Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Canadian court lifts ban on ÃÂÃÂÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂÃChicago police erase 1968 stain at last with NATO summitButtermilk fried chickenOn eve of Egypt vote, crime wave is main topicMystery pair at diner spark cascade of givingPreliminary hearing for "NATO 3" delayed until JuneCabbie strikes gold for returning lost diamondsTwo charged in killing of Chinese graduate studentsMountain lion wanders into California city center, is killedThree climbers die as Everest season winds down
Leave a Comment:
This is big brother at its worst!!! Hopefully Americans will realize this and continue keeping our country free. This is not a traffice enforcement tool, but rather a revenue producer....and unpopular at that.
In my opinion, the problem seems to be the programming. According to the article 2/3rd of the citations are given for 'not coming to a complete stop when making a right on red'.... that's f'ing ridiculous.
When you try to make a right on red, you often have to creep forward so you can see the cars coming - stopping on the stop line effectively leaves you blind and is rather pointless... so you slow down and creep up to the intersection - and if traffic is slow a driver has more than enough time to safely turn right on red without coming to a complete stop.
They need to just loosen the programming a bit, I think that's a little over-the-top to be handing out tickets for that.
I haven't gotten a ticket from one of these yet, but they slapped up several of them in my town. The first year they were in in place, some 80 something percent of the tickets were right on red tickets, and it was a cash cow to the city. After public outcry, they quietly stopped issuing tickets for right on red unless it was done in a reckless way.
The new big push against these machines is the difference in punishment between getting nabbed by one of the lights, and an officer. Because the same crime, running a red light, has two different fines and penalties, there is a constitutional objection to them over the equal protection part.
I personally say get rid of these things. They are a guilty before proven innocent device. The tickets are issued to the person who the car is registered under even if that isn't the person driving the car. If you let somebody borrow your car and they run every red light in town with a camera, you get the ticket. You then have to prove to the court that you weren't the driver if you want to have the tickets dismissed.
Popularity has nothing to do with enforcing the law. How ignorant can you be? It does indeed enforce the law. The reason it generates revenue is because so many people continue to break the law. It's a very simple equation -- don't break the law, and it won't cost you a cent!! That should be simple enough for you to understand.
I remember when the US was a more considerate place, and people realized that safety was everyone's responsiblity. Now we are at the point where the conservatives have taken us to the point where even safety is somehow construed as an infringement on our rights. It's nuts.
I agree! Let's keep this country free...free from idiots that can't seem to figure out how to drive safely. Your freedom ends at the point where it puts other peoples life in danger. As a motorist, motorcyclist, bicyclist and pedestrian I see all too often how dangerous intersections have become. Obey the law and you can stop fearing the camera.
Weird. Americans tolerate being sexually molested by government workers at airports but have a hissy fit over a red-light camera.
kc, if you feel "sexually molested" by an airport pat-down, that's indicative of where your mind is.
Much of the revenue from theses cameras goes to the corporations who own and lease them to the city. So in effect, there is a private corporation who is issuing tickets to you as if they are now the law. Further, these cameras cause drivers to slam their brakes on yellow, even at unmonitored intersections, making driving more dangerous for everyone. They should be banned.
I wonder how much fuel is spent coming to a complete stop, when there are no cars in sight would it not make sense to just make that right turn and not come to a complete stop, Oh I forgot we are all living high on the hog ....
I don't like these things. Now I've never gotten a ticket by one, but I have noticed a couple of things. There are several of them around where I live. Some seem fine and don't cause a lot of problems. Some of them seem to be pretty short yellows. I also see people sort of panic around those intersections and slam on their breaks on a yellow. (They can't trust the length of it remember.) There is one located near my nephew's house. He as gotten several tickets on what are clearly right hand turns. He is in a position to fight them and the judge has gotten to the point where all he as to do is show up to get his ticket dismissed. The judge has gotten more and more miffed at that camera too.
The other thing I have noticed is that the flash can be very distracting. You almost have to look around when they go off especially when you hear tire squeals about the same time.
In our state, a photo ticket carries no points. Since they are issued to the registered owner of the car and the state admits that the owner may not have been person who broke the law, the don't issue points. Also some cities around here started deploying speeding cameras. The state department of transportation and the legislature put a stop to that. I believe now a speeding camera requires the permission of the DOT and so far, they have no intention of giving that permission.
It is absolutely hilarious how mad these cameras make people, especially when all they have to do is obey the law and stop when the light turns red.
First of all, these red light cameras are owned and operated by private corporations who only hold "contracts" with the municipalities and states they are located in. Second...there is abuse and I can prove it.
These red light cameras are computerized. You know any computer without a memory bank? This means that these red light computerized cameras have the ability to store your license plate in memory and you become part of the percentage targeted when the amber light goes from amber to red in less than 3 seconds. Only a naive fool wouldn't figure out that profit is driving up the number trapped by these cameras.
I travel 21 miles to my office every day. There are at least 5 red light traffic cameras. In my state, (NJ), there are landports with huge trucks. Not a single one of these 16 wheelers can make it through the amber light in less than 3 seconds. I timed the amber to red sequence. Out of the 5 I pass daily, not one is longer than 3 seconds.
Imagine a 16 wheeler going through a green light that suddenly turns amber and then before he passes under the camera, it's red. What BS!
In NJ, turning right on red is legal. So why are these cameras ticketing people turning right on red?
I no longer bother to stop on red. I stop on amber because I know the jerks operating the computers have the ambers timed so quickly that I'd end up with a ticket. What's the point in the amber light if all it does is trap people?
Yep Big brother getting involved saving lives. What a horrible trade off. The two intersections near my home with cameras have seen a marked decrease in accidents since cameras went up. It improves traffic flow because people know what to expect- very few people people try to "make the light" now. Keep em up.
they were demeaned unconstitutional in Minnesota because it only took a picture of the license plate not the driver so you were considered guilty until proven innocent.
While I agree that the "turn right on red" offenses should probably be scrutinized more closely, I feel that, overall, the cameras are a positive thing these days. I've lost count of the times I've watched drivers run red lights while talking on a cell phone, apparently oblivious to the fact that they are doing so, or even to the fact that there was a traffic light present.
I'm betting that most of the people complaining are consistent offenders who are just pissed off because they're being ticketed for breaking the law, and endangering the lives of others in the process. To those people... stop running red lights and breaking the law, and you won't have to worry about being ticketed. Period!
capt...I agree. And, those computers in that equipment store license plates in memory which accounts for why so many are getting targeted legally or illegally. Profit is driving the use of these cameras. Not safety.
What next? No traffic so just blow through the red light. Come on folks the laws are there for a reason. The fact that you think they are inconvenient isn't a good argument. The cameras are a good deterrent. The problem is most people are in such a big hurry they put a fudge factor on the light and get caught.
Nick46...The laws are obeyed. The red light cameras are illegal. They are taking pictures of license plates, storing them in memory and then some privatized clerk analyzes the number of licenses plates and the monthly quotas off tickets are based on that. Get a clue would you?
How is that not an invitation for abuses? Tell you what...ask to see the data these red light cameras collect. I'll bet it's like Fort Knox. So much for our right to know and transparency.
I got a ticket from one of these things for going 3 miles a hour, on a right hand turn, red light. Besides that they actually shortened the (for revenue I assume) yellow light sequence, and people tend to slam on their brakes at intersections, causing rear end collisions now. This has nothing to do with safety, it is all about revenue.
This is just a bunch of junk. These camera's work, PERIOD. It saves the cities from having to put cops out to do what should not be necessary. I do not believe a right on red thing should be enforced, but running a red light is cut and dried, they have a delay so no "pink" issues. Follow the law, then you won't get caught. I got nailed in Cleveland, guess what?, I was quilty as hell.
This is just the cops wanting their stake out jobs back, the answer is NO. Spend your time solving real crime not staking out red lights, the camera's work just fine. And leave it to the city of LA to get a bad contract. What has that city ever done right when it comes to revenue?
JCB..Oh really? How you like to get a ticket for being one inch on the lines into a jughandle turn? That's what one camera caught a guy I work with doing. He was stuck in traffic and turned into the lane for the jughandle and was one inch on the jughandle's white dotted line.
Maybe you like being microscoped at taxpayer expense. I don't.
Traffic enforcement is a public responsibility that should not be left to private for profit corporations that contribute to political campaigns and the like. Furthermore, everyone knows that revenue is the true motivation behind the explosion of these devices, and that too, should not be the case. There may be a need in some limited circumstances, this should not be a private venture in which a corporation profits by helping a jurisdiction raise funds. Notice how many jurisdictions are beginning to wire their streets with red light and speed cameras. Why not sell doughnuts or candy at intersections to raise funds for the town? There will always be attempts to justify or rationalize this practice, but what about the public integrity?
The problem is people slamming on the brakes to avoid the camera when if they would have continued through the light it would have been fine. Slamming on the brakes though, is causing some accidents and near misses.
Pics or it didnt happen/
Rank...No Pics...and don't call me a liar. No Pics and it did happen. No pics because the cameras only took a photo of the license plate entering the lane...DUH
Everyone is blaming the camera, its not. People can't drive!!!!!!! That includes the law enforcement. People pass on the right, don't drive in the right lane, never use a turn signal, don't pay attention to the road ahead, speed when it is not safe. I could keep going on with examples. What is worse is that law enforcement does the exact same and does not enforce the rules. I would like to see a system like Germany. One full year of drivers training and law enforcement enforcing the laws with stiff fines for not following the laws. With that type of system you would see order on the road with less MVA's.
In my town the cameras have led to MORE accidents at intersections as people slam on their brakes at yellow lights and get rear-ended.
Allen Shore...Because the amber lights timing has been reduced to increase the number of violations.
Looks like the novel "1984" is coming to fruition. Congrats, people. Want to see where this goes unchecked? Go to London. You can't spit without getting filmed there.
The same people justifying these cameras are probably the same cowards that argued for illegal wiretapping with the "Well, if you aren't doing anything, what's the big deal??"
In the words of Ben Franklin: "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
BTW, if the camera can not get a picture of the face of the driver to prove who was driving, it then it should be illegal to issue a ticket for the infraction, Problem solved.
I don't get the problem with these camerasunless you are driving recklessly. And this whole "People slam on the brakes for a yellow" argument is just stupid. Do ya always barrel through an intersection right on the bumper of the car in front of you? If so then you are driving recklessly. If you rear end someone who stops when the light is yellow then you are an idiot for following so damn close. I have had friends hurt and one friend killed by jerks who run redlights so I have zero sympathy for anyone busted by these cameras. The right on red issue should be addressed somehow but other than that I really am not getting the uproar. It won't effect you if you obey the law! The woman quoted in the story is exactly right...the only people who have a problem with these cameras are those who get busted by them and those who already have big brother conspiracy theory issues. Either way.....both can be alleviated by NOT RUNNING A LIGHT!
Mike...Even more smarmier...I live in Central NJ. I was among a slew of people all over Jersey who were ticketed en masse by red lights up in Hoboken. I've never been to Hoboken in my entire life. No do I have any desire to.
I spent at least 3 weeks of threats to that city's law enforcement bureau to straighten out the mess. Then I found out that license plate numbers "were misread" by the red light camera computers. BS. BS. BS. If they could have gotten the 200 people who got those tickets all over NJ to pay them, not a word would have been said about an error.
Squeaky wheels get oil. They don't call me Minnie Mouse for nothing.
Yes! Because every American should have the right to run a red light whenever they want without having to be bothered by the police.
@ Ewent: Just because you 'get' a ticket, doesn't mean you have to pay it. You can argue the merits of the ticket in court, just as you can with any other charge. In fact, it'd probably be easier to talk your way out of a auto-ticket, than if a real cop had actually gunned you going X miles over the speed limit, or whatever infraction. Without the cop, there's no one there to testify on law enforcement's behalf.
Or, if you don't feel like following traffic laws, then you could always walk, take a cab, a bus, or some other method of public transportation.
Do you live in Louisiana? :) They don't use turn signals, no one knows how a 4 way stop sign is supposed to work, redlights are merely a suggestion, yellow lights mean floor it, everyone has a cell phone up to their ear or in their hand texting, if someone is riding in the fast lane passing someone in the slow lane it is perfectly acceptable to pass on the shoulder at 70MPH. I've seen a school bus and 3 cars behind it run a red light after my light had turned green. Thankfully I noticed they weren't slowing down. A local cop was sitting across from me at the intersection and couldn't be bothered to hang up his phone to pull all 4 of them over.....especially the school bus with kids on it. Just this week I saw a girl on her cell phone making a right on red....the car in front of her had an opening and rolled out...this girl on the phone never looked, just saw the car in front of her go and went right behind them. Thankfully the truck coming managed to swerve and only take the front off her car. These people are nuts! I love the state.....hate the drivers.
