Here is the article referred to in several posts:

UK Red Light Cameras Fail to Improve Behavior
Red light cameras in Scotland, UK have failed to reduce red light running.

Scottish red light camera Road safety officials in Scotland claim that red light cameras were installed not to generate revenue, but to produce a change in behavior that would result in fewer accidents at intersections. According to the latest data, there has been no change in behavior despite using the devices for thirteen years and collecting millions from drivers.

"This is really worrying," Colin McNeill, manager of the Lothian and Borders Speed Camera Partnership told The Scotsman newspaper. "We are getting the same number, month in, month out. It scares me that we are seeing no reduction."

Six cameras are in use in the capital, Edinburgh, rotated among twenty-five locations. Motorists do not know which of these intersections have a live camera because all twenty-five are designed to produce the tell-tale flash, even when no ticket-writing camera is present.

"Everyone wants safer roads, but we will not get them until we disband the incompetent partnerships and ditch the useless cameras," said Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign. "We need to refocus road safety policy away from regulation and compliance and back towards skills and attitudes."

Independent research in Australia, Canada, and the US has questioned the safety benefits claimed by red light camera advocates. Some has documented a significant increase in accidents where the technology is used. Most recently, The Washington Post found a doubling of accidents in the US capital while Winnipeg, Canada's only insurance company reported 58 percent more accidents at red light camera intersections.

Source: Cameras cant put brake on red-light jumpers (The Scotsman (UK), 8/31/2006)

Sailor, are you really this big of a jerk? I didn't think I would have to compose a four page essay to prove my point, but apparently that is what you would like. Tstorm has it right. Picture this: you are sitting at a light, you will be traveling straight through the light when it urns green.
Are you with me? You are watching people from the other side of the intersection, who were traveling the opposite direction, making a left turn in front of you.
Still there?
Now, because you are familiar with this particular light sequence, you know that when their protected left turn has expired, the light turns red.
Follow me?
Your light turns green. After your light turns green, 3 or 4 cars continue to ENTER the intersection (that they were not previously in to their light turning red) and make their left turn.
Do you understand NOW?
Would you like me to draw you a picture?
Your cop brother and his buddies don't seem to have a handle on this problem, which has progressively become worse in Victoria. I can't tell you how many times there has been a copp at the intersection when this occured, and they did nothing.
I guess those fancy lights and all that horsepower are only for getting one to the donut shop before happy hour has expired.

To find out if it's really about revenue or to get people to stop fudging at the lights, lets give ALL the money collected to the company who owns and sets up the cameras. Let's see if the chief really means it when he says it's not about the money.

Boy do we know about the surcharge..
My husband was out of the country and he decided to take his old truck to get inspected and on his way to getting inspected a officer pulled him over and told him .. Sir may I see your License/Insurance.. well he didnt have it on him..but we do have it..So, he said that is fine he saw his driver license and it checked out but guess what he had his old drivers license his new one was in the mail stack on top of the bar..So, he told the officer and he said ok.. Guess what he got the ticket anyway but the officer said. take the proof of the license and the insurance and they will excuse that but I am still giving you a ticket for no sticker. ok.. but then we go and he does it and we pay the ticket and thought it was over till I get a letter in themail and i call my husband and tell Didn't you pay that ticket? and he said Yes I did..well now you have to pay for the next three years for it and this is our last year I think its 265.00 per year...
costly huh?..

http://www.houstonticketlawyer.com/id...

Rather than invest in cameras at the red lights, I'd like to see VPD enforce laws related to 1. Using the left turn lane as a merge lane, 2. Get their butts off the bypass and start patroling in the city, not just preying on the easy speeders passing through, 3. Stay out of DPS investigations.

Does this conversation REALLY need to take place with the Chief, one of his lead officers, and the mayor under indictment?

Smells of "bait and switch".....look at what we are doing to you citizens!

How about synchronizing the lights first? Imagine...driving down a street going the speed limit...and hitting a green light everytime. I've seen it on TV. And second, fixing the cameras that are suppose to detect traffic at an intersection. They absolutely do not work. I've been the only vehicle at an intersection at 2 AM...it had one of those detection devices and I still waited over 2 minutes for the light to change. I could've waited over 2 minutes without one of those things.

