Rise of stealthy traffic cameras fuels disgust

The only problem with such rigid rules is that sometimes a little extra speed is necessary when overtaking or when there is an extremely large truck behind you pushing its way through a yellow light. How can you stop that on a dime?

That's the problem; one side can argue that the cameras are saving lives, creating awareness of speed while driving, while on the other hand abuses, such as the caution light between green and red, as well as others that are blatant "money makers" are exploited as much as is tolerated.

This isn't only a problem with this, compare it to other problems now... change some words, the similarities are striking. Human nature, greed... they don't agree with common sense. But both are attributable human qualities, and while common sense should be the regulatory factor that reins in the others, it seldomly is used to or does...

There use to be a Red Light Pestilence on Route 28 in Chantilly, VA. I saw many near misses at the intersection in traveling through there each day when the light would turn yellow and drivers would slam on the brakes to avoid the Death Flash.

If Law Enforcement is so Hell bent on making us safe then why don't they get out there and enforce the laws rather than look for an adminstative job of collecting the camera money.

The politicians who pass enabling legislation for this claptrap should have to drive in the same traffic the people drive in and not avail themselves of a chaffeur or other lofty transit services. The whole damn bunch should have to run a red light traffic camera gauntlet every day, get to work on time or be brow beaten by a vituperative boss and deal with the same inane petty bureaucratic nightmare they have created for us peons.

Apparently the issue is that people want to speed.

People can vote to remove cameras but they can't normally vote to establish a speed limit on a given stretch of road, so the cameras take the hit.

I agree with sparcboy...

Where I live, the lights in the crosswalk don't flash(the warnings for drivers too) and the yellow light is the shortest ... shorter than others. It seems like a scam to me... shorten the yellow lights, then rake in the money.

By the way, the city I live in charges almost a thousand dollars for the red light ticket. Yeah... one thousand dollars.

I pay taxes so HUMAN BEINGS known as Police officers can enforce the laws, by using their judgment on each situation. I wonder what the increase in fender benders has been at these intersections. You want people to be more cautious, put a COP on the corner of the intersection. I agree with the statment that these camera seem to be in violation of our countries laws on due process. If a picture equates to guilt, then why can judges at murder, robbery, or sex abuse trials through them out of evidence? In Kitsap County in WA many people have been getting tickets in the mail for turning right on red, which is perfectly legal!

These cameras serve one purpose, to bring in revenue.

For all the people saying "I pay taxes for real officers to enforce the law..." ..... If you got pulled over for running a red light or speeding you'd probably say " Don't you guys have something better to do, like catch real criminals." .

Big Brother IS watching you!!!!

The 2 tickets I've gotten for speeding in my 25 year driving career I've accepted graciously and understood full well what I did wrong. I'd rather be stopped by a cop than be ambushed by some machine that's set up for one reason only : Separate people from their money.

sparcboy, I am from Houston. I am against the cameras for reasons of invasion of personal privacy. I've lived in London twice where everything you do is on video tape and I feel violated there. However, let me say that this issue about the length of yellow lights is not defensible. I don't know the law in other states, but in Texas the law is that a yellow light means stop. Read the Texas driver's handbook, page 5-1. People have believed for so long that you can run a yellow light legally that it has become tacitly okay. It would be within the letter of the law for these cameras to flash as you drive through a yellow light. When you see the light change from green to yellow, you are supposed to stop, not speed up. For safety, you want drivers with their foot on the brake pedal, not on the accelerator as they approach and enter intersections. So quit believing the length of a yellow light has anything to do with getting caught running a red light. It's a fallacy.

The sad thing is they could care two sh#*s about safety. They only adopted it for revenue. There are so many safety issues on our roads and highways that are being ignored.

If you stop at a red light, look and proceed when safe to make a right turn, you wouldn't be pulled over.

I haven't gotten a ticket in years. When I got my last one, I paid it. I knew I was at fault.

As you enter Beaulaville, NC, on the side of the road, they have one of those radar speed monitors that displays your speed to you in foot high lights.

The display helps you to realize that you are speeding and reminds you to slow down from a 55MPH speed limit to a 35MPH speed limit. I find it quite effective.

There is no cop there. Once in a while there is a cop a couple of hundred yard later, but you had the display as a warning.

This is a great way to get people to slow down, without making money off of them.

Who knew I'd need a ski mask to drive through Maryland?

I'm thinking we should further the cost savings. Let's start unloading about half these worthless State Highway Patrols.

My mom, who lives in Arizona, got a red light ticket because two of them were in the intersection waiting to turn on a normal green light, which is perfectly legal, and the 100 year old man in front of her just sat there as the light turned yellow and then red while he thought about what to do next. What was she supposed to do? She had to go and fight it. A real cop could've made a judgement call. They're full of you know what when they argue about safety; anytime substantial amounts of money are involved, one has to question the motives.

Cities all around the county I live in put up several red-light cameras 2 years ago and were raking in tons of fines in the name of safety. About a year ago our state DOT mandated that they add 1 second to the yellow lights of all intersections with cameras. Do you know they lost so much money on those red light cameras that 98% of them have since been removed. Just 1 second added to the yellow light decreased the tickets generated so much that the cities paid more out to the camera operator than they collected. Don't tell me that the length of the yellow doesn't matter. And have any of these other municipalities done anything to make those camera plagued intersections safer such as increased lighting or signage? All they did was slap a camera there and collect the money. Even after saying that, you know I personally wouldn't mind them if they required the money collected go to charity and not enrich the police department or city. It's not about making money after all, right?

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime. Take personal responsibility for your driving that puts others at risk.

It's cheaper overall to install cameras after they have been in use for a few years than to pay more taxes for more police, who cannot be expected to monitor so many intersections. Cameras are a good use of resources - the police can be used to protect us from more serious crimes.

The people of this country are a bunch of whining babies and have become incapable of taking responsibility for their behavior. You can't argue with the evidence, it's well known that the cameras save live and change behaviors. I recall the same sniveling excuses and arguments about refusing to wear seatbelts back when I was a kid. Well people finally accepted the evidence and now almost everyone readily wears one. Spare me the arguments about due process...the evidence is incontravertible.