Then prove it in a court of law. Be a hero and save thousand of people aggravation. Whining on this board won't fix the injustice you claim.
The potential for abuse far outweighs any possible good that can come from this, beside it being a conflict of interest via government involvement with private enterprise.
Certainly both profit from the tickets. Caution light times being shortened are proof of this. Beyond, it becomes debate.... more accidents caused due to slamming on brakes, less accidents caused due to not wanting the ticket and fine; these can go on and on, but the end result is the same.... entirely debateable with little factual evidence.
Besides what I've pointed out as being flawed initially, it's an infringement of peoples' rights. Plate numbers can result in invasion of privacy, prejudice, and profiling. Then there's the 'what if's'; what if it's programmed to snap the picture 1.5 seconds prior to the actual red light as well as the cautionary change light time being shortened? This is why judges aren't supporting use and/or fines in many instances.
Prove beyond reasonable doubt. Granted, if you crash a late yellow in snow or other circumstances and a cop happens to issue you for crashing a red and you attempt to fight it in court, the city or jursidiction will still side with the cop and take the money in many cases, guilty or not.
Similar to speeding cameras, radar guns, etc... it falls under scrutiny as to trusting how used, calibrations, and trusting those affirming calibrations and so forth when money is at stake.
B Murphy...I've already posted that I fought a ticket I was unjustly presented with. Don't hand me that crap that infers I'm a regular traffic violator. Unless your hidden agenda is to make everyone but yourself look bad. In that case, I'd suggest professional help.
I live in NJ. You can take a cab to work if you can afford $150 to go from my town 21 miles to my office. Enough with the foolish suggestions. I live in a small town and travel west toward Princeton every day. There are no buses or trains within 15 miles of my office. You can go anywhere north to south in NJ. Not east to west without changing connections at least 4 times in 2 to 3 hours.
That means I cross at least 2 major NJ highways, avoid the Bully Boys in their Armored Pickups, the hotchas rich asses with the Mercedes, the junior Trophy kid drivers McDaddy bought a Beamer and the rest of the ostentatious Noo Yawkah imports who think NJ roads are Manhattan.
NJ is in the top five of the most dangerous states where traffic is concerned. Traffic accidents are a daily event not only because there are too many vehicles on the roads, but because the Bully Boy trucks and SUVs are so damn wide there's less than 2 feet left of road on either side of them.
That's unnecessary and makes it dangerous for everyone else. But the selfish men these days don't give a crap as long as they can ride 'em high and ride 'em tough, right?
@ Ewent: Excuse me? I didn't infer @!$%#, son. I simply said if you have a problem with the traffic laws, there are plenty of alternatives. If that's somehow a challenge to your manhood, I suggest you seek help, because you seem to be on the defensive.
Challenging the validity of a ticket is EVERY motorists right. Period. If nobody shows up in court for the other side, it's pretty difficult for them to prove, or have any say whatsoever.
Ahh, you live in NJ, got you. Do I even need to go any further? That's pretty much your answer right there. Hell, screw cameras, just put ED-209's on every corner, live rounds, remove the timers. Just kill everyone. Once the stink leaves that State, it can be repopulated with individuals who are a benefit to society.
Nick46...I don't whine pallie. I speak up when it's necessary. And I do so in my own state as well. And please...don't talk to me about proving it in court. When I fought a ticket, it was a 3-month long process thanks to deliberate delays by the court in an attempt to get me to just pay the fine. I refused.
I was hit with a red-light ticket. $480. The judge didn't throw it out. I paid my fine and I learned an expensive lesson.
I don't blame the camera. I blame myself. 1 - for thinking the yellow was longer when I know better. And 2 - for forgetting that was a photo enforced intersection. What it comes down to is -- I was bad and I paid the price.
I don't nec. want them on all intersections, but I would like them to remain at the locations they are at now. These are dangerous places when you have drivers continuing through the red light for -- I'm not kidding -- at least 30 seconds AFTER the light changed.
Hmmm interesting. Do you want to add the parts where you have to be 18 to drive. Not a bad idea if you live someplace where you have mass transportation. Clue -- most people in the U.S. do NOT.
Do you want to PAY the licensing costs involved in getting a German license?
Some facts ...
Again, not a bad notion -- bearing in mind that MANY Germans (and other Europeans) can't afford this and just plain don't drive BECAUSE THEY HAVE MASS TRANSPORT.
My car accidently ran a red light in Dover, DE. The camera shows that my car was on the STOP line and the light was red, and that the car continued through the intersection through the red light, slightly behind, but with the flow of traffic. The cars on the intersecting road were stopped and I don't have any way of knowing if their light had turned green or not.
I wasn't driving, I'm disabled with a bad back and often have a friend drive me places. I don't know how long the yellow was, but I know that she would have calculated the choice between skidding/slamming on brakes and further damaging my back, or proceeding through the red light.
$112.50, which I paid and won't mention to my friend who was doing me a favor that day. There was a video available, as well as photo's included with the notice of the fine. My friend didn't speed up to "make the light", and an officer probably would have just given her a warning, if even bothering to pull us over.
I know that I will be more careful in areas with cameras, because that's a lot of money to me, but I think this method of catching and fining violaters is lame. If the intersection warrants this surveillance, then the city needs to address the flow of traffic and re-engineer the signals and speeds.
BMurphy...I was so sure I was reading posts from a Bully boy. Thank you for proving it. As for stink, try Texas. I hear those white petrochemical pollution patches are as large as Houston Proper by now.
New Jersey was a lovely state until the Manhattanites decides to turn it into Noo Yawk's parking lot. The only thing in the US that stinks is the petrochemicals in Big Oil country, the gun running in red states that glut the urban northeastern cities and the taxes we have to pay because red staters hoard their money and dump their bills on the feds.
At least in NJ, we know our air is clean. We know our water is safe and we know there will never be drilling off our beautiful and most famous shoreline.
Why should anyone have to take time off work to fight a bogus ticket no cop would have issued, but some clerk in an office somewhere looking at photos has no problem issuing because they have nothing to loose and gain money if they can get you to pay?
Nick, the whole 'what's next' argument is a dead horse.
Are you truly trying to tell me that you always come to complete stops... that's tires stop moving and car is at a zero momentum stand still at the stop line (you know, that thick white line indicating where you should stop)... when making a right at a red light? Seriously?
I call BS on that one.
Also on lights with turning lights, even when the light is red you can tell by the traffic what their signal is. If perpendicular traffic has a turning light, it's a safe bet you can make that right on red.
@ Ewent: Oooh, the clean NJ air, wow...now I've heard everything. Gotta tell you, as a Vermonter, that's most certainly an oxy-moron. And no, I'm not a member of the Bully Boys, why a band would have anything to do with this topic is beyond me. But, whichever floats your boat I guess...
Beyond that very fascinating, rambling view of NJ's history, I feel I should tell you, I really don't care. NJ is right about the level of Ohio, in my book, for places that simply don't have to exist. The Jersey Shore revoked your right to life.
This is moronic. Too many people have been "given a fighting chance" and others have died because they never learned to obey the law.
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the cameras brought in to service to relieve an already over-burdened Police force? People made the issue that why were traffic cops hassling them when there were REAL criminals out there, people, you can't have it both ways!
I have seen how some people react to the cameras, pretty much ignoring them. I have seen a number of people at unmonitored intersections, and four or five cars will cross through the lights after either the turn light or the signal have turned red.
I have nearly been t-boned at least three times both in my car and on my motorcycle because of people blowing off signals, I've been lucky.
There are problems with the systems, but in most cases, it is controlling traffic in problem spots and I understand it takes time out of your day and away from work to take them to court. People have gotten used to ignoring traffic laws, talking on cell phones and paying more attention to some conversation instead of driving. STOP IGNORING TRAFFIC LAWS AND YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM, that is unless you get a ticket for a right turn on a red light...they will need to fix that. Because even if you are obeying the law you are punished because you still have to take it to court.
I am an American living in Brazil and my wife and I love these cameras. They have them all over Rio de Janeiro at the busy intersections. At rush hour it also controls the flow of the traffic at intersections and stops the other drivers that blocks the intersection.
People who don't respect the red light will someday hurt themselves or someone. I would vote to keep them just on what I have seen here.
I suspect it more had to do with a new revenue stream for the cities involved. It's easy for them to pass off as a safety feather and who wants to argue against safety? I would bet money that most cities that have them mentioned money as the number one reason to get one and safety only came up when they were deciding on how to sell it to their constituents.
People- this is a question of civil liberty and privacy, period. How about we attach an automated speed monitor to everyone's car that will automatically issue a ticket every time you exceed the speed limit, even by 1 mph? Bet that would save lives.
This is America, land of the free and home of the brave!, not land of the monitored and home of the sheep, and its moronic to believe they lower your taxes.
Would your opinion of the cameras change if there were no financial penalties, but only jail time for the offenders? If not, than your objection is just a shill argument.
@ Marbles: Actually, the better suggestion is to sue car makers for building cars that travel as much over the speed limit as they do. What's the point of a car that can go 100mph+, when most roads in the States won't legally let you go over 65?
It could be a camera, or it could be a cop, take your pick. A policing authority is needed, or, we need to get rid of a ton of laws. Plain and simple. The speed monitor on your car, could work, as long as you can argue in court, for certain circumstances.
America's been home of the sheep for a long time Marbles, not sure why you think otherwise, but that battle was lost, long ago.
Try that here in Phoenix,and you will get hit. Almost every person making a right on red here,will without doubt cut all the way to the curb lane. When I took my drivers test back in the early 80's you had to turn into the closest lane.
Vehicles now have much shorter turning radius's than they did back then,but people act like they are are driving a vehicle without power steering.
As for the traffic cams,I received one in the mail at Christmas time about 3 years ago,Guilty I was, paid my ticket. Then found out I didn't have to. lol Don't even think about asking for your money back though.
@Marbles - lol, exactly.
I thought you GOPers were for less government? Most of you are actually for this? I dont get it.
And Ewent, I feel ya, our company truck was ticketed by EZPass because someone made fake tags, sold them, and ran the tolls every morning to work until they got caught to save time on the commute.
@ B Murphy. Ah, another tough-talker online dissing NJ. You wouldn't last 10 minutes in North Jersey, "son" without clinging to your metal dick in a holster.
Wow, how did you make that logic leap? I would say that jail time is even worse than a revenue stream. And that's on top of all the other arguments why these cameras should banned.
Still the fact of the matter is these cameras are primarily used as a source of revenue.
I just moved from a town that had the cameras. They didn't bother me. When you have to wait for 2 to 3 cars to get thru the intersection and you have the green they are certainly going thru on red.
When the cameras went up that crap stopped. Traffic flowed much better.
Now DUI checkpoints that is an infringement on our rights. Those should be outlawed.
No GOPer I know is for these.
@B Murphy, you really think we should sue car makers? Just what we need, more litigation in this country.
And what about privacy? What if you're somewhere or with someone that you didn't tell your boss or spouse about? Is it up to big brother to send a picture to your house or work?
And don't tell me that if you never do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about. What kind of lives do you people lead?
I got a ticket from one of these, and rather then having the ability to fight it in a local court, I had to drive an hour to our State Capital - which the ticket was then dismissed because the person in front of me stopped for a pedestrian which in turn made me stop, and hence accused of running a yellow light due to programmed timing. I wasted a day of work, which pulled money from an already hurting economy.
These things are a joke and do nothing but enforce a distrust between law enforcement, and tax paying citizens. To the point I have seriously thought about dressing up in a pink mini-skirt and wig, and start running around spray painting (blinding) the face of these asinine POSs.
I don't have a problem with the cameras so long as they only ticket for the most grievous and obvious violations - like straight up blowing through red light.
But some "violations" really should be left to judgement calls - not some robot. Complete stops on right turns, yellow light, waiting on a left turn... those should be left to actual officers.
I said 'perpendicular' which are the turn signals to those to your right and left, not a turn signal for the road you are facing (which is what you are referring too)
I know exactly what you mean though, they SHOULD be turning into the inside lane but instead cut to the curb lane... which if they hate you after properly yeilding at the right and making a right turn will be their fault legally since they effectively changed lanes in an intersection by cutting to the curb lane while turning.
hate = hit lol... edit time ran out =/
If cities like Chicago and L.A. want cameras they should point most of them where the problems are and catch the bangers doing their thing. Not pointed at motorists running red lights.