And what is to keep a company who is providing the cameras and getting a cut of the fines from altering the results just enough to get more money. Setting the camera where it reads the car as having run the light when that was not exactly the case.

From what I understand from reading the sites I have been studying, there are many cases that when pictures are manually reviewed show that the car was already well into the intersection before the light turned red.

Sandwich....I beg to differ with you. They cannot ticket a car for a moving violation. They have to ticket a person and they have to have a picture of that person that the judge agrees is recognizable in court. Either that or you have to admit in writing that it is you and accept the ticket.

Check out the link I posted below.

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redligh...

Where is that sailor guy? How about the cops just go do their jobs. Why is a camera necessary? Oh wait, I know, because we do have good cops, its the administration that is horrible. They get arrested and find nit picky crap to run off all the good cops. Lets get rid of the chief, asst. chief and captain. Leave the cops who actually do stuff alone.

Have I said we have a awesome police administration?????

It will the title holder that will get the citation, the registered owner.

The camera will take a picture of you license plate, not the driver or the inside of the car, just the plate. The citation will be sent to the owner who will be responsible to pay it no matter who was driving.

You will be guilty even if you are on a cruise in the Med. and your kids friend was driving the car. Or you can be waterboarded until you tell. ;)

I am so impressed with our new police administration.....(sarcasm)

To all you who seem to think that the Victoria revenooers are going to ticket someone involved in an accident after running a red light, please remember a week or so ago the wreck caused by the guy driving fast up Navarro and running a red light at Airline, sending some people to the hospital in San Antonio. As I recall, he was ticketed for no registration and no insurance, but NOT for running the light. What makes you think your accident will be different?

SouthTexas...No, you aren't the only one this rubs the wrong way, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. SCOTUS has ruled that there is NO expectation of privacy when you are out and about in a public place (like a public street) and the revenooers can take pictures and pretty much do what they want except physically search you or your car without your permission or a warrant. Yes, it's revolting, yes, it's smarmy, but this is one of those things you kinda just have to bend over and take. Bottom line is that the city wants your money and it looks like they'd do pretty much anything to get it. This is just another of the many things that prove there is a vast gulf between what's right and what's legal.

I'm curious.....it is my understanding that if the City Government or any government is going to video us without our permission that the citizens have to be notified by signs. I remember reading something about that a couple of year's back when Tampa did a trial of video cameras with facial recognition software that were placed in their downtown areas in order to identify and arrest criminals....specifically when the pro sports team were playing in town. I know there was a lot of screaming from the ACLU and the whole project was dropped even though there were several criminals identified.

I thought this was a Federal ruling....but can't find anything to confirm though I haven't really searched at length.

Was that done with the recent test? Were our civil rights tramped upon? I think someone needs to notify the ACLU about this spying without a warrant or notification, or perhaps we could initiate some type of class action suit.

I am really pretty disgusted at the city's actions and assumption that they can take pictures of anyone they want without any notification.

Am I the only one that this rubs the wrong way?

If the person behind you rear-ends you because you have the temerity of stopping at a RED light, whose fault is that? I've been tailgated often enough to know that someone needs a ticket, all right.

It depends on what the problem is. If the problem is too many people are running red lights and causing accidents and other public safety issues, that is one thing, but I can't recall ever seeing anybody run a red light. On the other hand, maybe the problem is that the courts are not raking in enough revenue, and they're looking for a way to assess lots of fines without wasting money putting public safety officers out in the streets to patrol. If that is the priority of the city, then by all means, the cameras will be great.

Those who think "Bush is listening to everything I say on the cell phone" should be SCREAMING about this.

The citation will not say who was driving the car, just that the car ran a red light, according to the revenue getting company who will run this thing. The owner of the vehicle will get a notice to pay this amount, not the person driving it. In other words, a complete violation of the Constitution. It will be guilty without proven guilty. They are suppose to prove the person driving the vehicle is guilty, not the owner. The picture will be of the license plate, not the driver.

And, it will not be a moving violation. Just a civil citation so you can get as many, $$$$, citations as needed to get the needed funds the city. Yellows will be set short as to make you rear end someone fearing getting a citation and increasing the revenue per violations for the city, and he company that will run this thing.

THAT is what is proven to happen. Ask the questions Victoria citizens, who will run this revenue gathering gimmic?