You don't obey the law just because there's a speed trap set up or a camera, you obey the law because you respect society, it's rules, and others. That's right people it's a society and to maintain it you agree to certain rules for the well-being of others. What's the problem with that? If you don't like it and want to live Lord of the Flies style go ahead just don't do it here.

eurotex wrote,

a yellow light means stop. Read the Texas driver's handbook, page 5-1. People have believed for so long that you can run a yellow light legally that it has become tacitly okay. It would be within the letter of the law for these cameras to flash as you drive through a yellow light. When you see the light change from green to yellow, you are supposed to stop, not speed up. For safety, you want drivers with their foot on the brake pedal, not on the accelerator as they approach and enter intersections.

I agree and argument aside that these systems are not infallible and seeing first-hand people running red lights all the time, I also believe that if it were in the interest of safety only, then they would simply add points or some other new, negative mark to drivers licenses.

Stats for my city: http://elkgrove.org/forms/RedLightCameras.pdf

Cameras work, reduce accidents, and increase revenue - taxes I don't have to pay. The whiners on this blog complaining their freedom is taken away should obey the laws and not take away my freedom to be safe when driving.

I got nailed last year while visiting Springfield, OH, after turning from eastbound Troy Pike to north Leffel Lane. This is a large and busy intersection with a total of 16 direct and turn lanes converging at the lights. After the $100 ticket (which I paid - Springfield is an otherwise nice town that deserves a little extra revenue from tourists), I went back and timed the yellow: 3 seconds! Impossible to enter and clear the intersection before it changes from yellow to red (yeah, that doesn't get you the ticket in Ohio), and very difficult to be up to speed on the leading green and then stop immediately on the yellow. I then timed several of the smaller intersections, and all had at yellows that were at least one to two seconds longer. So, if technology can save money and lives, let's use it. But don't insult my intelligence, sense of fair play, and desire to believe in the overall rightness of a representative government by such an egregious manipulation of that technology.

I'd like to see them put in for cellphone drivers! They're more dangerous than any speeder!

people can argue safety and statistics all the want. The bottom line is that the laws are supposed to be enacted by the people and for the people. When 87% of the people say NO, we don't want this, then that should be the end of it. These things should be outlawed because the people are saying they don't want them. Any other argument you make, either for or against, is an inconsequential detail.

Sounds like these people should just sponsor a voter initiation to make speeding legal.

Yep, it's really simple; you don't want to get a ticket? Why, just obey the traffic laws.

eurotex wrote:

in Texas the law is that a yellow light means stop.

And in Texas, when people turn on their turn signal it means, "I'm coming over NOW!" (I've been through there a few times...)

In Ohio, The amber (yellow) light means "proceed with caution." Many Ohioans (especially the cops) are under the misconception that it means prepare to stop. That is not what the law say. If you don't fight the ticket, you deserve the fine!

Of course most people here think there's a speed limit in Ohio, too. Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

~_o

Hi Rhino! you wrote:

"The bottom line is that the laws are supposed to be enacted by the people and for the people. When 87% of the people say NO, we don't want this, then that should be the end of it."

Please remember that USA voters have been known to vote against their best interests... think 2000 and 2004.

For the folks who argue that this is just to collect revenue - What of it? Our municipalities are suffering economically due to falling tax revenues, and struggling to keep up services. Why shouldn't we let those who break the law and put others at risk pump up our coffers? Connecticut roadways are snarled with traffic, especially during rush hour: where speeders are not the biggest threat - it's the folks who dart in and out of lanes where there's insufficient space to merge - without even putting on a blinker.

Incidentally, I've received two speeding tickets from human police officers and fought them both successfully. I don't know how well I'd do against a camera, but would pay the fine if I couldn't beat the rap. Got to pay the piper if you want to dance.

Since they introduced red-light cameras, I frequently make emergency stops on yellow. One day I will be rear-ended. I don't think this makes me safer.

I also was walking along New Hampshire avenue one day and a cop car was runing the lights, the siren, and his horn at a red light trying to get people to run the red light and let him thru. Nobody moved, nobody wanted to wait for the ticket from the red-light camera and then miss work to go to court and explain that they ran the light because the cop insisted. Had this been an abulence, I don't know that the drivers would have done any different. I don't think this makes me any safer.

As municipalities abuse law enforcement to tax the people who don't live here, contempt for law enforcement will increase. This will make being a policeman a more dangerous job.

If I ever get a camera ticket, I will never patronize the businesses around that camera again.

I tried to tell my delegate to Annapolis, Justin, that this was a bad idea, and got a pretty rude brushoff. He lost my vote.

Actually, in Houston, the cameras were used in an unconstitutional scheme.

They dispensed punishment without the constitutionally guaranteed right to a criminal trial by your choice of a bench or jury trial. (This applies even when the punishment is monetary only). You also get to confront your accusors. There is no one who witnessed the alleged crime. Nor any witnesses to the operation of the camera (note the difference between that and a law enforcement officer operating a speed gun).

So they tried to say they were civil penalties.

However, in a civil case, the Government would have to prove DAMAGES. If there is no wreck or other property damage, there are no damages. This is why speeding or red light violation tickets given by police officers are not tried as civil cases. Punishment in criminal cases is not based in actual damage, but by which laws were violated. (You can steal millions from old ladies and get less punishment than attempted murder, even though there may have been no harm even know by the victim of a failed murder.)

To me, the biggest point is that our Government (at all levels) is unwilling to follow the rules laid out by the US Constitution. When your Gov't tells you that they don't have to obey the law to get you to obey the law, we have a major problem on our hands.

How do you force the Gov't to follow it's own rules?