@ D.Man: I wouldn't survive in NJ, because I'd kill myself before ever going there. The crotch of the country, as far as I'm concerned. A race between NJ and Ohio for which State is more worthless and filled with trash.
@ Marbles: Why make cars that go over 100mph, when no roads legally allow that type of speed? Isn't that pretty much criminal negligence? Think about it. I'm not saying speed laws are necessary for me, or you, but, they are necessary for certain individuals. Facts are though, we have these speed laws (like them or not), and car makers make cars that can go 2-3x faster than general laws permit. Seems strange, don't you think?
If you're trying to cover up some illicit behavior on your part...um, that's not my problem? Nor is it the police? I would think that if you're trying to act nonchalant, then you wouldn't be speeding or otherwise drawing attention to yourself by running red lights...right? That would kind of be counter-productive, no?
Now, I'm not saying police are necessary for people LIKE you, but the fact remains, the police are necessary for some people. Under most, normal circumstances, people who don't have anything to hide, have nothing to fear. Sometimes mistakes can happen, sure. But generally speaking, if the police are there at your house, pulled you over, etc... you've done something to warrant their attention. Whether you want to hear that or not, I really don't care. Sorry, but we're dealing with reality here, not the warped view you would like to see the world through.
Be careful of 'comments' expressing that they are FOR these cameras. It has been shown that the companies that push for these cameras have been known to log on as 'commenters' and push for the cameras as a public relations effort.
It was shown when several 'cut and paste' comments across many different boards were found. These guys play mean...
This is the most important paragraph in the entire article;
The Red-Flex contract, the Arizona company that sells the cameras and recieves a large portion of any fine paid, does not permit the city/state/government to adjust the length or timing of signals where the camera devices are installed. Only Red-Flex has that authority.
One study in the late 90's early 2000's indicated that more red light infractions were curtailed by increasing the yellow by 1/2 second than by the use of the camera system. Mesa City Council considered lengthening the light and were not permitted by their contract.
This is not about safety, it is about CASH for the gov and the companies
@B Murphy
Oh. So we'll put governors on engines that kick in at 66 mph? That sounds like a good plan.
Or we can just build 2 cylinder cars that can just barely get up to 64, 65.
Apparently more moral and lawful lives than you, Marbles...
We need laws for a reason. The reason for a stop light is so that we can get to our chosen destinations in a timely and safe manner. This should not be seen as a "guideline" or a "policy." Pedestrians' and fellow drivers' lives depend on these traffic laws being obeyed for their safety. Driving unsafely is not an "essential liberty."
If the cameras make the intersections safer, then why is everyone griping? Because everyone's in it for themselves. No one cares about the safety of someone else-- kids or adults. It's all about the driver's entitlement to be free to drive how they want to when there's no cop around to see it. Darn those cameras anyway!
I have gotten tickets and warnings before, but, you know what? I didn't try to talk my way out of it; I PAID THE FINE, because I committed the infraction! Military Man is right too-- they need to sort out the "right-on-red" problem.
And within a mater of minutes after implementing it, there will be a hack posted on youtube by a thirteen year old.
@ D.Man: Nah, I was simply pointing out a different way of looking at things. If the laws of the land dictate no greater speed than 65mph on almost all roads, why hasn't the government talked to auto-makers about the top speeds of their vehicles?
Think about it, if you can't stop the populace from doing a thing, wouldn't the next step be to address those who could? It'd be nice if we lived in a country where everyone was a bit more capable of policing themselves, but let's be honest here. That's just not the case.
So what's the solution? Just ignore it? Remove the laws, let people who are irresponsible kill themselves with their own stupidity? What about those they themselves injure? There's so many sides to this that it's a difficult situation to solve, don't you think?
Believe me, I'm not a proponent of big government, but, I'm also being realistic here. Not everyone pays as much attention as the next person while they're driving. I really honestly wish we lived in a society where citizens were their own police, but I just don't see it happening in a productive way.
I lived in Nashville. Never ever think because your light turned green that you can proceed. On a red light at least 10 more cars will blow the light. It's also typical for a car to come to a red light and not stop if no cars are coming.
Nopeace
Because they are not making intersections safer, they are making them profitable.
capt stated: "they were demeaned unconstitutional in Minnesota because it only took a picture of the license plate not the driver so you were considered guilty until proven innocent."
Ok capt, they were "deemed" unconstitutional, so to fix it, maybe they need a another camera to to snap a picture of the driver at the same time then? Would that be more "constitutional" then? Maybe, having a cop at every intersection would help? Can you see how that one alone would increase the city budget? How about this one, teach the dipsticks that keep running those red lights, that this is breaking the law?
Maybe those who run red lights, need to understand, "they are not above the law" in the first place, and when caught, need to act like adults and not little kids who were caught with their hand in a cookie jar.
United We Stand,
You should not have paid the ticket. The image would show you were not driving. They match your DL image to your auto registration. You could have responded by telling them it was not you, or thrown the ticket in the trash.
The sensors that trigger the camera can also be used to hold the yellow light.
Of course if you do that two things happen:
No one gets in a wreck (possibly dying)
And there's no ticket revenue.
So you can see why the cities don't do it.
What, you think revenue for your Gov't doesn't trump people's lives?
Think again.
These red-light-loving cities can wrap themselves in the flag and insist they are there for safety reasons. This is BS. It's all about the revenue these lights bring in. There is a small town in the Dallas suburbs that has just a few of these lights but more tickets were mailed than the city had drivers. If a car's bumper encrouched an inch into the yellow line, a ticket was mailed.
As to the issue of 'right-on-red' ... I live near a major metropolitan area which has had red light cameras since the early 1990's. The cameras were set to photograph license plates going through the intersection. That means that anyone turning right on red would NOT be photographed. It's an issue of camera placement.
I have heard arguments (such as those being put forth here against the red light cameras) resonating against meter cops giving out tickets. "It's all about the money!" The question, then, is this. How do you expect cities to pay the police force you want at your door if you hear somebody breaking into your home? Taxes don't pay it all and the revenue has to come from somewhere. And, as far as the red light tickets, as someone already pointed out, the camera programs were initiated because there were not enough cops to monitor all of those lights and still be on the road against any other violations of law. There are some intersections, no matter where you are, that people will, for whatever reason, run on a regular basis.
Have you ever been broadsided in a vehicle where someone 'accidentally' ran a red light and hit your car? You might well imagine such an experience would quickly change your perspective on the issue of people running red lights. And the fact of the matter is, regardless of the reason for the infraction, if you run a red light, you just broke the law! And unless there is a life and death reason for your actions, you need to be ticketed for the violation and made to pay for it.
The real problem, as I see it, is two-fold. First of all, the company monitoring these cameras needs to be curtailed. When the fine for an infraction goes up 75% when the private agent gets into the mix, there is a serious problem.
Second, if judges refuse to uphold the law, they need to be taken off the bench. Whether a judge agrees with the law or not, it seems quite apparant in the case of Los Angeles, that those judges are costing the city valuable revenue from people who have committed a moving violation and not being made to pay for it. Shame on the judge! I have seen judges release people who have been picked up repeatedly for DUI violations. I have seen people get their licenses revoked, appear in court (sometimes even after drinking) for driving without a license, The sot goes out, gets into his car, and drives away!
People have learned to ignore the law and hold themselves above those standard practices of civility - like stopping at red lights or four-way stops. People are killed due to such careless lack of propriety. You can argue all you want to about how wrong it is but, a good stiff fine - or two or three - will eventually teach a person that it is a lot less expensive to leave the house five minutes earlier in the morning and actually stop at those traffic signals.
Bottom line is, there is no excuse for people not obeying the posted traffic signals. If the light is red STOP! The yellow light is not intended as a grace period to let drivers speed up to get through an intersection, it is to alert drivers that the signal is about to turn red to allow them time to slow down and stop safely. We need to take responsibility for our actions. If we would all do that, there would be no need for such extreme measures as red light cameras. So, if you don't want them in your backyard, start paying attention to the posted traffic signals.
NOTE: There are studies that show extended yellow followed by a limited four-way red before a light turns green does nothing to reduce traffic accidents because people are starting to argue it is okay to go through the light because it just turned red so "I've got time to make it through before the light turns green in the other direction." Once again, people are looking for ways to circumvent the law and encourage anarchy rather than obey the rules established for the good of all.
Ticket the major infractions, not the minor ones.
If your argument is 'the law is the law' then you must extend it to the logical conclusion that a person should then be fined for every single minor infraction. You, me, and everyone would be hemmorraging money out their eyeballs if this were the case.
Law is only the law when judgment is involved. A machine has no judgment. A machine cannot dispense justice.
Blowing through a red light is a major infraction, but these cameras that dispense tickets for piddly little infractions need to be reprogrammed.
Anyone mentioning that knowing that the traffic lights are enforced causes accidents, injuries, and property damage? When those cams are installed people tend to speed towards intersections (the way they usually drive) and when the light goes yellow, slam on the breaks. This leads to them getting slammed into by the person behind them.
@ JoeNY: As easy as it is to blame the cameras for that, more responsible parties would note that slamming on your brakes to stop at a light, is pretty irresponsible. Tailing someone closely enough so that you can't react in a proper amount of time to their driving, is also, pretty irresponsible. Hence the reason we need lights, cameras, laws, and police officers. People are too 'bothered' to be responsible for themselves.
Right, only the MAJOR infractions should be ticketed. So, with that logic, shoplifters shouldn't be arrested. After all, they're not robbing a bank or sticking anyone up, right?
A pathetic argument is what that is. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Too many people in this country forget that. The rules and laws of the road exist for a reason. If you don't like them, don't drive. It's that simple. If you people are going to be arrogant or stupid enough to blow through red lights, fail to stop before turning right on red, or speed through town, then the town should have every right to ticket you.
Studies are worthless because the conclusion is only in favor of the group doing the study. 66% of tickets are sent for right turn on red but the sole purpose of this is not to create revenue it is for safety. Right.
What really bothers be is the studies done by the insurance institute only focused on deaths. I'm sure it was because deaths made the numbers look better. The focus should have been on accidents which these cameras can cause. It happened in my part of the world because people would see them, slam on their brakes, whether they needed to or not, and would get rear ended by the driver behind them.
You also can not compare apples to apples over the last decade because advancements in safety features and the increase in seat belt use has cut down "deaths" dramatically.
The little town I live in used radar guns with cameras they set up in random locations. They admitted that the only purpose was to generate revenue. The city voted them out and we haven't seen them since.
Our local and federal governments are in financial trouble because they over spend and refuse to make cuts. With the losses they sited at the beginning of this article we are focusing on the wrong topic.
Because minor traffic violations and retail fraud are totally comparable. /s/
Don't be dense.
The laws do exist for a reason, but the reason IS NOT to fine people every time they have a minor infraction. The reason is to instill safe driving habits. The classification of MINOR traffic violation exists for a reason as well - they are simply not a big enough deal to ticket for all the time.
I've had 2 tickets in 20 years of driving, but sometimes I forget to signal or don't bother when nobody is around to see it, sometimes I might touch the yellow line while taking a lazy turn, sometimes I speed... especially on the freeway (hell going the speedlimit on I-75 will get you run off the road)
It's simply not necessary to ticket people for every minor infraction.
I've been snapped by those cameras 3 times: once because I "ran" a red light but I was turning left and in the middle of the intersection so I had to go, once I was going the speed limit and the light changed but I couldn't stop in time, last time for not stopping long enough before turning right on a red. None of them I paid for because they were obviously wrong but it wasted my time and money having to sit in traffic court for 1-2 hours each ticket.
I have a suggestion, for everyone on here that hates the cameras, go to Walmart, or Target, or whatever store near you carries them, and get a paintball gun. Then, simply find an intersection with a red light camera near you, and go let the cameras have it! (Of course, park down the street and walk up to the corner, don't try to do it from your car, as that would be wreckless!) Eventually, the cities will have to start cleaning the camera off, and once they do, just paintball it again! Once the city gets tired of cleaning them all the time, and spending money to do so, they'll be losing more money than they are earning from the tickets, and get rid of the cameras.
Outlawing Motorcycles would save lives.
Closing down every McDonalds and Burger King would save lives.
Forcing obese people to eat calorie restricted diets would save lives.
Putting alcohol monitors on every ignition switch would save lives.
Outlawing driving by people over 65 would save lives.
So lets all get out there and start saving lives!
I originally supported the installation of red light cameras in Charlotte as a safety measure, but when speed cameras and shortened yellow cycles were added to the mix, saw them for what they are, a revenue scheme. Too bad the cycles never got changed after the cameras were removed (it seems they violated the requirement that the majority of revenues were going to go to school systems) !!!