First it was seat belts, now its camera's on the red lights. Whats next? Cameras in your bedroom/bathroom? Phone tapping? I got an idea for them...How about an assigned robot escort for every human alive... I-ROBOT here we come!!!!

The studies sponsored by the Government in the UK all point to a reduction in fatalities. The paper I was reading cited independent studies that had the numbers even no real improvement as many areas in the UK during that time without cameras showed much of the same reduction in fatalities.

Like I haves stated here before, “In order for government to implement their solution they must convince you of the problem.”

There are many other issues regarding cameras. See below.

“You know all those traffic-cams throughout the UK that capture your license-plate and correlate it with your identity? The British coppers have found a spirit of sharing and will hand over their data to pretty much anyone:
THE UK Home Secretary secretively signed a "special certificate" last year that gives foreign security agencies real-time access to traffic camera images and related data monitoring British motorists on highways throughout the UK.
Opposition politicians and civil liberties advocates yesterday accused Gordon Brown's government of attempting to hide from Parliament its covert plans to facilitate international surveillance of UK citizens in violation of privacy laws.
Under the authorisation signed last July 4 by Jacqui Smith, video feeds and still images captured from roadside TV cameras, along with personal data derived from them, can be transmitted out of the UK to countries such as the US, that are outside the European Economic Area.
Home Secretary Smith failed to mention the exception in a statement she made to Parliament less than two weeks later on July 17, 2007 outlining Metropolitan Police exemptions to the 1998 Data Protection Act. “

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redligh...

Wow Bundy....speeding up to almost have an accident.....that's mature. You do know of course that even if the other person runs a red light, according to Texas law you have the responsibility to be sure that the intersection is clear before proceeding. You can be given a ticket should an accident occur, even if you had the green light!

Leave it up to the Victoria City Council to initiate a costly program when other cities are giving it up because it is not effective and in some cities is becoming no longer profitable.

My daughter lives in California where they have had the red light cameras for some time. They DO NOT reduce accidents....They increase accidents because of the slamming on the brakes and rear end collision effect.

You cannot give a ticket to a car....you have to have a person. In order to give the ticket to the person, you have to have a clearly recognizable picture of the person in the car. Most Californians have learned to pull down their sunshade and wear sunglasses and if you take the ticket to court, it will be dismissed.

In addition, you have to have proof that there is notification at the intersection that a camera is in operation. This sign must be visable in the photo taken when the light is run. This is very difficult to do.

When it is obvious that there is not enough evidence to make a ticket stick....the City sends out a "snitch ticket"....this is a letter asking them to sign a statemnt as to who was driving the car at the time the picture was taken; they intimidate the person who owns the car into admitting they were driving the car....if you don't make this admission there is no ticket. You do not have to fill out the form and send it back...the City cannot make you do that, however, they try to make you think that you have to.

If you want to know about this whole program, check out one of the many sites available to the people in California that explains the legalities of fighting a red-light ticket. Very interesting.

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redligh...

It is a waste of money....it will not prevent accidents....and it is going to be more trouble than it is worth in revenue.....just wait until the attorneys advertise their ability to negate these tickets and the whole cash cow goes down the tubes.

Podunk, I was not nearly rear ended. I do know how to drive.
Since, I am in no mood for dealing with someone like you today. I am signing off. LOL, to anyone else who will be verbally abused today, by Podunk.

Podunk, I'm with you on the idiots who try to make it through the light. My biggest pet peeve is people turning left that keep on acting as if they have the ROW when their protected turn signal ends. I always hit the gas, and meet them bumper to bumper, making them back up. It is absolutely ridiculous.

PodunkTx:
"It's been proven in multiple scientific studies that cameras at red lights don't decrease the amount of accidents (actually, it increases the amount of accidents). Instead, more rear-end collisions happen."

I moved here from a city that has the traffic cameras. I am just interested in the studies you are citing. Could you please give me the sources? It would be much appreciated.

I am all for the cameras as long as they make sure the lights work properly. The light on Sam Houston and Mockingbird is awful. I am sure there are other lights around town that don't work properly.

I am all for the cameras. I have nearly been hit a couple of times from people running red lights. My kids were in the car. Had those cameras been there the jerk who could have killed my family would have at least gotten a ticket.
So what if the city makes revenue off of Law Breakers- They shouldn't be running the light. It is a scary thought 117 violations in only a 12 hr period.