Hey, complainers ----- Here's a novel idea; if you want to avoid getting tickets issued by the actions of the policing cameras --- DON'T SPEED ! I would venture the same people who are"outraged" by the cameras would demand law enforcement action should speeding automobiles begin hitting innocents at a higher rate with the absence of cameras. Just obey the law, folks, and there will be no problems, no tickets. Otherwise, well --- "You've got mail."

ok lets be honest i dont like the red light cameras but the truth is you should be proceeding slowly and carefully through intersections and you should be preparing to stop - you shouldnt be in any danger of being rear ended because people shouldnt be driving so close together - unfortunately driving up one anothers ass seems to be the norm these days

However regarding speed cameras - they should put more up, dont tell me they are good sources of revenue - if you werent BREAKING THE LAW the speed camera would never earn a dime. stop whining and stop speeding.

people need to learn that driving safely and with consideration for others is what should be done 100% of the time, i can say just on my short trip to work i see people who indicate after they've already started turning or moving in to your lane if they bother to signal at all, i see people speeding, on their cell phones, no lights on in the rain, driving really close, cutting people off, not stopping at the 4 way stops, running the red light to get through traffic lights - its ridiculous - do you not care who you could injure or kill???

Sorry, If I'm coming up to an intersection that has a camera, I lock my brakes if the light is yellow. I just don't know if I'm going to get a ticket on a yellow, if I am not "all the way through" will I get a ticket?

And seeing as you cannot fight these, if I get rear ended, its not my fault. Its the person behind me that is at fault for following too closely.

For all of you who keep saying "don't break the law and you won't have a problem".. you're saying you've never gone even 1 mph over the speed limit? Never crossed a street outside the crosswalk area? Come on...

The issue is what other have mentioned... manipulating the cameras and lights to increase revenue. In AZ, the cameras are not supposed to click unless you are going 11 mph or more over the speed limit. But how long would it take for anyone to notice if they were clicking at 10 mph or 9? A loooong time. and it's not like you can take a photo of your spedometer as you drive past to prove your speed.

Same with the red lights.. if they shorten the yellow light so they catch more people, that is wrong. And I'm not just talking about driving straight through a yellow. I get stuck many times waiting to turn left behind someone who won't go until the entire road is empty. The light turns yellow and I still have to wait for that person to go before I can.. that leaves ME open for the ticket instead of the person who was causing the delay.

If the municipalities were honest about the usage, maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with it. But just like so many other things in government, greed takes over and screw the little people.

Several guidelines could make these cameras useful from a safety standpoint and provide a level of fairness currently missing.

First, with signs, warn drivers of their presence at the intersection.

Second, make sure the yellow lights are within recommended durations plus one second. (These should be recognized "independent" safety organization standards, for example, NTSB recommendations.)

Third, only issue tickets when the cameras are real time "manned". Manning should be done by individuals trained by a special certified NTSB course. These individuals would be deputized for this specific purpose and paid by the municipality, not the camera company. Their training should emphasize ticketing on both a technical violation of the law while posing a safety risk under the conditions at the time. Tickets could be appealed in court in which case the operator would testify as the case was reviewed. The introduction of this human judgement component would be to maximize fairness and not revenue. These individuals would be official members of law enforcement but not full fledged police officers and there roles specifically spelled out for this purpose. Wage rates could be relatively low in comparison to other law enforcement personnel. Requirements could be appropriately restrictive for law enforcement personnel but could provide jobs for some who would otherwise not get the opportunity to serve. For example, the physically handicapped or disabled individuals forced into early retirement.

If they're serious about this being driven by safety concerns, none of this should be objectionable, but it would provide a level of fairness that is currently the biggest complaint. It would also provide some meaningful job opportunities in the community.

This person's idea is very well thought out. I would like to see jobs created in the name of overall safety. We just have to be careful and pay a good living wage and benefits and set an education standard. "Traffic enforcement officers" would have to have a set standard of training.

I am a retired school bus driver of 20 years and so far where I live they have not shortened the yellow light interval. However in the next largest city and hour a way I have noticed that they did shorten the yellow light interval. The studies show that a longer yellow light is just as or more effective as Photo enforcement. Seems to me a slightly longer yellow light would be more cost effective than buying a bunch of robots.

We are a nation that wants everything both ways. We get annoyed by our fellow drivers and ask, "Where is a cop when you need one" but hate traffic cameras. We want health care reform but don't want to pay for it (people are riled up about the requirement for total participation). We want to keep government services but have our taxes lowered. We wanted to have a war but borrowed money from China to pay for it. We talk about having our freedoms infringed upon yet vote down laws which would allow gay marriage.

What is happening in this country? Is this a new phenomenon? If so, I'm not sure I 'like it.

Kathleen, You're right. There seems to be a generally selfish attitude and maybe even worse. Sort of an attitude that says you're only benefiting when you get your way if someone else also loses. I've always thought win-win was the most desirable outcome to just about any situation, but it seems like others only see a win-lose outcome as a victory.

Part of the problem with these red light cameras is they were designed for the sole purpose of making money, not doing a service to mankind. Public safety is used as selling point but it really has little to do with that, it's just a marketing tactic. The company wins, the municipality wins but the citizen loses "for his own good". Why not issue warnings first? Why change the timing of lights to get more victims? What does that have to do with public safety? Seat belts and air bags are safety devices, red light cameras, (in their current operation), are cash machines.

Anymore our entire society seems to be about coming up with excuses to justify financial gain or minimally, to do what we want to do. We go to war for clearly made up reasons, (remember WMDs? We now know that was BS). We justify making huge profits through health insurance on disease and misery, (but exclude people from coverage if those profits are threatened). We justify forms of discrimination with the excuse that we're somehow protecting our own rights. Capitalism has no boundaries. The worst thing is that a large segment of society actually supports and defends these practices.

I don't think exploitation is anything new, however the pervasiveness of it is. The fact that it is so widespread and commonplace as well as generally accepted, is what we should really be concerned about.

In Ohio, the posted "Speed Limit" is Prima Facie (At first sight; on first appearance but subject to further evidence or information. - Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth ed.).

This means that the "speed Limit" posted is a suggestion made by the jurisdiction, based on the criteria from the State, and to be followed at the discretion of the operator of the automobile or motor vehicle. So it is a perception of breaking a statute (not a law).

When you learn the language of the court/law, you then understand it is not about justice, but about due process...