Typical - whenever a local gov't says "we are going to fine for this, and the revenues will be used for something good" it's a pretty safe bet that it's total BS.
Instead they raise their salaries by 20K, buy new government vehicles (that for some reason all must be Cadillacs), and increase their vehicle allowances to something in the park of $400 a month. That's what they did here, said they were going to spend the new revenues to renovate the downtown area - instead they spent all the money on themselves.
The "fine" paid to the government should not be split with a private contractor. I promise you the contractor is in it for the money, not to increase public safety. If you want to convince me its about safety, don't fine the offender, assess points against their license. They use these cameras in Germany and I don't have an issue with them....they'll send you pictures in the mail of your license plate and the driver's face, along with a form to fill out to tell whether the face in the picture is you or not. If it isn't you, there's a space to fill in the information of the driver. I haven't been flashed yet, but my wife's been popped twice. LMAO The fine was only about 20 bucks each time, but the embarrassment of having to tell me she got a ticket was unbearable.
Can anyone explain why 95% of all tickets/punishment go to those who have not caused an accident -
but the actual people who cause an actual accident get such light punishment?
All I can figure is Gov't revenue.
I just seems crazy that when you run a red light and hit someone, you get the same ticket as when you run a red light and hit no one.
Insurance companies know that the most important factor in who is safe or unsafe is not how many tickets you have, but how many wrecks you have caused.
We let almost everyone drive.
Surely we could limit the roads to the 80% most capable drivers.
NOPE. Everyone gets to drive - even people who are disabled or handicapped (yes, they are on the Gov't dole because they can't work - but the can drive).
You cause a wreck - you get your license suspended. If it's a good punishment to deter drunk drivers then it's a good punishment to deter wreckless driving by everyone.
Let's punish those who have actually damaged others, and have far less punishment for those who might possibly damage others.
I find it hilarious that the OP thinks this is Big Brother at its worst. Or as he put it "worst!!!!!". May I point out that provisions in the Patriot Act, the TSA molestations, and the info that Google stores about you are far more Orwellian than a traffic camera? LOL.
Blessed, all should be illegal. The logic I use is why are you only putting these at some intersections ? That is biased against those that drive that route. All or none.
Here in Chicago they were busted on reducing the yellow light on the camera-ed intersections by 70%. Total set up for revenue generation. The fct there are still cameras in Chicago is just a testament to corruption.
Enforcing rules, especially when it involves paying fines, is never popular (how popular is the IRS?). And it is a revenue-generating traffic-enforcement tool.
In this study, they don't mention that rear end collisions have sky rocketed.
Personally, I slow down when coming to a camera intersection and lock my brakes up on yellow. I'm not risking a ticket as I have no clue if the computer will give me a ticket or not.
ValidViewpoint Comment collapsed by the community
Popularity has nothing to do with enforcing the law. How ignorant can you be? It does indeed enforce the law. The reason it generates revenue is because so many people continue to break the law. It's a very simple equation -- don't break the law, and it won't cost you a cent!! That should be simple enough for you to understand.
Unfortuneatley its not as simple as not breaking the law. In St. Louis, there was a suburb that was caught shortening the duration of a yellow light on its intersections to only 2 seconds. I got ticketed by the camera in this town. It was at an intersection on a small highway that had a speed limit of 55 mph. Tell me, how are yous supposed to stop when you have a green light and you are going 55 mph and then have only 2 seconds to stop. I tried to fight it but the judge told me to pay the fine or go to jail. 6 months later, the town was forced to reprogram the duration of the yellow lights. There is way too much abuse with these cameras. So it's not as simple as don't break the law and you won't pay a dime.
Has anyone noticed that most of the cameras are located in blue states?
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/auto_enforce.html
If they want these cameras approaching something acceptable, I would demand the following concessions:
1. At least 6 seconds of video with the trip point in the middle. Yes that means a constant record feature with the software flagging the trip point and saving 3 seconds before and after. That should pretty much show what the circumstances were. That should make it obvious if the ticket is warranted or not.
2. That the issuing company is required to pay court costs and wages lost for any case dismissed by a judge because of what was found on the video. If wages are too complicated, then make the company required to pay what the fine would have been to the defendant. (Which is probably more than the wages would have been anyway.) With a maximum of 2 weeks to mail the check after dismissal.
3. A data file showing the status/condition of the traffic system including the yellow light timer setpoint and the speed limit for that street. All this information should already be available to the company anyway. (Maybe the speed limit will have to be input.) It's just a matter of including it with the ticket.
4. If the data file shows the yellow light timer setpoint set below minimum requirements, then a $10,000 fine be levied per violation. The yellow light timer setpoint is supposed to be based on the speed limit of the street it controls. The courts should be able to determined by the number of violations flagged by the camera system. The timer setpoint value can be time stamped when it's changed.
5. If the number of dismissed cases due to mistakes by the company then the company should be decertified and their cameras removed from service state wide. (It would require federal intervention for a nation ban and that is probably more than it's worth to hope for.)
If you can get any company to agree to these requirements then let's talk.
When I read the argument that drivers shouldn't be penalize for a momentary lapse of judgement, I had to wonder why not? A driver running a red light is a danger to other drivers (and sometime pedestrians) on the road. AND the driver is cited strictly for his/her driving error, there is no bias from a camera. I agree that right turns on red should not be penalized, unless it is prohibited (and clearly marked) at that intersection.
If they generate income for a city, that's good isn't it? Most local governments are struggling economically. They can not replace police officers, but they do free them up (somewhat) to respond to other calls, where their presence is needed.
Here's a crazy idea....obey the traffic laws, and you will never have to worry about this.
I don't have a problem with the cameras and neither should anyone that obeys traffic signals. If the cameras generate revenue, great!, that's less that I have to pay in taxes. And oh yes lives are saved, eventually after a few fines, or maybe a suspended license the degenerate red light runner, will come to their senses and save their family some funeral expenses.
You're coming up to the light that is just now changing. You look in the mirror, and see a vehicle rapidly approaching. Any defensive driver can evaluate this situation immediately, and there are times it is safer to continue on. But a machine cannot know this. There is no way to evaluate circumstances.
p.s. - I have never heard of anyplace that lowered their taxes as a result of installation of these devices. Only the very naive would even suggest it.
When someone else is driving your car hummm like a family member and they run the red light an you get the fine and the points because the cars in your name what do you do then ? I know....... get a lawyer and take a day off from work and go to court and try to prove you were not driving that car they took a picture of that is in your name.
What I am to saying is we are in effect ticketing the car and fineing the owner regardless of who is driving.
Lol yeah seriously, I can just imagine councilmen talking about that one;
"So we got these taxes, lots of money. These camera fines are also bringing us in extra dough. Yaknow what? I think we are making plenty of money, we don't really need any more money do we fellas? Let's lower taxes."
Red light cameras are not needed if you just extend the time between lights turning red to the other side turning green.
People who run red lights generally do so on left turns when traffic is heavy... if you don't run a red light in some areas you will NEVER have the chance to turn left. These cameras penalize those people.
Also there are instances of cars going slower than the speed limit in certain weather conditions not making it across before the light turns red, cars with very heavy loads going through "late yellow" because it is difficult (and dangerous) to slam on the brakes.
Police would know the difference in these instances when a dangerous infraction has not been made.
Running a solid red is certainly dangerous once the light turns green and you have people timing lights or gunning it from the line. So...like I said... extend the period of time between lights for each side.
It is a rare offense when someone just blows through a solid red that has been that way for some time. These machines are NOT set up only to catch these serious offenders.
Bull crap.
DaveB...You don't drive a 16 wheeler through a 3 second amber light, do you? What's with the "if I can do it, the rest of the world can" BS?
builder...Live in NJ where bumper to bumper traffic is a regular thing. Then talk. If you live in Montana, maybe you don't worry about red light cameras because you know for certain the green isn't going to change to amber and red in less than a few seconds. Try that in a traffic congested state like mine and the number of accidents increase. And not because someone ran a red light.
These cameras need to banned across the country.
If were up to me I'd have camera's everywhere on the street. Not only for the traffic incidents but to collect littering fines from people throwing things out the window and kids smashing the mirrors on cars, graffitti, etc. Think of how many times a criminal was caught because they accidentally walked by a bank camera or something. You would want a camera there if someone ran a red light and hit your child.
Why is it that criminals whine the most about their "rights" after we punish them for taking away our rights and safety.
No, you know who was driving the car. Have them take responsibility and go to court and say they were driving not you. If they won't do it they you have a problem with them not the court system.
Steve...Why is it the bullies today think might makes right? If I get up every day, go to work, drive 21 miles to get there, I don't need cameras watching my every move. This is a democracy. Privacy is a human and civil right. Enough with the bully boy BS.
How about I install a camera in your shower? I'm sure there's lots of stuff going on in there that's not exactly ready for prime time viewing.
Robotic monitoring devices to fine you for human infractions.
Reminds me of that science fiction movie, "Demolition Man." A society where they legislated morality into law to segregate the above-ground "haves," from the underground, "have-nots."
You swore a vulgarity in a public place, said a four-letter crudity in a business environment, or even utter a curse in the privacy of your home, and with these microphones or videocams placed everywhere, at least one of them would pick up on your utterance by this widespread voice recognition system, and you were immediately fined a financial amount that grew upon every "uncivil utterance" you verbalized, even to yourself, with no one else around to witness it.
"that's less that I have to pay in taxes."
LOL! Sure....
phillip marshall...You are so right. There was a cop in my town who had two accidents in the same night because he was drunk. The first accident he only hit the back of a woman's car. The second accident, he ran the red light right near the cop shop and plowed drunk into a pick up truck.
Nothing tighter than the boys in blue. All he got was a slap on the wrist. He had to attend counseling. After that? He managed to get promoted to sargeant. This cop couldn't be fired. He's in a union. And he was "off duty" was the excuse.
I see all the red light camera companies have their employees tasked to write B.S. proponent postings here. DaveB, how many of your co-workers are tasked with Internet PR today?
Big Brother at it's worse?! You should read 1984 sometime it's a good book. When these cameras are in our homes watching us in our sleep then you can make that comparison. I mean you really think that red light cameras are on par with thought police and erasing history en mass by the government? Again read the book sometime. It's pretty goo albeit far fetched.
Allen Shore..I have every confidence that a year from now, the first red light camera fraud will emerge. All it will take is a few politicians' license plates getting "misread" by the red light cameras.
Now you and I both know the penchant among the vehemently partisan, don't we? You think the hotchas wouldn't use their influence to make sure their opponents get caught by a red light camera, run to the press and then use that for their political rhetoric?
This is the stuff Orwell couldn't even conceive.
Ah...I see logic has been replace with personal attacks and the old school yard stand by.."I know you are but what am I?" how can I compete with such debating skills.
How does a camera misread anything? It takes pictures. Unless it's attached to HAL9000 I don't think we have to worry about the cameras erring in judgement. Again, stop at the red light. Problem solved.
@ Raddiko: John Spartan you have been fined 1 credit for violation of the verbal morality statute. Awesome movie.
@ Ewent: It's cheaper for State's to use cameras than have officers sitting at speed traps. Plain and simple. If people didn't speed, drive foolishly, act stupid behind the wheel etc... this wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately, people do speed, drive foolishly, and act stupid behind the wheel resulting in countless injuries and deaths yearly. Are you to blame? Probably not. But, without oversight of some kind, there is no deterrent.
Find a way to stop people from acting like they're the only ones on the road, and getting rid of all manner of road safety regulations could absolutely happen. Unfortunately, humans are stupid, and humans in vehicles are even more stupid. The sad part is, most of us are actually capable of driving safely. The few who aren't, ruin it for the rest of us.
Steve257..Most people know not to compete with those more experienced and far more superior.
B Murphy...cheaper? For whom? Cops in NJ earn close to 6 figures a year and some actually earn more than that. They have blue ribbon benefits and pensions they pay less than 3% for. The rest is paid for by taxpayers.
So...the scenario is very expensive cops sitting around the cop shops playing on computers while they eat their Dunkin Donuts. If the red light cameras are such a savings, why are taxpayers not seeing a drop in the number of cops needed then?
Sorry red light cameras are nothing more than a sting on taxpayers. We pay millions for the cameras and another few hundred million for cop salaries.
Jeff...I don't know how it "misread" the license plate. I posted the excuse given for the flood of 200 tickets handed out by a North Jersey town. And that wasn't the first time it happened.
