please take your time and some money and assist the next person who runs against Daley.

Driving isn't a right - it's earned. We have red light cameras all over my area. Facts are they won't catch my car speeding or running a red light when I am behind the wheel. No vehicle speeds or runs a red light - but the driver does. Obviously, if these things make money for a community many people must speed and run red lights. Why worry where the money goes - who gets it?

Bottom line don't speed don't run red light - if you can't be trusted to not do that, this is what we as a community are willing to do.

Rick

[Jano4]

My issue with the lights is having them at the turn-on-red. When you approach one of these camera intersections and want to turn right, you must stop within a few feet of the line. If you stop too soon you will get a ticket. If you stop to far you will get a ticket. I see it everyday from my window at work.

[Slowhand]

Where have these cameras been removed?

lubbock, texas... accident rate skyrocketed and it cost the city more money in upkeep then they were bringing in ticket revenue...

[Pro Stock John]

I can see where having cameras at a high accident intersection could make some sense.

I noticed much to my dismay that there are a shit ton of these cameras around me now. These cameras are waaay too big brother for me, they have to go!

[HYBRED]

I heard they were pulling them out of College Station as well. Also, the money from the lights wasn't going to the PD; basically, the lights were put up by an outside contractor who took the revenue, then paid the city a portion of the proceeds for the opportunity. I doubt it's done that way everywhere, but in this case, it was a business, not an interest in safety.

A measure to abolish the use of red light cameras in College Station, TX has passed. The vote affirms that people understand the cameras are not about safety but instead about revenue and profits for private corporations.

College Station city officials said they will notify American Traffic Solutions (ATS) who runs the program that the cameras are to be immediately disabled and physically removed once the ballots have been canvassed by the City Council next week.

http://defeatredlightcameras.com/2009/11/03/red-light-cameras-abolished-by-voters-in-college-station-tx/

"This is about 2000 pages of documents," said Ash. Ash said he obtained the documents through a public records request.

"I've reviewed every single line of it." Ash said the documents all relate to College Station's red-light cameras.

"This stack of paperwork on my desk, 90% of this is about the money and protecting the income stream."

Its a conclusion Ash said he finds infuriating.

"When they tell us its about safety and every document I have says its about revenue, it's wrong."

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/41296362.html

[Pro Stock John]

And the Illinois Senate is now voting on red light cameras, AWESOME!

http://illinoisstatehousenews.com/2010/02/25/senators-look-to-halt-red-light-cameras/

I'm not sure why this link is not working right, it works okay if I go there direct.

[Jano4]

And the Illinois Senate is now voting on red light cameras, AWESOME!

http://illinoisstatheousenews.com/2010/02/25/senators-look-to-halt-red-light-cameras/

I'm not sure why this link is not working right, it works okay if I go there direct.

:woot:

John... it would help if it was spelled correctly... even after I pasted it in here is scrambled the address too? illinoisstatehousenews.com

Now if they would finally vote & amend the front license plate instead of passing on it; IL would be a happier car state :D

[Andrew @ PlanetLSX]

Something's wonky with the filter, I think.

Illinois State House News.com

IllinoisStatheouseNews.com

Ahh, OK. The T-E-H filter is catching the link (remember, we don't allow t-e-h on the site :lol: ).

[LS1N]

Lol, nice filter. They've just starting put those camera's up where I live too. One of the main intersections they did it at I guess is a dangerous intersection (said news and paper, although never noticed personally). The main problem is that its on the main drag here, and the intersecting road is leaving a hospital. Most elderly drivers scare me anyways. Just what they need is to see that and slam on the brakes. All they've talked about since is the revenue they will produce.

The fact that theirs camera's watching over me for any reason is discomforting. I fully support the police and their efforts, but if an intersection has such a high rate of people running red lights or wrecking, put an officer on duty on that corner. Even just a couple times a week, and people will start to know that cops tend to hang around so monitor your driving. At the end of the day there's no way to remove stupid drivers from the road, I just think camera's are too abusive. Officials seem to want to pass tickets out like hotcakes these days, and not worry about peoples licenses.

My same feelings carry over to emissions regulations. They are a huge revenue driven idea. They are pushing stringent enough rules on the auto makers through cafe regulations, and then to want to have us pay to have our car inspected, and if it doesn't pass pay more to fix it? Thats absurd. If I own it, I should be able to do with it as I please. If you are worried about efficiency, consider so when buying the car. Vehicles are a drop in the ocean as far as world wide pollution is concerned.

[Pro Stock John]

Yes, the cameras are abusive. Welcome to the new Orwellian America. Give me...

Liberty.

[Ragtop 99]

My same feelings carry over to emissions regulations. They are a huge revenue driven idea. The primary automobile emissions rules are federal (expect for a certain left coast state) and the feds collect no tax from them.

They are pushing stringent enough rules on the auto makers through cafe regulations, and then to want to have us pay to have our car inspected, and if it doesn't pass pay more to fix it? Thats absurd. The Feds push the CAFE, which does help reduce pollution by reducing gasoline consumed per mile driven. The inspection rules you are referring to are state rules. The automakers have warranties on emission critical parts beyond the normal powertrain warranty so repairs to newer cars should be covered. Other repairs are often capped so that huge money is not required in an old car. This can vary by state.

Vehicles are a drop in the ocean as far as world wide pollution is concerned. In this country they are not a drop in the bucket. Maybe in Iowa with a low population density, it may not matter, but in big cities vehicle pollution is measurable and noticeable, especially in the summer.

[Pro Stock John]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/yellow-lights-shorter-at-chicago-red-light-camera-intersections.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicag o+Breaking+News%29

Nice.

And $59m for the Chicago of Chicago... how about that.

[Darren P]

they were pulled out of Charlotte NC about 2 years ago.

[LS1N]

Ragtop I think you misunderstood what I was referring to with regulation laws. I was referring to those state by state ones, not federal. I was stating that I can understand the federal ones under CAFE to a point, but then the state inspections being more revenue driven. They tried to pass them here too.

As far as a drop in the bucket, I know there are cities where it is noticable. As far as the rest of the world goes though, planes, trains, livestock, factories, shipping, all have much larger effects.