“Some rules can be bent, others can be broken.” - Morpheus

Yes! I was thinking the exact same thing! like a light dimmer and shut off the tag light as you go thru..But actually these damn camera's are dangerous. Many times I have had to make a last minute judgement to go thru a huge intersection on skid into the middle of it or slam on my brakes. They ARE DANGEROUS. I also think they are taking advantage of The American People at a time when we are at our lowest. People can barely pay their real bills now we got big daddy putting more stress on us. I am going to figure out how to beat the system..just like I did with VA. and their dumb radar detector law...lol I laugh at them every time I go thru that state!

Exactly right, the old "it's OK if I do it" mentality.

Or these cities and states can stop trying to play the role of big brother and violating the liberties we have. And yes, whenever someone says they want to change your behavior they are violating your liberty.

Normally I'd probably gripe about the cameras. But since I've gotten a little older and see things differently, I think the ones that catch speeders are great. The ones at red lights leave a big grey area when it comes to "safe stopping distances" and should be reviewed by humans before mailed off. But then again I don't live were they are and rarely travel were they are.

So Nate, when someone wants to change ones behavior from a murdering rapist to a productive citizen(which I believe is impossible).... Are they violating that person's liberty?

Nate, that's bull. You don't have the *right* to behave in a way that endangers the lives of others, and that's what speeding does.

Those who cry Big Brother are usually in favor of law and order, until it affects them

Thank you, Robert. My feelings exactly. I'm tired of being tailgated when doing the speed limit and getting honked at because I refuse to be the THIRD car through the yellow light!

Obey the law, watch traffic and pedestrians, and you can forget the cameras.

"Don't violate the laws and you won't get in trouble."

Is what they say in North Korea, Iran, and back in Nazi Germany.

The traffic cameras are based on an improper premise: the state of the traffic light when the rear of your vehicle was in the center of the intersection. The proper premise is the state of the light when you enter the intersection as seen from your windshield.

The cameras can give you a ticket if you enter an intersection and the light was yellow when last seen from your driver's position. If the light then changes to red before you exit the intersection you get a ticket. This is especially egregious if you were unable to exit the intersection because a car blocked the way, leaving you with your car partially in the intersection --- and a ticket.

There is also another issue of the length of the yellow light. The National Traffic Regulation Board states that the proper interval for a yellow light is seven seconds and longer in certain cases (obstructed view of the intersection, etc.) Cities quickly find that they can increase revenue by shortening the length of the yellow light. Some cities that install cameras have, at the camera manufacturer's suggestion, shortened all yellow lights from 7 seconds to 2 seconds, causing both a sharp increase in ticket revenues and a huge increase in collisions. Since most of the collisions are rear-enders or t-bones that usually result in reckless driving tickets, they too produce additional revenues.

I know cities are pressed for revenue, but if they want to give away their community support, they can install these cameras.

Hi Ryan in Texas! You wrote:

"Don't violate the laws and you won't get in trouble."

Is what they say in North Korea, Iran, and back in Nazi Germany.

Just a thought: that's also what they say in the other 192 countries in this world.

If it is all about safety and not the revenue, then donate the ticket proceeds to housing the homeless or some other charity.

Won't do that? Then it's about the money and there is an ethical problem when the "judge" makes money choosing to convict.

Cece - I does kinda make the sentiment sound silly though doesn't it? I mean every tyrant that ever lived had the same philosophy. "Don't violate my rules, and you won't get in trouble."

or is it

"Do what I say, and you won't get hurt."

Kinda sounds like something a bank robber might say.

Isn't it a little ironic that "The land of the free" has the highest percentage of any population in the world IN PRISON?

And we also have more laws than anywhere.

Isn't it possible that more laws means more laws you are able to break?

Funny how the safest parts of the country are rural areas with the least regulation.

Just a thought.

big bunch of babies - dont speed and you wont give the government a penny in revenue, its that simple! the red light one needs to be gotten rid of, there are to many iffy factors like cops and ambulances trying to get through and idiots who follow to close, just put more cops there. but keep the speed cameras, anyone who deliberately violates the law by speeding deserves to have their license revoked because they are a danger to everyone else on the road

The greatest predictor of how many accidents you will have is how many you have had.

And yet, there is no law limiting how many accidents you can cause. 10, 20, 30?

When do we say you are unfit to drive?

Can we realistically have a safe driving experience when we would allow nearly everyone to drive?

How many wrecks could be avoided by higher driving proficiency standards?

My driver's ed instructor all those years ago said"Don't enter the intersection unless you know you can be out before the light turns red." That may not be the law, but is excellent advice.
Obviously you can't be 100% sure the driver in front of you isn't going to do something stupid, but where I drive daily, running red lights is business as usual.

As much as I agree with those who reject public monitering, I wish our city would put up streaming video on my corner to pop the drivers who run the 2 very obvious stop signs on my corner. I watched one day and 2/3 of the vehicles slowed,glanced and proceeded. Some even took the right of way from the one direction that did not have to stop. I'd rather the city monitered here than have the parking meters in the small commercial areas inside the city limits, which are blatently a money grab. Plus, there are the add on fines for those on cell phones as they will be on video.

Ryan in Texas... I agree with you about proficiency. If safety was the number one priority, then why don't they make laws that you have to retake your driving test every 10 years? Every 5 years if you're over 70.

You do lose your license if you have a certain number of tickets or accidents in a year, but you can get it back without much hassle.

Last summer I was driving through a Texas town (I was on vacation, and it was my first time through there) that had the cameras. They had signs warning you that the cameras were there. I knew they were there, but somehow I still ran the red light. I don't run red lights. It is very dangerous.

But the yellow changed much too fast for the speed limit. I couldn't believe it! I thought to myself, "How insane is this?" They warn you about the intersection, but then leave you no time to stop.

If it was a dangerous intersection, and they were concerned about safety, they would have an extra long yellow.

Obviously, they have the technology to detect traffic in the intersection. If they were concerned about safety, couldn't they extend the yellow time if traffic was detected in the intersection?

Think about that one!