I believe what they meant was that the printout of the red light camera's photo of the license plates was "misread" by those who process the tickets for violations. Since the department I had to deal with was their Traffic Violations Dept, I assume that's what they meant.
@ Ewent: Cry to your fellow citizens, not to me. It's human stupidity, arrogance and self-centered nature that causes us to need a policing authority. If people were a bit more aware and concerned for things outside their own paltry existences, there might not be a need for it.
Until then, yes, using a Camera, rather than increasing how many officers are at a precinct, yes, that costs less.
B Murphy...Full of yourself aren't you? I respond to your posts. I don't cry. Come off that BS line about needing policing authority. Pick up any Noo Yawk newspaper and you see as many cop murderers, cop thieves, cop drug addicts as the anywhere else in the country.
And let's not pretend those cigar chomping, big gut, big butt southern cops playing with a straight hand either.
the lights in memphis where these cameras are seem to have a shorter yellow light time now than they did before the cameras were installed. i luckily know where they are and proceed with a lot more caution but it seems like they're trying to make people have moving violations to get more money.
@ Ewent: Full of myself? Eh?
You're the one whining about cameras, you're the one whining about traffic laws. Not me. It's pretty easy to obey the traffic laws even when you're in a hurry.
Now, if you're arguing that people don't need a police force, I suggest you take that up with the State and Federal Government, because, I believe you might have a few people who'd disagree with you there. I'd be inclined to agree with you, however, I've known and seen too many people. The police force is there as a deterrent for a reason. Thin out the American populace a good 30-40% and I think it could be done. But, far too many mouth-breathers out there for it to be safe, currently.
There is always corruption, no matter what the job. Don't blame the Police for something that's obviously a human issue. Not all corruption happens with Cops, not all cops are corrupted. I've had my run-ins with Cops, some good, some bad. And I gotta tell you, not all of them are out to get you. Most, simply have a difficult job and are trying to do it the best they can.
ewent you do not even know how the lights work. Ding dong they take the picture if you cross the line after the light turns red. So cross the line when red you get a ticket, cross the line when yellow-no ticket and if you are in the intersection when the light turns red-no ticket. You consperisy goofs really make me laught. Why don't you get in you spaceship and fly on outta here.
First:
"Papers, please."
Second:
If you think you're going to get reduced taxes, you're beyond naive, you're bordering on solid stupidity.
These are purely used as income generators, not tax reducers.
Seriously, do you have any critical thinking skills?
Bow hunting skills? Computer hacking skills?
A police force is needed to protect the weak. We humans are predatory by nature. People want what others have, don't want to work to earn it themselves. We bully each other for the sheer joy of it. You see examples of it daily in school, at work, on the internet, or even just walking down the street. Now you can either cower and cringe when this happens or attempt to handle it yourself, whether you're capable or not. Or you can pay someone to protect you instead. I pay my taxes so that someone better able to handle this stuff can do the job.
Oh i'm sure someone here is gonna toss in the "but the cops are bully's and corrupt too" rhetoric. Sure we've all seen various sensationalized news articles about Officer So-and-So doing various naughty things. But what you don't see, or at least very rarely see are the good things most officers do. We have hundreds of thousands of policemen, and the percentage of bad guys in that is so very much lower than any other job or in the general public. I promise you, grab 100 cops, 100 priests and 100 everyday citizens, which you think has the lowest ratio of good to bad?
"If were up to me I'd have camera's everywhere on the street."
Really? You would probably vote for satellite surveillance too. God knows we all have too much privacy.
The only way to get rid of these things is refuse to pay. In Phoenix they lost a million dollars like they did in LA. Now they are being removed. If it were really about safety and not a fund raiser wouldn't they just shoulder the cost?
Lets face it, when cameras lose money the better alternative is to hire more officers to do the job. When cameras work, officers get laid off. Support your local police force, not a private for profit company!
Be careful of 'comments' expressing that they are FOR these cameras. It has been shown that the companies that push for these cameras have been known to log on as 'commenters' and push for the cameras as a public relations effort.
It was shown when several 'cut and paste' comments across many different boards were found. These guys play mean...
I find this humerous. I am the 34th replier to a foolish remark from a person who probably lives where there are no camera's.
Everyone and I mean everyone has probably done a few California stops in their lifetime. Getting a ticket for this is the most rediculous ticket a person can receive.
Give me a F'ing break. These are there to produce revenue only. At least with a officer present, you have a chance in court.
A tax break. You are the biggest joke thinking this.
When have you ever seen food prices, energy, or anything change drastically in price after a price rise. The nature of business is to raise prices when possible to bring in more profits when the prices can be lowered, but never are.
There is no borderline stupidity here. This person is just plain dumb. Lower taxes. Lets not throw an airbag under him to lighten his fall to dumbness.
At least we all got to vent on a dumb and stupid comment. For that I thank you Dummy.
Something I forgot.
A camera can't notice the drunk driver who just ran the yellow into red or the red light or anything a drunk driver does while under the influence.
A actual Human has to be there to notice. No one ever talkes about the drunk drivers who may make it home saftly or kill someone in your family because they just got a ticket for running the red light when they should have been arrested on the spot.
So don't talk about saving money for having a police officers out there looking for people running red lights.
Idiots like you Murphy have NOW PUT A PRICE ON A HUMAN LIFE.
The price of running a red light or any other infraction issued by a red light camera.ticket.
How is the Moron and Whiner now.
I will give a family member of yours about 1 cent for your life, and I am being generous with that price.
A camera is better than a officer, get a life.
@ Told_You_So: Are you that completely stupid? Really? I never said getting a ticket for a rolling stop was warranted, I did, however, say that such tickets are EASILY argued in court. Especially when there's no officer there to actually argue the merits of the case. As is the case with any ticket. You are allowed to present your argument in court.
I personally think it's better to have cameras for silly infractions, and have police seeking the more serious threats to our society, murderers, rapists, drug dealers etc... You know, things that might actually require a trained force to combat.
A camera isn't BETTER, than an officer. It allows officers to address more important issues than shepherding the sheep who can't play nice with each other.
Well it is warranted. The law says you must come to a complete stop. That means the wheels aren't moving. And those tickets are not easily arguable. What argument could you possibly have?
These cameras will never stop the people who habitually run lights or speed. These people will lose their license and be right back on the road. Danny Bridges, Roane Couny Tennessee...15 DUIs killed 2 others plus himself. Killed one in a bui(boating) and one in the car with himself. Losing your license doesn't mean anything. No one goes to jail for driving without a license anymore. There is no room in the jails. The may arrest you, cite you but then they will release you.
@ Nick46: If there's no actual officer present, you could come up with any number of excuses that could fit the scenario. The first that comes to mind is that you were creeping up on the sensor, because it was taking a long time to change, and you weren't sure if the electronics had picked up on your vehicle. I've had to do that before. Just because they have a picture of you over the line, doesn't mean you actually took off, now does it? If they don't have a picture of you actually going across the intersection, they've got a pretty thin case.
Seriously, think about it. If the picture shows your car beyond the white line or partially over, but not in motion...where's the proof? That just means you stopped a tad late. Doesn't mean you ran a light. Again, this can be argued in court, and odds are, the judge isn't going to want to sit there and hash over the merits of a traffic violation, especially if we're talking someone who happened to be over the line. Now..if you ran the light, that's a different story.
@ Tom: Yeah, the substance abuse laws in this country are a sham, especially for behind the wheel behavior. I blame the people who condone it, because 'it's a disease'.
Wrecks at red lights are almost always fully run red lights (no yellow involved).
They don't see the red and run through at full speed.
That's how people get killed.
Just like a 4 way stop - you simply cannot have an accident with much force involved when someone is coming from a stop - like when turning left on a yellow that's going red.
So if these cameras make people drive better, why not put them on stop signs?
Murphy, My Bad.
I wrote this post during a quick moment. Got your name mixed up with one of the other idiots you were repling to in the one long post you did. Didn't see it until after.
I agree about the officer hunting down the other scum, but as a person who has lost a sister to murder, plus a friend to a drunk driver, I also like the officer that used to sit near my house in Texas before the camera was installed. Saw him more than once, giving field test to drunk drivers.
He moved after the camera was installed, even though it had one of our Dunkin Dopnuts near the intersection. They seem to forget an area that has the camera's installed and this intersection has numerous monthly accidents.
Well biologically speaking addiction is a disease.
But by no means is an addiction any excuse for getting behind the wheel while under the influence.
Sympathy for the afflicted is an honorable sentiment, but for those with any sense whatsoever know that such sympathy has limitations.
Dave B, you mean you are paying lower taxes because of the revenue? I didn't see the notice that my taxes were being cut thanks to this wonderful tool. These cameras didn't replace revenue, they added it.
@ Told_You_So: I understand your issues there, and I sympathize with the loss of your sister. While I haven't lost a family member (yet), I have lost some people who were very close to me, so I can only imagine how that must have felt.
The problem I see though, is how is a police officers presence at a red light going to stop people from dying in alcohol related driving deaths? Field sobriety tests are all well and good...but they're not going to catch everyone. People will still get into cars hammered, and they will still get into accidents, regardless of police presence.
I feel it's more of an issue with us, than with the police, honestly (well, some police too). We (humans), continuously show a capacity for simply not caring about others when we do things. Getting into a car while intoxicated, thinking you can handle yourself, etc... What kind of person can really justify that in their heads? It's terrible. I won't drive if I've had a single beer. It's that simple.
I won't drink if I don't have a pre-determined ride home. I won't drive if I know I will be drinking (I'll take a cab). It's not out of concern for myself, it's out of concern for others. If I actually killed someone with my car, because I was driving drunk? I think I'd kill myself. Seriously. Putting something as mundane as entertainment over someone else's life? Someone's mother? Father? Sister? Brother? Child? I shudder at the thought, man.
Unfortunately, not everyone thinks like me. And really, that's ultimately the problem. The police and cameras can only do so much. For those who can justify getting drunk, and getting behind the wheel of a car, there's really not much you can do.
@ Shuklak: I have an extremely hard time believing the whole 'disease' theory. I think it's just another way to condone behavior we really can't explain, because it seems so horribly self-centered. We'd like to think that people who drink constantly have a disease that makes them unable to control themselves. But really, they're just too self-centered to see that it's not only themselves they're hurting, but their family, friends etc.. and those unfortunates who are hurt as a result of their inability to grow up.
Calling it a disease, makes it just so easy for drunks to excuse themselves from responsibility. I don't agree with that tactic, myself.
Maybe they do things a little differently elsewhere, but here all these "tickets" have to be reviewed by an officer before they get processed and mailed. The company making the dollars aren't the ones deciding which infraction gets processed and which one doesn't. The ones here they don't just review the actual snapshot taken, they have to review the video tape immediately proceeding the infraction and right afterwards as it is set to save X amount of seconds before/after of actual running footage. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) how many people change their tune of "Oh I was almost stopped and just crept through" as soon as they see the tape of them completely blowing through a light. But like I said, maybe elsewhere they don't have the same checks and balances.
It's not based on speculations or psychobabble mumbo jumbo.
It's backed by hard neuroscience. The addicted brain is biologically different than a non-addicted brain. It's not about making excuses, it's simple fact.
Addiction is considered a disease because the brain physically rewires itself for the drug. In the case of nicotine, it actually builds receptors specifically designed for the substance. Without the substance, the brain goes into what is effectively 'starvation' mode - which results in withdrawals and all sorts of physical and mental problems.
Because of this sort of rewiring, an addicted person will always be an addicted person - taking massive willpower to remain on the wagon. When, say, an alcoholic falls off the wagon and has one single drink, his brain by that time will be so starved of the drug it will cause that one drink to be a hundred times more pleasurable than a non-addict.
In the context of brain chemistry it really is similar to going thirsty 2 days and finally getting that drink of water.
Labelling it a disease does not waive the person's personal responsibility to themselves, it only serves to help to explain addiction and how it effects the mind.
Here's one of the problems; if the traffic's backed up (rush hour) and you cross the far-side of the intersection after the light turns red...you get a $300 ticket. If an officer observed the same situation, more likely he would consider the traffic and safety issues and ignore the inadvertent infraction. The problem is that a machine doesn't consider traffic situation out of the normal flow.
Didn't read if this was already suggested, but........
Why not hire or create traffic officer positions? Unemployment is waaaaay up, revenue is down and it makes sense to put people back to work. Less fraud and more common sense than with an automated camera. Actual police officers spend more time on the street, less time "camera reviewing". OK, hike up the cost of a red light ticket to justify hiring more people, but in the end, everyone wins (except the corporation making the surveillance and fulfilling the contract) !!