Bones...Houston tried the cameras tied to radar on the Gulf Freeway several years ago and did the ticket my mail thing. Yeah, it generated revenue out the ying-yang, but it turned out there was a legal problem -- it's been a long time ago and I'm old -- that forced them to end the practice. These red light cameras don't keep people from running red lights. Oh, for the first couple of weeks, drivers will remember they are there, but people will forget about them and revert to their old ways. Thus the revenue generation plan. The intersection isn't any safer, but money is coming into the city coffers.

Victoria is full of traffic gotchas that can generate money. Look at John Stockbauer. The speed limit drops with no particular reason then goes back up. Mockingbird has different speed limits for the different sides of the street. The city is looking to dip into as many checking accounts as possible and these cameras are just another way to go about it without using any expensive manpower.

Didn't anyone else catch this? I have cut and pasted from the story itself:

"Ure said one of two camera vendors working with him installed red light cameras at about six intersections as part of his survey. The lights recorded 117 violations during a 12-hour period on April 29.

The survey was done secretly so it wouldn’t influence drivers and provide skewed information."

Am I the only one that finds this WRONG? Cameras secretly placed? In April...and we are just hearing about it - was there not a chance between that time and now to let public know they had been secretly recorded? Where else have cameras been placed to "test" and not "skew information"?

Of course I keep forgetting, in Victoria the citizens voice is not important. The citizens are just needed to elect officials so they can do whatever they want when they want to regardless of what those that elected them have to say.

I read an article in a newspaper when I was in Scotland October 2006. There is a huge argument over this in the UK. I cannot remember the name of the paper; it was in our hotel room. The article cited studies in the UK. The cameras are a very sour spot to drivers. They also have speed cameras set up along the highways. Mail you tickets. I’ll check with some of my UK friends and see if they can provide me with some sources.

Many of these “Get in your business” governmental solutions don’t solve the problem. Simply turn into a revenue stream for local governments.

wayward...if parking fines can be issued when the driver is not known, why not a speeding ticket? Sure profit is a result of citations, but that is NOT the goal. When I go through a city that I know has traffic camera's I took extra precautions. Sorry, but I don't like paying a couple hundred dollars just to run a red light, which is dangerous anyways.

These cameras have one purpose, to catch people running red lights...but what else could they do? Record accidents at intersections, which is where they most often occur. No more lying about who was in the wrong or what really happened! Guess what? Its on camera!

Could it catch other crimes that occur within range of the cameras? Sure. Try to be more positive...as long as you are not breaking the law, you will have nothing to worry about.

I can think of about 200,000 reasons to install red light cameras in Victoria. Isn't that about what the city council appropriated to pay for legal bills for the mayor, police chief and a couple of others that got themselves indicted?

I had to laugh at the police chief when he says it's not about the money. OF COURSE it's about the money. The cameras are notorious revenue generators in other cities. Look no farther than Houston. Will the city shorten the yellow lights to catch more people? Remember, the danger lies not in a car being in the intersection WHEN the light turns red. There is an overlap so that all directions are red for a short time. The danger is when a car is in the intersection when the opposing light turns green. However, the lights don't trigger the cameras to catch cars in the intersection on the opposing green light. Of course, there is the added danger of additional rear end collisions because drivers will hit their brakes hard to try to stop and the car in back of them clobbers them. Gee, the city could get revenue from the tickets issued at the accident. WIN WIN for the city.

The money generated by these cameras is almost all profit -- except for the amount we'd have to send to the company that installs them. The city collects all that money without having a revenue agent in a Ford anywhere near the site. There is no way of knowing who is driving, so the CAR is cited for doing something illegal. The Constitution says a person is supposed to be able to face his accusor. How is this gonna happen when the accusor is a freakin' camera? If the city is so strapped for cash, the council should at least be honest about it and not use something like red light cameras to generate revenue.

Swbones, I don't doubt your statement, but can you site a source? Was there ever a decrease in illegal activity? Did people just become complacent over time? Or did they completely ignore the system from the very beginning?

In the UK the cameras have not affected the amount of violations or collisions. The only result is an increase of revenue to the government.

I'm sorry everybody, I hit the wrong button. Oooops.. :(