They could virtually eliminate the danger of someone getting in an accident because of miss timing the light. They could just hold the yellow until the intersection is clear.

Of course, they would get very little revenue from tickets.

If their top priority is safety, then it's an easy decision.

The top priority is safety, right?

Ryan in Texas: "But the yellow changed much too fast for the speed limit. I couldn't believe it! I thought to myself, "How insane is this?" They warn you about the intersection, but then leave you no time to stop.

If it was a dangerous intersection, and they were concerned about safety, they would have an extra long yellow."

At 60 mph, you travel 88 feet in one second. At 30 mph, you travel 44 feet in one second. The slower you are going, the more time it takes to travel a certain distance. So if the speed limit is higher, the yellow light can be shorter and provide enough time to get through. The lower the speed limit, the longer the yellow light needs to be to allow you to get through. With or without cameras, short yellow lights will train people to stop, knowing they have little time. Long yellow lights only encourage more people to try to make it. This is all moot, however. Here is the bottom line: if you enter an intersection on a yellow light in Texas, you are breaking the law even if the light doesn't turn red, because yellow means stop. The speed limit, assuming you are not exceeding it, and the length of the yellow light are irrelevant. Paradigms are nearly impossible to change. Have you ever seen traffic lights that turn yellow both before they turn red AND before they turn green? I don't know about the U.S., but in Europe they are the norm. When people are sitting at a red light and it changes to yellow, they don't go until it turns green. Why? Well, because yellow means don't go yet, stop, do not enter the intersection. Why would it mean something else when changing from green to yellow?

And for the people who say they were trapped in an intersection and got a red light ticket, you get photographed and fined for blocking what they call "box junctions" in London. Those are the intersections with cross-hatched yellow lines painted on them and yes, there are cameras dedicated to spotting drivers stopped in them. It is the driver's responsibility to not get caught in an intersection. I bring this up as a not-very-subtle notice that technology has developed to where cameras can be trained and focused on numerous facets of behavior in daily life, whether in a car or not.

Eurotex - I'm not sure that you are factually right on the law in Texas. Logically speaking, if Yellow means stop, then why have a Yellow. Why not just go straight to red from green?

If you are travellling at 60mph, and are 40 ft from the intersection when it turns yellow, it is not physically possible to stop before the intersection. They don't make brakes that work like that. Most cars would need about 120 ft to stop. Big trucks, much more.

I'm pretty sure the law says you must not be in any part of the intersection when it turns red. (You must pass through it before it turns.) I have never heard of a yellow light ticket.

Like I mentioned, we have the technology to hold the yellow longer if traffic is present. Some people would push it, but in general longer yellows = safer intersection. It just takes longer to get through the intersection for everyone (waiting for the lights to cycle). But there is always a tradeoff. 35 mph highway speeds might be safer, but the loss of time would exceed the value of the benefit.

I have also heard that per mile driven, we are not nearly as dangerous as many countries. Most of the figures I have seen are deaths per thousand people. Not deaths per mile. If people in Europe drove the same miles per person as the US, I'm sure they would many more accidents. (Same thing with their healthcare system, they are healthier eaters, they exercise more, and don't have as many bad habits (drugs especially). If they all behaved exactly as Americans, their medical outcomes would be similar to Americans. (I have never seen a study where they study the healthcare of Europeans with the same lifestyles as Americans, which is to say corrected for lifestyle differences.) And what it would cost their system if everyone were like Americans.

It wouldn't be hard to reduce the amount of red light runners. Simply don't change the light to red until they have passed through. Sounds weird, but it would generally work. (Yes, some would still run them. Give them a bigger ticket.)

I don't run red lights. If the yellow were longer, I would not have run the one I did run when on my vacation. I did not get a ticket, but trust me, with all the signs warning me about the cameras, it was not deliberate. I was not trying to beat the light. They just had too fast a yellow.

One more note. You do not have to change the other sides light immediately to green when one side turns red. A second or two gap makes it much safer for everyone. (So even when someone runs a red that has just turned, there is not danger because the other side doesn't have green yet).

But none of my ideas increase revenue, they only make the roads safer.

Not true Robert as the yellow lights are NOT long enough to get thru a large intersection. Then throw in the fact different states have different laws. IE: no turn on red allowed in some, no turn on red not allowed in some, no turn on red after stop in some...then there's the ghost sign..."but officer there was a turn right on red sign there yesterday it was an electronic one..." that one gets turned off by the sign fairy. Like I said...there's been times I have had to decide to run the red light or have a friggin hummer slam into the back of me..or slide on the ice or water depending on the state..this must be a nightmare for folks who live in the ice...black ice especially. These Cameras Have To GO.

James I drive the 60 freeway in AZ everyday about 25 miles, they installed camers gave out 250,000 the first month, there was same amount of accidents, this is just a money making plan. I don't want to be watched by a camera, who knows where they will end up, in your home? Also check and see where the money goes, just a small percentage go to state the rest goes to the company.

Maybe there's a pill you can take for you fear Jamesy :0

James, I think I've been stuck behind you. You're the one who, at a four-way-stop, let's at least TWO cars from the other three directions, go through before you ssllloooooooowwwwwwwwlllllllyyyyyy pull into the intersection. You're the one who sits at a red light, waiting to turn right, with no other cars in sight. Do you turn? No, because you don't know the law. My mother always said about my grandmother "No, she never had an accident, but who knows how many she caused?"

there was same amount of accidents

Looking at this is missing the point. It doesn't matter if accidents go down or not. Going at a reasonable speed reduces the chance that an accident will be fatal to one or more persons involved. It's about reducing traffic deaths, not traffic accidents.

james zander bull@!$%#

Cameras may not get immediate results. If you travel a stretch of road everyday and get a ticket a day for the first three days a camera goes up, are you gonna keep speeding or will you learn to eventually slow down because you can't afford it anymore?

Spoken like a true fascist!

If you don't break the law, you have nothing to fear.

Since it's all about the money, why have any yellow light at all? The city could collect a fine every time the light changes. There is a conflict of interest and an ethical problem when being facist about the law makes money for the state; anybody who thinks about it will find these cameras unamerican.

anybody who thinks about it will find these cameras unamerican.