Just my common sense opinion while trying to kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
I own stock in a few companies that make, install, monitor, and issue tickets. Read the article again, the locals, and state are only getting a small sum of the fine/fee. I'm not seeing it in shareholder value which means it's going to the board who is in bed with the people in power allowing them to be put up in the first place. The intersection arguement doesn't wash becuase thats the point that most accidents happen anyways no matter how you jumble the math. So now they have your gps in your phones and device's to track you, ways to read/scan the barcode on your plates, this is one of the biggest ripoff scams to come along in the last 100 years. Don't give me the BS about bad drives let the cops give them tickets for cellphones, texting, speeding, driving reckless, thats the job (part of) they get paid for.
I've been hit by a car making a rolling stop. Red means stop for a reason. You guys should just admit that you want to be able to run red lights when cops aren't looking. I would respect that a lot more than privacy or Big Brother arguments. Give me a break.
Apparently you misunderstood me. Being over the line alone means that you ran the light. You don't have to take off.
Hope Maryland gets with this. They are so "money hungry" here they seldom consider the desires of their constituents. But maybe as this spreads the people here will fight these tickets as well.
@owigal,
Maryland will never get it! I live there too, and the politicians in this state will NEVER give up anything that will allow them to stick a hand in your wallet. I'd recommend voting the b*st*rds out but we just seem to get a fresh crop of crooks. If I could afford to move, I'd be gone.
A warning for ANYONE driving in Baltimore City: there is a camera at the intersection of E. Northern Parkway and Springlake Avenue that, if you're heading west you should be aware of. If you're right up on it, it turns yellow and you accelerate (as opposed to pushing the brake pedal through the floorboard of your car), expect a ticket.
These stupid cameras are nothing but a money grab for politicians and the major corporations who own them---and not just in Maryland.
I live in Maryland and I wholeheartedly support the use of not only red light cameras, but also speed cameras. I am fed up with people who think they have the right to ignore traffic signals or go 50 MPH in residential areas. What exactly is your beef, that you should somehow be exempt from traffic laws? If you obey the laws then you won't have any problems, it's that simple.
It is that simple. I wonder why people can't understand that. Many cities have street cameras I suppose if a murderer is caught on one of those there would be outrage to remove the cameras.
Nick46...What is it about due process of the law you don't get? You are innocent until proven guilty. With these cameras, you are guilty and can't prove your innocence. All they are after is for you to pay up. I don't pay for things I haven't done.
The cameras capture your car license number? If you weren't driving I'm sure you know who was. If they won't take responsibility sue them. If you get a parking ticket do you pay it or do you ignore it because they can't prove it was you and therefore your due process was violated?
ewent.... you need to readjust your tin foil hat and stop drinking the kool aid.
Nick...I don't pay for things I don't do..Only fools do that and the ticket I referred to in my post occurred long before red light cameras. Now, I stop on amber for all traffic lights. That's the only way to not get a ticket in NJ.
Rob...the only foil hat I've seen is the ones the bully boys have to wear when their Daycare McMommies little sweetums are bad widdle bois.
Maryland? "The Free State?" Beautiful state, as I recall it is refered to as "Little America." It has everything from the ocean to the mountains with the exception of a desert.
It is also run by the few counties that border Washington, D.C. Full of Federal employees and uber-liberals.
Your Bay is dying! Your oysters are dead. Do you still have crabs in your waters?
You folks will not do a thing about these illegal and amoral "Red Light" tickets. You have just done all you will do. You have posted your comment here on the vine. That's it, that's all. Your good deed is done.
Maryland, where I have sailed for months, is one of the most beautiful states in the country. I suggest that, if you visit, stick to the country and the water.
They have a few foundations, nationally famous for lying and bilking the public out of billions in donations. Their mission has been, read about it, to clean up The Chesapeake Bay. The largest estuary in the world continues to die, and yet these non-profits suck up more and more money from fools who believe the lies. The oyster beds, once full, are dead or dying, the wonderful blue crab that they are known for are few in numbers. And yet Marylanders still give to these foundations.
Red Lights, what a joke.
Ah, there was a "Red Light" district in Baltimore. Is that still there?
I live in San Diego and I remember when the city installed red light cameras at a few of the intersections along a major street. Prior to the cameras being put in, the yellow duration was long enough that if the light turned yellow and you were right at the intersection, you had time to get through it driving at the speed limit, without having to slam on your brakes (and chance getting nailed by the car behind you).
When they put the cameras in a few of the intersections, they changed the timing of the yellows on those intersections so that you no longer had enough time. Sure, they got revenue from them, but the number of rear end collisions went up as well as people started slamming on thier brakes rather than chance a ticket.
Like many have already said, it seems like the cameras are there to generate money rather than help in public safety.
As for speed cameras in residential areas, many residential streets in my area have HUGE speed bumps on them every couple of hundred feet (I remember a co-worker who owned a lowered truck actually getting hung up on one). If you go over these bumps at anything over 20 miles an hour, you are going to be taking chances on destroying your suspension. (not to mention getting thrown around inside your car). That goes a lot further towards keeping speeders down and costs a hell of a lot less to maintain than cameras.
Good for you. Lesson learned.
Nick...what about that one time when the person behind you doesn't slow down with you at that caution? What if that person is travelling several car lengths behind you coming up at a quicker rate of speed trying to beat that light when you stop for the caution? Longer cautions should be the norm if they have these cameras.
So are the tickets a criminal or civil matter?
They don't seem to go to either court.
Which is unconstitutional.
I know why they don't go to civil court: they would have to prove actual damages. When a car runs a red and no one is around - there are no damages.
I know why they don't go to criminal court: they would have to charge the driver, not the owner. (Even in your work truck, a company truck while you are on the clock - if you run a red light the ticket is the drivers, not the owners).
The cities and red light camera manufacturers know this. They know they will lose in a court.
So they simply avoid the courts altogether.
Yes, Gov't has no problem breaking the rules and defying the US Constitution.
@ Ryan: Police are a State body, so it's a civil offense. When you receive your ticket, it actually indicates on the ticket when the court hearing is set for, should you decide to argue the merits of the ticket itself.
Not sure why you believe civil court requires proof of actual damages, that's really not the case. As with pretty much every legal situation in the US, you're given your time in court to argue your case. Regardless of how little or big the alleged offense is.
B Murphy - Do you really know so little about the US Constitution?
When the Police give you a ticket or arrest you - it is a criminal matter - and MUST go to a criminal court.
These red light camera cases are not going to court. They are just a fine in the mail, and do not give you a court date. Circumventing due process.
Yes, all cases in civil court involve actual, nearly always monetary damages. You can get punitive damages - but you have to have actual damages to start a civil case.
Imagine the world if it worked your way. You could bring a civil case over anything. Maybe someone looked at you wrong. Under your theory you could sue for that - even though there were no actual damages.
@ Ryan: Do you know so little about laws? There are civil offenses and federal offenses. Federal offenses are typically bigtime law infractions, set at a Federal (IE National, level). Civil offenses are typically State laws, that have been broken. Sounds like you need to brush up on your understanding of the legal system.
ANY charge, by any authority in the US allows for the defendant to speak for themselves. You seriously should reevaluate what you perceive as your rights, because you're functioning under some pretty funky ideals.
Though, maybe it's different in Texas, couldn't tell ya. But, every ticket you receive in Vermont, by camera, or actual officer, you can argue in court. And I personally know several people who've argued their case in court. Some have won, others have not.
If there is no court date, it's not a legitimate ticket, so just ignore it. Without a court date it would be effectively the same thing as if I saw you run a red light while I was walking the dog, wrote down your license, and then sent you a letter demanding that you pay me $200 dollars.
B Murphy -
There are CIVIL CASES AT THE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LEVEL.
There are CRIMINAL CASES AT THE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LEVEL.
I'm not going to call you a name - but your ignorance on this topic is amazing.
You have already written that you think a police officer writing a ticket is a "civil offense" - when it is a criminal offense.
You then write:
"There are civil offenses and federal offenses. Federal offenses are typically bigtime law infractions, set at a Federal (IE National, level). Civil offenses are typically State laws, that have been broken. Sounds like you need to brush up on your understanding of the legal system."
I know I am wasting my time here - but you really need to check out the difference between a civil court and a criminal court. (You also got juridictions mixed up in there - Federal, State , Local - ALL HAVE BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL COURTS)
It is not based on the seriousness of the crime. We put plenty of people to death in Texas when they committed double or triple murders. State, not Federal courts decided them). There are also people who have been in Federal Court over drug cases that only get probation. Clearly not as serious as a death penalty case.
Please google criminal and civil courts in the US. You will find they are divided based on if you broke a law and will be possibly punished with jail time or fines (criminal) or if you just injured/damaged/broke contract (civil) and will have to possibly pay damages.
You could easily know much of this if all you did was watch court tv. The Peoples Court is a good place to start. They clearly state that criminal activity is the job for criminal court, and all they can adress in the tv court rooms is civil cases. And only the actual damages there can start a civil case. No damages - no case.
There is always an excuse. Once I heard that the accident was the other drivers fault because the person that was hit didn't get out of the way. Ot it was the cars fault I'm not used to it. It's always something and most are stupid.
Here in Long Beach New York we have a retired police officer age 75, hard of hearing and getting these photo summons which shows he cannot hide behind his badge anymore so it is a great way to slow traffic down and make everyone obey the laws.
Regaining OUR right, one light at a time.
If the city[ies] want to increase revenue [isn't that currently defined as raising taxes] then they can put officers on task force and do their job.
Some task force deployments can bring in state/federal funds and are often not, repeat not, allowed to be thrown out by a judge. [read get out the check book].
YOUR right to run red lights...is that what you are talking about wap3?
Wally...Cops are into entrapment. What would make you think this isn't just another way to make big bucks for the municipalities? When an amber light isn't long enough for a small vehicle to pass through, what happens then is that every green light becomes an amber light you have to whip through at top speed because it's 3 seconds in duration. What kind of BS is that?
Seems to me that if faced with video evidence of not coming to a complete stop, running red lights, etc... people would change their ways. It is, after all, the law.
Big Brother does suck, and any type of government surveillance carries with it the potential for abuse.... but drivers are at the point now that they actually get offended for being called out on their illegal actions.
In my opinion, drive right or pay the consequences.
Use your blinkers, turn into the correct lanes, come to complete stops at intersections, yield properly, don't treat yellow lights as a personal challenge to beat your last time through an intersection... etc. If traffic cameras help with that, I'm personally for them... You simply can not argue with video evidence.
The only issue is if the camera has the resolution to capture who was actually operating the vehicle at the time of the infraction. I imagine that has a lot to do with judges not always enforcing camera tickets.
Typically, the camera only identifies the vehicle and the license plate. The owner of the vehicle is sent the ticket. I got one. There was no court date on my ticket - so I did not pay. I got a series of ever more intimidating letters, then everything just disappeared.
Things don't just disappear. What they do is issue a warrant for your arrest for unpaid traffic tickets. They won't actively look for you but if you are stopped for any reason it's off to jail. Hope that aggravation is worth ignoring the ticket.
That's not true, Nick. This was two years ago. There is nothing on my record, there are no warrants, there is nothing on my credit report. I don't have an unpaid traffic ticket, because I was never found guilty of anything in any traffic court. I got a letter from an outfit in Utah that said I needed to send them money, and enclosed was a picture of my truck in front of a light that was red.
I am a very safe driver, but I got one of these a few months ago, in a dedicated right turn lane! Reviewing the video, the light turned from yellow to red 0.5 seconds before I crossed the line at like 5-10mph (and it did take a photo of my face). The law is the law but I couldn't believe that I got a $460 fine, the same as blowing through an intersection. Maybe I should've done that and at least gotten my money's worth.
It was either plead guilty or risk getting a point on my record and increasing my insurance. So I swallowed my pride, paid the fine, and spent a few hours on internet driving school where I learned the process for getting a motorcycle license and other irrelevant material.
I am absolutely for public safety, but I felt like I was just being pushed through the machine and wasting my time at every step of the process...
One small town in Tennessee did their own study, and found that rear end collisions had increased after installation of cameras.
I got one of those tickets, never paid it, nothing happened. I got about four letters from the camera company, who issued me the ticket, each increasingly obnoxious - then nothing. I was willing to go to court and even pay triple to argue my viewpoint, but never got the chance. Nothing went on my record, because I was never convicted of any offense.
Wait until you have to renew yor license.
Well - no - I don't have to wait. I did renew it. Besides, in Tennessee if you have a moving violation and don't pay it, they don't wait for renewal - they suspend your license. It will cost even more to take care of that. However a moving violation is a criminal offense, meaning you have the right to argue your case in court. Not that you will ever win doing that, but you have that right. Without a hearing there is no conviction and no violation.
