Here's another news story, this is going on with Redflex and Tempe, AZ, the city is offering drivers the option of paying their camera ticket and getting points on their license or taken drivers ed and no points, now redflex is suing the city saying they want a cut of the money from the classes, but nah, it was never about the money was it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EHCNI...

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

As I said, there is more, Baytown TX was caught with an illegally short yellow light at a camera montiored intersection, they raised the YCI to the legal minimum after getting caught, refunded some tickets, but then a couple of months later went out and LOWERED IT AGAIN! That isn't deliberate? It's all just an "oops, we're sorry our bad" kind of thing. This really shows you don't give a flip about safety. You are willing to look the other way as cities reduce safety at intersections through short yellow lights knowing that the shorter the yellow light the more accidents will occur. Whether that is through willfull abuse or incompetent neglect doesn't seem to bother you, it does me, no matter what the reason it is morally reprehesible for a city to profit from making an intersection less safe you seem to have no problem with it.

So far as your ridiculous bank robbery analogy, if your neighbor had been caught robbing banks several times before in several cities and had one of his crew confess that yes, they did rob a bank then yes, I think it would be safe to say he was going to rob a bank. That's your problem, you don't see it because you don't want to, your unreasonable emotionalism on this issue has clouded what little reason you have left. If you want to throw analogies out there I guess no one committed murder unless they confessed in open court right?

So far as redflex or anyone else wanting to sue me bring it on, your delusional on this issue as well. In fact, these examples of shortening yellow lights have been all over the media for years and years, the fact that they are mostly silent on the issue is more evidence they don't have a defense. I mean if what you say is true why haven't they EVER sued ANYONE not even ONCE over the dozens and dozens of articles and thousands of posts? The truth is always a defense. Have a good night

Speakup, you keep spiraling into this tailspin, it is actually fun to watch, thank you so much, I really appreciate it. First of all, I never said that any YCI less than 4 seconds is illegal, because that isn't correct. Apparently this is another aspect of the program I know more about than you, they keep adding up. State law mandates that camera intersections adhere to the ITE forumula for YCIs (yellow change intervals) it is based on speed, so there is no way of telling if those lights you timed are legal without knowing the speed, so as someone keeps saying, you FAIL. Hope you had a nice walk.

I have already proven what you keep asking for, when this city installed the cameras they were caught INTENTIONALLY shortening the yellow lights, caught red handed by a credible news source.

"The question arose after City of Tucson crews began tinkering with the lights at Kolb & Speedway, as part of the process of installing a new set of ever-popular speed and red light cameras. When the crews left, the timing of the lights had changed."

Let me quote that again as your reading and comprehension skills seem to be impaired,

"When the crews left, the timing of the lights had changed."

One more time;

"When the crews left, the timing of the lights had changed."

And that doesn't tell you there was a deliberate action associated with installing the cameras? Seriously? Do you even listen to yourself anymore?

And of course there is still the redflex representative that ADMITS it happened in San Diego. If you can't accept an admission from the camera company itself then yes, you do have an unreasonable request for proof.

WWW, don't get worked up over speakup, you should be able to figure out he is a certain marine monikor from not to long ago.....ahoy there speakup!

Speakup...Why do I think you're a &*%#@% lawyer? You get into a difference of opinion and you start talking lawsuits. If you're not a &*%#@% lawyer, you ought to be. You think it's perfectly reasonable that these cameras generate tickets even at three in the morning when there's not another car within a mile of the intersection. GASP! A driver stops and there's nobody around at three and he goes through the light. Illegal? Yep, of course it is; it's not a stop sign. Dangerous? Not by a long shot. Don't you think it would be interesting to know how many of those tickets are generated in the wee hours when traffic is almost nil? But the camera doesn't care. All it knows is that the car entered the intersection when the light was red. It's computer brain says, "Gotcha! Revenue for the city AND revenue for my masters in another state." People like you will say that another life was saved. By the way, how many lives HAVE been saved because of the cameras in Port Lavaca? Does anyone know?

LOL! Knew that was coming, first it was it wasn't coming from "credible" news sources, then when I show credible news sources showing that immediately after they installed cameras they shortened the yellow light, judges forcing cities to issue refunds for illegally short yellow lights, and a direct quote from a red light camera representative admiting it happened and that still doesn't amount to any proof to you. Tell me, exactly what, short of a city official signing an affidavit admitting wrong doing, would constitute proof to you?

As I said, any reasonable person would see the volume of evidence as an habitual and deliberate tactic, but since you don't want to believe it you demand an unreasonably high burden of proof. Yet, without any evidence whatsover you continue to believe that lowering the penalty for a crime is a deterrant, seriously, thanks for making my day.