If you don't want the government fining you for endangerment of others on its property, let's privatize the roads so you can be fined by a private company instead or perhaps banned from using the roads altogether at the "discretion of management."

They have private roads already. They're called Tollways.

Hay "NC Obama Supporter",

In Chicago I think that's already on Mayor Daley's agenda!

Lets see, we have no jobs, so lets out source police officers to camera. Lets put another family on state aid while the city makes money on someone going 2 miles over the limit. I'd rather pay for someone to work and feed their family.

In England they have cameras everywhere, and by American standards and laws EVERY driver there is in violation! I was on the bus in London the other day and saw another bus hit a guy on a bike. And they constantly run red lights.

Think about why cops aren't being hired. They require salaries. Cameras don't. Salaries require tax revenue. Noone likes taxes raised. If humans were hired to do the ticket writing, it wouldn't last long enough to justify keeping them on the payroll. Humans need cars to ride in. Cars need fuel and insurance. Sure cameras don't have the judgement humans have, but that is a good thing. No cute girls getting out of tickets, no family and friend "breaks". Noone complaining the officer was rude. The list goes on.....

For everyone saying put cops on the corners: How practical is that? Exactly how would that work? So, the cop sees you running a light, jumps on his motorcycle so that his flashing red lights impede the cross traffic, pulls you over which in turn impedes traffic going your way and writes you a ticket for which he probably gets told off. He then goes back to his post and starts all over again. Seriously, get a grip.

The fact is if you don't speed or run red lights, if you follow the rules, you have nothing to worry about. I have been driving since I'm 16 years old. I've never had one traffic ticket or accident. I drive the speed limit or a minimum of five miles over. Really, it's not that bad.

Slow down, folks. Surely, getting to your destination 1 minute later is not going to make the sky come tumbling down. And being the first one at the next red light will win you no prizes.

And if you are so bent out of shape because these are obvious revenue generators, fine, slow down and don't give the city the satisfaction. They have no problem hitting you where it hurts, return the favor.

Putting a cop on the job sets a limit on how nit-picky we should be about minor infractions. If it is not worth a policeman's time, it's not worth enforcing.

With cameras we could make it nearly impossible to get to work without a ticket. I'd like to see tickets to those who go thru the cameras too slow. Under 40 mph, ticket for obstructing taffic. Sat at a light when you could turn right? ticket. Too slow starting to move when the light turns green? ticket. Pretty soon even the passive-agressives posting here will see the light.

remove the red light cameras, put out more speed cameras and let cops get back to solving murders, rapes and thefts rather than watching for idiots who cant drive.

Monmichka - you completely contradicted yourself in two sentences... "Follow the rules"..."I go 5 miles over".

If you want it black and white, then your just as much of a law breaker as someone who goes 15 miles over. You can't have it both both ways.. either there are gray areas or there aren't.

Actually, Rebecca, someone going 15 mph over the limit is 10 times more a law-breaker than the person going 5 mph over. Gray gradually turns to black in the world of law enforcement.

You may get a bigger penalty if you're going 15 mph over, but if you go 1 mph over you're still a law-breaker.

I'm just responding to all of the comments of "don't break the law and you won't have a problem with the cameras". According to those comments, going 1 mph over the speed limit should also get you a ticket. So really then, the speed cameras should be set AT the speed limit, so it catches everyone who "breaks the law". I don't think most of the people who made those comments here would feel the same way if they got a $150 ticket for going 2 mph over the speed limit.

After reading some more comments, I'm getting it. If the perception overall is that these cameras are more about generating income from fines than about public safety, it is understandable that people are ticked off. Giving a driver a speeding ticket for going a couple of miles is ridiculous. Highway robbery, so to speak.

To Rebecca: My five miles over the speed limit has not resulted in a speeding ticket ever. Not many cops are going to waste their time with five miles over the speed limit. And the only time I drive five miles over is to pass someone. I don't think that I am contradicting myself.

did you check the amount of accidents? did they go down?

did you check the amount of accidents? did they go down?

It doesn't matter whether or not the number of accidents go down. What matters is whether the number of traffic fatalities goes down. An accident at a lower speed might still be inconvenient, but it's less likely to be deadly.

In the entire 6 months in Switzerland, I never saw one auto accident, not a fender bender, nothing. Now of course I was not in the whole country and nor do I pretend there were no accidents, but it's pretty interesting to live and drive in a city as conjested as Lucern and not see one accident in 6 months! I drive 93 and see 2 or 3 a day.

You be the judge as to whether or not the cameras work, I think they do and should eb employed accross America

I agree with you greatscot, but maybe that is the ideal situation... Take the emotion and judgement out of the equation. Machines could care less about reasons for speeding, the machine just sees speeding. I guess that is what you are saying, "no humanity in the decision making process."

Well, I for one enjoyed this article!! It had a few grammar and spelling errors, but it was well written and it kept my interest. I enjoyed the author's writing style. One of the few I have liked in the last couple of weeks. "Humans against the machines" great subtitle.

What I also liked..."...the mayor was seen taking down anti-camera signs and upon election day, he and the cameras were gone!!" GREAT use of the english language and it got the imagination going!!!! I could just picture the mayor being tossed out with the cameras to the trash bin!!!! HILARIOUS!!!!

Was the speeder just drifting up in speed unknowingly or blatantly breaking the law?

Looking at the end result, it doesn't matter. If a person is "accidentally" speeding and causes a fatal accident, what's the difference to the dead person?

The difference between a police officer and an instantaneous machine issuing a ticket, is judgement.

I've never met a cop that cared if you accidentally were speeding...

cops break more laws and drive drunk more than most people, when they are on speed patrol do you see them no, they hide like snakes, My brother is a cop and many former friends were and most of them were arrogant drunk jerks.

It's all great until they invent a camera that captures your shortcommings. I want cameras that issue tickets for obstructing traffic; for tieing up a major road just to rubber-neck at an accident in the opposing lane, or for going 5 miles under the posted limit.