So what is your defense freedman1, that it is not illegal to run red lights?
to freedman1
Rear end collisions occur when you are following to close (tailgating). If you cannot stop before hitting another vehicle, then YOU are the fool, NOT the person who is obeying the law.
You can believe this or not - but I actually have a spotless driving record. This fact has helped me get out of a few tickets (ironic, isn't it?) My defense is that there are many legitimate safety reasons for running a red light. The car behind you may be following too close, not paying attention. It is better for me to continue on than to get rear-ended. A human observer may agree with me, might even cite the other driver for following too closely. Maybe not. But a computer cannot make the call. More importantly, nobody is guilty of any crime if they have not been afforded their day in court. I was never given a court date, or I would have shown up. If I don't have a court hearing, I am not guilty of any crime, and therefore no 'fine', no 'fee' is appropriate.
EXACTLY!
@freedman1: No offense, really, but it sounds like your town is run by fools, idiots or morons. maybe all three. That 'following too close' argument is so weak, on so many levels, that any official who would accept it is the epitome of ineptitude.
That's ok - it's not my town. My town has no cameras, the city council having voted against this. It was a neighboring town.
I go to traffic court when I get a ticket. I go to plead guilty, because usually you can go see a movie or something, pay the fine, and keep the thing off your record. I enjoy watching people plead not guilty, the arguments are fun to watch. I have never seen a judge dismiss a ticket based upon any defendants argument.
Futility is not the point. You deserve to have the ability to go to court, to face your accuser, to argue your case. That is the law.
Paul, speaking as someone who always trys to keep a safe distance between me and the car in front of me, the problem is that (at least here in my city, and I'm sure many others) whenever you leave that gap in front of you on a busy street, someone is always going to jump into it (usually without their turn signal).
But if they jump into the lane right in front of me and slam on thier brakes (because they dont realize that the car in front of me is going just as slow as I am) and I rear end them, it's my fault. Would I be the "fool" then?
Well by his posts it sounds like they all deserve each other. Good company.
Tell the sumbitches to move to commie China if they want to live with this kind of "1984" crap. This is America. Any public official who tries to put up robot cop cameras deserves to be strung up from the nearest tree or lamp post.
I think you mean "This is 'Merica!"
And move to "commie Chi-nee."
Absolutely. A year or so ago, a 68 year-old man was ticketed by a speed camera, I think in New Mexico. He was so angry about it, he returned and killed the man in the van operating the camera. Now, that's clearly extreme, but our elected officials must realize that we, as U.S. citizens, are being attacked on all sides by government-mandated initiatives, that although touted in the name of "security and safety", actually make us all less free. Simply being alive has inherent risks, and nothing will ever eliminate that fact. Citizens are under enough pressure in this economy, that a revenue-generating, useless traffic ticket is just too much, and can and will push some people over the edge.
Yeah, what a maroon. It will take about a month for you to get a ticket in the mail. There are no manned, computerized cameras. It's an oxymoron.
Lol seriously... when I was a kid I thought there was a little man that sat inside the traffic signals and operated them.
I guess this guy is of a similar thought process.
He's referring to the speed cameras. A neat trick they tried here in TX for a while. A van with a police officer would sit by the side of the road while the camera/radar gun would snap a pick of your plate. About a month later you would get a speeding ticket in the mail.
These red light cameras ARE computerized. You know anything these days that aren't? You don't think they just wind it up and it runs or they plug it in do you? Get a clue people. Google the internet if you want to know how red light cameras operate. The information taken from them is then reviewed by clerks from the private company supplying them and it's passed on to local law enforcement.
So when you favorite off duty cop runs as many red lights as he likes, the cameras will get his license but his wall of blue won't ever allow him to be ticketed like the rest of us.
Do your homework about these red light cameras.
They did this in Louisiana too. It sure slowed people down in a section of I-12 that was notorious for deadly wrecks.
That's right, Haysoos! If we don't like it, let's get violent and hurt somebody. This is especially effective when we are (obviously) completely lacking in the ability to rationally argue the real pros and cons of an issue.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/man-gets-22-years-in-slaying-of-freeway-speed-camera-van-operator
This happened here in Phoenix,I believe this is what greatscot was referring to.
How dare they use those radar guns. That too is an attack on our freedoms.
Red light cameras are just another way Uncle Sam is trying to control the masses. It has always been easy to defeat these camera tickets in court, but it just amazes me how cities and municipalities continue to install them all over the place and issue tickets. The theory is that only a few people will challenge them and they then become a great revenue source for the city with minimal work. The funny thing is that there are independent companies from out state who actually issue the tickets and administer to them. Talk about outsourcing.
lawline...I and about 5 other people where ticketed about 20 years ago in my municipality by an idiot cop who thought he'd make his monthly quota by lying. Out of the half dozen of us, I was the only one who fought for my rights. I refuse to "speak to the prosecutor" to downgrade the points on the ticket because I knew the cop was lying through his taxpayer paid for teeth.
I did my homework. I had his doppler records copied as part of my case presentation as well as the number of people he ticketed that day in the same place and time frame. I was appalled to find that his daily ticket record had been altered. The erasures to the record were more than apparent even on the copies. A point I made sure the judge saw.
I won the case and saved myself over $1100. The fine was only $45 but the court costs were $175. Add to that the increase that I'd have had in my auto insurance and the total was $1100. Better that money in my pocket than the town's. I plead guilty when and only when I am guilty. That cop managed somehow to go "on sick leave" all at taxpayer expense shortly after.
I think they were afraid I'd take the fraud to a higher court.....roflmao.
Well said Ewent... I have personally seen ticket data records from a number of police officers where they issued upwards of 10 tickets in 5 minutes which is a physical impossibility. This is the reason they will usually fight you tooth and nail if you issue any discovery requesting these kinds of records. Lets face it Police Officers lie all the time. (yes yes yes... I know not all of them are liers, before everyone goes bonkers.... however, MANY of them do). These traffic cameras are a joke. I once subpoenaed the camera maker, camera installer, mathematician who calculated the algorithm used to determine the formula for determining the speed of the vehicles, the company that administered the ticket (which was 950 miles away), the officer who signed the ticket, the tech who certified the radar device attached to the camera to determine that someone was speeding, the original data file from the pictures taken.... If they are going to use these ridiculous devices they deserve that kind of response.
No, that's stupid. The traffic lights control the masses. Without them, you take your best shot at intersections and hope you can skeedaddle through there without hitting or being hit. All the cameras do is enforce the CONTROL that's already there.
Skewed perspective = ridiculous argument.
The problem is that the traffic lights ARE being used to CONTROL the traffic improperly. They should not be used to CONSTRICT the flow, but rather to ORGANIZE crossflow to maximize flow while eliminating the opportunity for interaction. Thus, if the lights are timed, most traffic will flow, and yet there will still be nearly zero opportunity for conicidental cross-flow. PLEASE PEOPLE - stop thinking like cows that blindly follow the stupid government people into thinking that STOPPING traffic (ie, CONTROL) is the safest thing. If you make people stop at every light, they are going to start to speed and run stale yellows and fresh reds eventually out of sheer frustration - it's all human nature. The safest thing to ORGANIZE the flow of traffic to eliminate the frustration in the first place. Costs the same, uses exactly the same amount of time, and the same resources. It just requires some intelligence. And therein, apparently, lies the problem.
COW THINKING = WRONG CONCLUSION
Get rid of these damn things
Why ? You drive on red lights ?
You work for Redflex?
No, just curious why you'd hate those cameras saving hundreds of lifes every year.
Did I read this right? "Albuquerque, N.M., City Council voted this month to let residents vote on the future of the city's 20 red light cameras in October. (City lawyers are still weighing whether the vote would have any official effect.)"
WHERE do Albuquerque's City lawyers get off thinking they have the right to decide if the will of the people has any official effect?
When "We the People" speak, government - ALL government, from the lowest level to the highest - better darn well listen AND heed what the people have said.
The unmitigated arrogance of these lawyers is appalling.
LAW is not at the whim of the people.
That would be called 'mob rule.' I dislike these cameras as much as the next guy, but there is a reason the judiciary exists.
old gaffer...You know how Big Money talks and their rich BS runs foot races? Well? Make your money talk and get others to do the same. Majority rule isn't always just about numbers. It's withdrawing your money from frivolous funds that makes it really hurt where and when it counts most.
Those minor "lapses of judgement" (as one person said) cost lives. Red Signal violations kill a lot of people each year and in some locations are difficult to enforce due to the way the intersections are engineered. Drivers need to quit crying, slow down, stay off their phones and not blow red lights.
It's a rainy day. The light has just begun to change. You have clear vision, can feel your brakes starting to slip, and traffic is behind you. It might be better to use good judgment in the name of safety. Only a human could evaluate and react. Only another human, witnessing the event, can determine whether the driver is behaving in a competent manner, not a machine.
p.s. - I can't think of any intersection anywhere I've ever driven that was constructed in such a manner that would make it tough for a cop to issue a ticket.
freedman:
Your contrived situation is utter pandering and excuse making. YOU are responsible for maintaining your vehicle. Your brakes don't just "start to slip." You have ALLOWED them to get to the point where they are slipping.
If that's the case and it causes the emergency you have presented, it is YOUR fault and not only should you get the ticket for running that red light, you should also get a notice to repair your vehicle immediately or lose your license. And if this situation, that YOU created through your own negligence, caused damage or injury to others, you should foot all repair and medical bills for everyone involved. It was YOUR fault your vehicle was in that condition, even if you just bought it (used or otherwise). MAINTAIN YOUR VEHICLE.
You do not have the right to run red lights (unless possibly for medical emergencies, not sure about that), quit inventing excuses for doing so.
If you can't afford to MAINTAIN your vehicle, then you can't afford to drive. Take the bus, subway, or other public transportation. Stop making excuses.
Even a well maintained vehicle can have brakes that get wet, and begin to slip. I can counter that by several means, but it can and it does happen.
That's not actually the point. The point is I am not going to give up my rights to a machine. I have a right to face my accuser. I have a right to my day in court. Otherwise, I am just another innocent man. One who owes no fine.
Freedman... One should always drive defensively, especially on a rainy day. If you have clear vision, and the light "has just begun to change", and you can't stop before it turns red, then you're driving too fast for road conditions. Driving defensively in inclement weather is a better example of using good judgement than running a red light to avoid being rear ended, and possibly causing a potentially fatal accident.
Humans, including cops, make errors, and unless they happen to be at the scene witnessing everything that's happening, an accident just becomes an exercise of "he said/she said", with the cop trying to make a decision based on heresay.
If you don't understand that you need to be driving defensively in bad weather, then you probably need a remedial driving course before you end up killing some poor innocent schmuck who happens to cross your path... or road in your case.
F-man, We are talking about all the idiots that run red lights in good conditions. The case you make, I would challenge the ticket. Around here it seems stopping for red lights, let alone stop signs is an option. Personally I can't wait for the cameras to come to our area.
OR, our municipalities could actually time the lights to coincide with the normal flow of traffic. Then, there would be few blown red lights, significant reduction to speeding, and no need for cameras. That would only leave you with the morons with the phones stuck to their ears. Frankly, THAT's becoming the much bigger problem these days IMHO.
The problem isn't the cameras, it's how the data they collect is used - that's a human being problem. They blame it on the camera but someone has to program what information is used to generate tickets. I wish my city had them. The blatant red light runners is getting out of control. People complain about "big brother is watching" but it's usually the ones looking to get away with whatever they can without getting caught.
People who " Blatantly " run red lights aren't stopped by the cameras. The only thing the camera does is get good video of the accident.
Yes, they do. And it's been proven time and time again. And as someone who was in a car in another city that has these cameras and the driver "blatantly" ran the red light, then got the ticket, I know they work. Quit yer whining.
And if only those lights had been timed so properly flowing traffic didn't have to stop, there would not have been a red light incident and no need for a camera either. Government and control by hindrance will NEVER work.
Stop letting the government doing your thinking for you. They are supposed to be traffic control devices, not STOP lights. Our government officials are stupider than ever, and their constituents eat the crap they feed them like the cows that they are.
Red means STOP. Always has. It's one aspect in how the light controls traffic. What the HELL are you ranting about?
Do not run red lights. Period.
In a large tourist city, such as where I live in Orlando, many people are already driving erratically since the area is unknown to them. Combine that with the fear of a ticket and many people will lock up their brakes on the yellow light and slide to a screaming stop. I am almost rear ended or almost rear end someone at least 2x a week. Yesterday, a semi slid into my lane from locking up his brakes to avoid demolishing the car who stopped short in front of him.