Zoocrew you hit the nail on the head..."The Reasons"...someone else said take the redlight cameras down but keep the speeding ones up..thats ok..because you don't Have to speed..but on a judgement your reason for running a red light is the intersection is soooo big you can't even get thru it green, let alone on a yellow light..so what do you do? Slam on your brakes and cause the guy behind you to rear end you. IE: ICE,SNOW, HYDROPLANING, we have a lot of that in fla...its sick big daddy needs to take down his money making dirty money and get back to givin out tickets when tickets are neccesary.

I would be careful Miami Bob, here in Texas, a traffic fine is a criminal offense. I got a ticket a couple of months ago. When you walk in to take care of the ticket, a big sign tells you, to step to the criminal side of the aisle. If memory serves me correctly, it depends on what type of ticket you get, a speeding ticket is a Class C misdemeanor. The penalties add up for more dangerous infractions like drunk driving.

Again, be mindful of where you are driving.

There wouldn't be a rear-end accident if drivers were paying attention.

Exactly, Jeremy. Not paying attention and driving too close. I think people need to take the driving test every 5 years or so, because a lot of them forget what they originally learned about how long it takes a heavy car to stop and the appropriate distance that should be kept when driving. I see those idiots in my rearview every day (of course, their so close I can only see their windshields).

They're so close, not their...NV wouldn't let me edit.

there should be no rear ended accidents - if you were paying attention and not speeding and paying attention to the car in front and not driving so close, my dad told me mimium to be able to see the car in fronts rear tires when driving slowly and 2 car lengths when driving faster, of course idiots just think that 2 car gap is an invitation to pull in front of me and cause me to hit my brakes

Exactly. Miami bob..they need to go. Fla is getting very greedy in the camsham. Now their even in neighborhood lights.

They sent me a ticket in the mail attached to a picture of my licence plate number. I just sent them back a picture of me writing a check attached to the ticket. (just a little humor)

knowlton..only thing is this is getting out of control and not funny. Yes you were but this is communism. It could drive someone (pardon the pun) to bankruptcy...if they get a ticket for something they didnt know of or had to get thru the too short yellow friggin lights.

Anomalee23

I totally agree with you. It is going to take US the American people to take a stand and put the government back in its place. You see we have to many career politicians that want the peoples money, lives, loyalty. It is a power grab. Put someone in (all levels of government, Local, state and Federal) office that has actually worked and been socially involved with the common working American. One who knows what it is to sweat, and give 110% 40-60 hours a week just to be p!ssed off about how much money our lawmakers are taking from us.

So yes, I say take them down. I think we are on the same page, but I have found long ago humor keeps the blood pressure down so your around when the true stand arrives and we see these Communist tuck tail and run. Thank you for the reply and stand fast.

Knowlton's Rangers

They sent me a ticket in the mail attached to a picture of my licence plate number. I just sent them back a picture of me writing a check attached to the ticket. (just a little humor)

Knowlton, that reminds me of a joke where a guy receives a ticket like the one you describe. He sends back a picture of himself ripping up the ticket. The cops send him back a picture of handcuffs, after which he sends a check. :-)

USN VP24

You made a very good comment about the 'brake slammers'. As a retired truck driver, I have had people do this and it is no fun to try to stop 80,000 pounds without hitting that 4-wheeler that just woke up to the fact that a light was changing.

Several studies have shown that intersection accidents increase when cameras are present.

Got links? I'd like to read them.

There aren't any.

Maybe we can invent cameras to send tickets to people who follow too close. I mean, if you're going to be facist about enforcing the law, why not go all the way?

I think it was a Texas A&M traffic study that showed the uptick in rear end collisions.

It seems logical as well. In Houston, there are people that insurance scam by slapping on the brakes for no reason, then claim whiplash when hit from behind.

I guess you could say that the person in back was following too close. But my point is that just about everyone does from time to time (some seem to do it all the time). The scam wouldn't work if people didn't.

But here's the real test: Do it to a cop. When he's behind you, just slap on the brakes.

Then tell him he was following too close.

I'm guessing that he won't think "If I wasn't following you too closely, I wouldn't have rearended you."

SG I can tell you right now I am one. The intersections are so big in Fla that the yellow light is a joke..by the time you reach the light its yellow by the time you turn left its red and your still under it. Hence break slammers..bcuz you know if you live there your not going to make it. The camsham needs to go. It needs to go. It NEEDS TO GO. I have no problems with speed cams or if they lengthen the yellow light..but this is suicide. and I don't like it.

NO Bill we did NOT break the law. As I said the yellow lights are NOT long enough to get you thru the intersection. I have had it happen to me so many times. I am like "CRAP" Do I slam on my brakes in a major 6 lane intersection or keep going. Where is the fairness here...maybe you will be the one someone decides to slam on the brakes and slides right into your side, and decapitates you which is what happened here. And Your wrong about the sobriety too. They had one here, and my car slid in the dark gravel and they gave me a ticket for careless driving..they were picking intermittent cars and happen to choose mine. I happened to be on my way home from work and they flashlighted me over and my car slid in the gravel..so you see don't throw stones..and keep your night job..for snl.

You are correct, Thomas01. In Texas, a yellow light means STOP. It is not a caution light. A flashing yellow light means caution, but a steady yellow light at an intersection means one thing - STOP.

I guess it depends on which state you are in. I keep readin on here that in Texas yellow means stop. I learned in Indiana that yellow means prepare to stop. As long as your front bumper is across the "stop" line when the light turns red then you are safe. I can't tell you about other states because I haven't read their rulebooks.

The definition of yellow I learned is "stop is you can do so safely". The presence of cameras changed my interpretation to "stop if you possibly can", and I've had more than a few near rear-end colissions. Haven't been hit yet, but give it time.

Thomas its not about speeding up on yellow..in my city the intersections are very wide. When you approach the light just as your car gets to the line it turns yellow..you have a split second to decide..do I stay or do I go...no second chances here tom. Then by the time you decide..in that split second the light is going on red and boomp your either slammin brakes..in snow, sleet, rain, standing water whatever..so please don't judge.