Do not post before you think. Period.
Michelle, if you are almost rear ending people YOU ARE FOLLOWING THEM TOO CLOSE. Near intersections especially, give yourself room to stop in case the light turns yellow.
You shouldn't be driving if you don't know that. Period.
And you think that the fix for that is running the light? No the truck was following too close and at an unsafe speed.
They put them in here a few yrs ago, they havn't reduced blatant red light running accidents. The vast majority of the tickets are for " right on red " without coming to a complete stop which don't cause accidents and catching people who would have cleared intersection anyway with the time delay between the light change. Now people dynamite the brakes if they are unsure of how long the light has been yellow.
Now the city is adding more cameras and a city council vote to divert the money from the cameras to the general fund instead of using the money for road safety improvements only..... as originally promised.....
I feel the cameras may actually increase accidents from drivers slamming on thier brakes to at a yellow, I feel there are more effective methods to enforce intersections than cameras.
That isn't the fault of the camera. That is the fault of the idiot riding the bumper of the car who stopped at the yellow. If you can't stop in time to not hit a car who has stopped in front of you, then you are following too close.
It should also be noted that there are PROVEN cases where cities/villages have decreased the "yellow light time" to cause more violations to rack up more fines.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/04/red-light-camera-monkey-business-may-be-a-national-trend.ars
What exactly is your point?
And the point of all the emphasis on the length of the yellow caution
light.
Where did you folks get your drivers license?
Your emphasis should be on “Stale green lights” not the yellow caution light.
If the yellow light is your savior, you have already screwed
up and deserve a ticket.
Next time you go out, pay attention to the length of the
green light, which is known as a stale green light and be prepared to stop.
So you are saying that I should begin to stop on green. Or at least slow to a crawl on green because the light---might turn yellow.
I thought that part of the reason that there is such a thing as yellow is the knowledge that a 2000 or more lb. vehicle cannot stop instantly.
Once the brain implants start, there will be no need for the cameras. Just wait a few years.
In order to have implants in the brain, I think first having a brain is requisite.
Brain implants....I'll start a program called "help a lefty" to coincide.
In our city, you only get a red light camera ticket if you enter the intersection after the light is red. Sorry, there's no excuse for doing that. All the arguments against cameras, at least those where they're deployed fairly (not a shortened yellow, only for entering intersection on red, etc.), are just whining from people who don't like getting caught running lights.
I live in a city that had a real problem with people driving through stoplights. I mean folks were getting killed and many injured due to irresponsible drivers with little or no ability to use any judgement while driving. The cameras went up and the problem has basically become a non-problem. I think the city even stopped using them, but let them stay in place. I don't want to see the return of 45 mile an hour collisions at intersections. I don't like the cameras, but I live in an area where traffic problems abound and the police are facing budget cutbacks which means fewer cops on the street. I live in a coastal, resort area where bad driving is a goal for most drivers due to the limited street infrastructure. The so-called freedom gained by being able to fly through red lights seems ridiculous if people are being hurt which inturn raises heathcare costs so on and so forth. Anyway, today is Friday and I'm going to have to manuever through the drunk drivers we get in abundance here on the weekends.
"Revenue producer"? Isn't the revenue just a SIDE EFFECT of people BREAKING THE LAW? If people obey the law there would be no revenue... I don't get the problem. Big brother? Unless the camera catches you smoking crack while driving or something wtf do you have to worry about!??!
In America, one has the right to face their accuser in a court of law. If the accuser is a machine, you lose that right. It is such flimsy ground that the system really relies upon voluntary compliance, at least that's been my experience. In fact, the letter I received even subtly touts that as a benefit. Pay the fine, and nothing will go on my record. That doesn't happen in real life. Guess what? Don't pay the fine and nothing goes on your record either.
You do have the right to face your accuser when you commit a normal crime.. but this is a minor traffic incident. What do you have to say? "uhhhh... I didnt meant to blow that stop sign.. please take it easy on me".
But then again... there would be lines going out the fricking door to see our "accuser" Quick rolling through red lights lol
It is a matter of principle to me. I think it would be extremely unusual for a judge to overturn the observation of a trained police office. In fact, the police officer is actually the defacto judge - he might write a ticket - he might not. He might not even stop you. I am not willing to give up even the smallest of my rights. We have all paid dearly for those we have.
Omega, "minor" is subjective - a $400 ticket and points on your license can be more than minor to someone on fixed income driving a beater vs maybe what you consider a minor issue and assume is an indisputable offense.
So what is the "minor" threshold in the law? Well I do know, as but one major measure, the 7th amendment of the Constitution states that any amount sought in a suit $20 US Dollars or more would allow for people to demand their right to have their cause heard in common law or civil court operated on a federal level by a jury of their peers and that not being an inflation adjusted dollar amount was arguably intentional by the founding architects. Can this be applied to demanding one's due process over a traffic citation? Perhaps and that's why judges don't enforce these being issued, when fought, in many a state.
I've got no problem with curtailing driving idiocy especially in our crowded town & city streets but I do object to the possibility for gaming the system (i.e. short yellow lights and arbitrary algorithm choice or accuracy) that these for profit private companies benefit from and that municipalities may allow for likewise because of the revenue potential with no culpability for the fairness or frankly illegality of it all. What's next - hiring private security firms or robots to police other behaviors? Require GPS dataloggers on cars to make sure you're a good, good as defined by the state and prvate agencies interpretation/implementation, comrade at every moment? Yes, the technology is getting cheaper, invasiveness increasing, and the pushing towards abuses increasingly tempting to bureaucrats and half wits who don't know enough to say NO.
I have a novel idea.
Since everyone seems to want to "confront their accuser" and that can't very well be done when it's a camera you are facing, why not station an actual police officer at ALL red light camera locations. Let the camera do the work,the cop signs the ticket. If someone decides to go to court over the ticket the cop is there as a witness to said infraction.
That way everyone gains, if a cop signs just 2 tickets in an 8 hour shift, he has paid his salary for the day. If he signs 3 , 4 or more he has started generating revenue, the cities can use to hire more police to put in more cameras.
It's a win win we get to see who actually signed the ticket ,he can testify if the ticket would have been written by a traffic cop, and we get to argue the merits or demerits in the court room.
"why not station an actual police officer"
I think its been tried in a few states, the problem is that the officer in most of the systems I've heard about simply rubber stamps whatever violation the computer says occurred, there is rarely any real "review" of the computers "judgment".
If you have a police officer on location, there exists no need for a computerized camera. The officer is able to be the witness all by himself. The judge will just about always accept his word, because he is trained and sworn to uphold the law.
A camera bypasses the human component, and bypasses the Constitution. When something attempts to bypass or negate the Bill of Rights - no matter how small the right may appear to be - we all lose something. If you give an inch, a mile will soon be lost.
Invasion of privacy my ass. You're driving on a public roadway in a vehicle with glass and the whole damn world can see you anyways. This isn't a privacy issue... it is an issue of people don't want to be bagged trying to get away with doing something against the law. Driving through a red light is wrong and a fine-able offense. If you get caught doing it, stop whining that it is an invasion of privacy, buck up and pay the fine.
It is not a privacy issue. It is a legal issue.
The ticket is issued to the vehicle owner - nobody knows who the driver is. An owner is not responsible for the traffic violations of an authorized driver.
In America, everybody is innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Well, take it to court then. Then have your SO, kids, or brother in law reimburse you for paying the fine. In almost all cases the owner is the driver. Deal with it.
Ditto Wally
Bruce Schneier explains well why the idea that "If you don't have anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." is inherently flawed.
It would be nice here in NC if you could take it to court. The system is Cary is set up as a civil offense since they can't prove who was driving and it very difficult to fight the tickets since it doesn't go to court but to arbitration run by the company that operates the cameras.
It's estimated that only $5 or every $50 ticket actually makes its way to the town of Cary, the rest in absorbed in administrative costs by the company that operates the cameras.
There have been complaints that the yellow lights are timed to short to stop safely. While there has been a decrease in "T bone" accidents, there has been a corresponding increase in rear end collisions at lights.
Some people just feel entitled to run lights and that's a fact, however for the other drivers that don't normally run lights there are often mitigating circumstances that make it safer to "run the pink light" than stop. The driver is the control operator of the vehicle and only they can determine what is safe in a given circumstance.
If the yellow is being shortened at the camera signal intersections as compared to before the cameras arrived that is entrapment,meant to force violations and produce revenue. There are standards for proper yellow time based on intersection width and speed limits. If these standards are violated then the camera operation is a travesty.
These type of reports are really stupid. People that believe that lights would be shortened with the possibility of causing accidents have something really wrong in their thinking. If you can prove this you can actually sue the municipality for endangering lives.
But I'll bet the study they have shows that drivers obeying speed laws and keeping a safe distance would have no problem with the timing.
I am currently stationed in Germany, and the cameras are everywhere, for speed and red lights. You know what, it is not much of an issue. Why you may ask....wait for it..................People Follow the Traffic Laws. Wow, I know that it is a hard concept to understand. Also Germans have to pay about 1,500 Euro for there license, so people tend to not want to lose it. Maybe if the US had something like that it would cut down on the stupidity you see on the roads in the States.
Americans are so onto themselves. Anything that might inconvenience them they think is stupid. They use every stupid excuse to argue their point.
I have to tell you that in montgomery,ala I think the cameras are working it makes the violator think before he runs the red light.
Drunk people don't give a rat's ass about cameras, and NO they don't think twice. How the hell is a camera going to prevent a drunk ass person from T-boning someone at an intersection??? You have obviously bought into the whole we will protect you bullcrap!! All the camera will do is show how someone got killed...won't bring them back...gimme a break...all the cameras are doing is collecting revenue....you want to really stop red light issues ?? extend the yellow light a little and delay the green a bit ...give the intersection the time to clear up and you will see less issues....goodbye cameras!!!
This should not be happening in America folks>>the eye in the sky watching you at all times? This is not China or Russia people...where's the national petition,? Everyone I know would sign it. I just spent my grocery money for two weeks($150) on a red light that I supposedly ran when I went to D.C. for the first time to pick up a friend from the airport...thats three days work at my crappy little job..can't miss work to challenge ticket, cant afford gas to go back to D.C. either..the squeeze is on...I'm reminded of Robin Hood
Where is the threat?
Sean Alan-3650235,
Rather than being "reminded of Robin Hood", perhaps you should be reminded not to run red lights.
Don't run red lights, or allow people who may break the law to drive your vehicle. Problem solved. No one's fault but your own.
What an old school comment. Dem commies goin to get me!! Every baby boomer knows commies were bad but don't know why except everyone said so.
Big Brother is WATCHING!
What is he going to see that I should be worries about?
Yeah watching you through clear glass windows in your car. Not like a vehicle traveling down the road is a real private situation.
I see some people already have the loyalty mark of Big Brother!
Expect to be on camera anytime you are out in public...we are thinking very good satellite cameras here. Be especially careful in Walmart with their multitude of camera...but some dopes still try to shoplift there.
I'm loyal to common frickin' sense... and I am loyal to ideas that save lives at YOUR inconvenience. Sorry... you are going to have to only run the lights that don't have cameras, buddy. What a crappy deal huh? Poor babies.
hampster,
Loyalty to Big Brother. LOLOL In this case that is a stretch. When you are driving you are in PUBLIC view. Anyone can see you including inanimate cameras. If you are so scared of being seen in public maybe you should stay inside and tin foil your windows to scramble the signals.
Cameras are fine. They can collect evidence. That evidence is not all encompassing, it is myopically limited.
"Never send a machine to do a human's job." - Agent Smith
@johnny_concerned, yes that's exactly the attitude that concerns the poster named Hamster. People are far too willing to give up rights and privacy for the illusion of security.
EXPLAIN the illusion... does the camera sneak into your sisters house when it doesn't feel like taking pictures of your license plate? I dooo noooot get why people freak out over these cameras... maybe I just haven't found a good argument yet... who knows maybe I would change my mind but so far nobody has said anything to remotely convince me that I should have a reason to let traffic cameras bother me.
I don't have a problem with red light cameras, if they, and the green-yellow-red cycle isn't setup to create an infraction. I understand that some localities have actually shortened the time the yellow light is illuminated; I have a real problem with that.
In our area we have speed trap cameras, where they typically are setup in areas where the speed limit is something like 30 mph, and a normal speed in that area (many on rural roads) is more like 40-50 mph. In my opinion, that is clearly a revenue-generating exercise.