Thank you great scot for enlightening these pro anti-liberty sheeple, but unfortunately they won't be happy until every human being has a tracking device. It's amazing how they can turn on their children and grand children and foresake their civil liberties just to feel safe in there old age; how selfish. Not Americans in my opinion!!!

What does "essential liberty" have to do with not obeying traffic laws?

Are you saying it's your "liberty" to drive like a maniac? Speed? Run red lights?

The liberty argument is about the dumbest thing I have heard applied to this discussion. The founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, also stated that we are a nation of laws and that it is every citizen's responsibilty to obey those laws. That would also include traffic laws. Your liberty ends where it infringes on the liberty and safety of others.

What a great idea. Let's just remove all traffic control devices (stop signs,lights, school zones, etc,),eliminate all speed limits and allow everybody the liberty to drive in any manner they please. That way we would not infringe upon any ones personal freedoms (to drive in the manner they think proper).

Just remember that a person's individual freedom end when those freedoms infringe on another person's freedoms.

So if you creep thru a light in the middle of the night when nobody else is on the road, who's freedom was enfringed?

yeah voycvresyn your life would be ok..but the poor dude behind you wouldn't..also hope its not a SEMI..cuz then your life would be snuffed. You don't get it..prob never will.

Unless there were circumstances (a car is tailgating you so close it is not safe to stop, moving forward to avoid a car that cannot quite stop behind you, getting out of the way of an ambulance/police vehicle) that would cause a policeman on the spot to not give a ticket. Not to mention that the camera's often make mistakes, have mechanical problems etc.

That happened in WA this summer. It is illegal to text on your phone while driving and a cop got into a fender bender at an intersection because he was checking his PERSONAL email on his blackberry. You or I would have gotten into a LOT of trouble, he didn't even get a ticket!

wonder how manu cops and politicians get caught by cameras.Just another multi national company raping us.

Please put down the crack pipe. Yes it is wrong whe police officers lie, but it does not make them equivalent to a child molester or murderer.

Yes, yes it does officer Adam!

if you dont want to pay dont speed, its shameful how much money these cameras make because of people who cant be considerate and safe on the road and feel like they are so important they have to get somewhere so much quicker - leave earlier!

Where is it "law" to brush your teeth 3 times daily? Why is "Pay the Bill" and "Obey Traffic Laws" so bad or hard to understand? You don't have to obey them, if you can afford it.

The liberty argument is about the dumbest thing I have heard applied to this discussion. The founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, also stated that we are a nation of laws and that it is every citizen's responsibilty to obey those laws. That would also include traffic laws. Your liberty ends where it infringes on the liberty and safety of others.

We are talking about laws that are actually written, not morality laws. Please show me the federal law or state law that reads "support the govt. no matter what it does"

I will show you the laws of every state that read speeding is a criminal or civil offense

And that is exactly the reason that the founding fathers put our form of government into place, so that there is a way to do away with laws that are unjust. That is the whole reason for our representative form of government.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I think that the EZ Pass system should be used for speed control on toll roads and bridges. How perfect would it be? The distance between toll gates is fixed, you clock on, you clock off. If the time elapsed is faster than what the speed limit allows, you get a ticket,end of discussion.

"Here in Oregon, you are guilty or not guilty. There are no mitigating circumstances, and judges cannot reduce fines for them. If you get a ticket, the only way you pay a reduced fee is if you plead guilty without going to court, and pay the fine."

And yet people cant wait to rush home to watch American Idol or blog about Paris and Brittany... the Gov'Mint likes them conveniently distracted while they take away freedoms, money, and ability to "fight for them" in court... whatever happened to being able to "face my accuser"?

don't break the law and you give them no reason to have the camera.

duu. It's a homer simpson moment.

Guess you don't want to be responsibile for your own actions.

The picture of you, your car, speed or light color, and a time and date stamp are your accuser. The camera takes away the question of the officer's judgement and prevents "technicalities" from getting guilty people off.

It is not against the law to smoke.

Time for Revolution is now, march on DC July 4th 2010!

It is not against the law to smoke.

Been in a bar, restaurant, office building, or store lately? It's against the law to smoke in those places just about everywhere now. Won't be long now...

Correct, I was speaking of smoking outside...no one can condone smoking in a prohibited area for any reason... same with speeding, unless in an emergency. And I am sure if you were rushing to the hospital, the ticket would be dismissed.

Not to mention the millions who pay through the nose for cell phones that ping every minute of your life. We worry about big brother on our backs then we pay billions of our own money to volunteer our wereabouts every 90 seconds.

Use a credit card? Debit card? gas card?

The light camera and speeding camera are the least of big brother that's going on today. And most of the info you hand over freely and forever permanant on Facebook. This whole article makes me laugh at people.

Don't forget to include OnStar, probably soon to be government mandated in all vehicles so Big Brother can keep an eye on where you are at all times.

Roland, I can't cite anything other than hearsay at this time, but I have heard that some service stations in the UK have cameras monitoring pumps that will shut down in the middle of re-fueling or before you start fueling. They are tied-in to a computerized data base that will run your registration number and look for outstanding traffic warrants, unpaid taxes or other government debts.

We received two warrants and fines in London in 2008 only three weeks apart for driving in a bus lane. There was photo evidence of a car almost identical to ours with our plate number, but we had never even been on the street where the violation occurred. Our plates had been cloned, we went to the police in person. The Metropolitan police said it was a growing problem, but that there was nothing they could do about it in the face of the photo evidence.

Nothing to hide but my naked arse.

Require every car to carry GPS that communicates with big brother and spits out a ticket everytime a driver speeds, makes a lane change without a signal, violates some other rule of the road, curses, or just farts in a no farting zone.

hahahaha! Demolition Man!

Require every car to carry GPS that communicates with big brother and spits out a ticket everytime a driver speeds, makes a lane change without a signal, violates some other rule of the road, curses, or just farts in a no farting zone.

Government mandated? No. Voluntary incentive in the form of 50% off auto insurance bill to allow the insurance company to track this info? Yes?