BTW, if you don't like those references I have ones referencing the camera companies paying off oficials, and FBI investigation into their practices, violations of FCC laws importing cheap equipment that isn't FCC approved, heck, I even got one of a city in Texas that got caught shortening a yellow light, raised it up, then went back and lowered it again when they thought no one was looking!

Speakup..." how do I know that those statements did not come from biased anti-redlight camera websites as opposed to actual news-sources?"

I visited howstuffworks.com and saw all kinds of pictures and diagrams and stuff, but I never saw one picture that showed the car entering the intersection AND the red light in the same picture. We have YOUR word that the cameras don't take pictures when a car enters the intersection on yellow, and you're taking what the companies say at face value. You believe them. Fine. I think they have incentive to lie. You quote from pro-camera sites and present those comments as gosple and call anti-camera sites suspect at best.

Tell you what, Speakup; you continue believing that those cameras are a boon to traffic safety and I'll continue to believe they are a revenue program that makes both the cities AND the companies rich. When the companies cease making money off each ticket the cameras generate, I might begin to come around to your way of thinking, but NOT until then.

It matters not WHO is shortening the yellow lights, the company or the city. The FACT is that many ARE shortened and the result is more tickets for drivers and more revenue for both the city and the company that installed the camera system.

Quote speakup"You did not give any proof, all you did was write statements supporting your view. how do I know that those statements did not come from biased anti-redlight camera websites as opposed to actual news-sources?"

Since you asked,

176 tickets refunded due to illegally short yellow light; source; local newspaper
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2008/m...

Dallas, Texas
An investigation by KDFW-TV, a local TV station, found that of the ten cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in the city, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
Sorry, link to KDFW-TV article is no longer active, google it if you doubt it.

League city, 1700 tickets refunded after getting caught with short yellow light. Source; galveston daily news;
http://galvestondailynews.com/story.l...

Atlanta NBC TV station did an investigation;
"We wanted to find out if the yellow lights were coming up short. They were, both at that intersection and 8 others we tested in the Atlanta area. 75 percent of the 33 yellow lights we tested failed to meet the times we were given by the municipalities for the yellow times under the new law. "
http://www.11alive.com/news/investiga...

ABC news station in Tucson found out the city went out and shortened the yellow light;

The question arose after City of Tucson crews began tinkering with the lights at Kolb & Speedway, as part of the process of installing a new set of ever-popular speed and red light cameras. When the crews left, the timing of the lights had changed.
http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp...

here's the doozy, a lobbyist for redflex admitted in a public debate that it happened.

"Heiler did concede that in at least one jurisdiction, safety was impaired by the city shortening the duration of the yellow signal warning time.

"To my knowledge it did happen in San Diego, California and anyone involved with it should be prosecuted and put in prison," Heiler said." http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2...

There's more, lots more, but before I waste my time why don't you go ahead and tell us why these reports don't count either.

don't hold your breath, like most idealogues he demands an unreasonable high threshold for "proof" of what he doesn't like and a low threshold for his preconceived notions. He won't accept that cities repeatedly shortened the yellow lights over and over again for profit unless a city official comes out and says "yea that's why we did it". Which we all know will never happen. However, the camera company that makes money off of selling the cameras and wants them to look good tells him they save lives and that shouldn't be questioned at all, that HAS to be true. Why? because he wants so badly to believe it is true.

SpeakUP...you wrote, "You give me proof of the accusations you and others make and you will have me out there helping you win your cause."

I provided a half-dozen references to cities that couldn't resist the lure of easy money using the red light cameras. I'm looking forward to your posts to suport the removal of the cameras in Port Lavaca and the prevention of them in Victoira.

don't forget League City near Houston, they were forced to refund 1700 tickets because they got caught with a short yellow light. They also didn't do proper engineering pre installation studies like the law requires, I saw there is someone fighting this in court that may invalidate any ticket they have ever issued.

From the National Motorists Association:

"1) Chattanooga, Tennessee
The city of Chattanooga was forced refund $8800 in red light cameras tickets issued to motorists trapped by an illegally short yellow time. The refund only occurred after a motorist challenged his citation by insisting that the yellow light time of 3.0 seconds was too short. LaserCraft, the private vendor that runs the camera program in return for a cut of the profits, provided the judge with a computer database that asserted the yellow was 3.8 seconds at that location.

The judge then personally checked the intersection in question was timed at three seconds while other nearby locations had about four seconds of yellow warning. City traffic engineer John Van Winkle told Bean that “a mix up with the turn arrow” was responsible and that the bare minimum for the light should be 3.9 seconds"

"2) Dallas, Texas
An investigation by KDFW-TV, a local TV station, found that of the ten cameras that issued the greatest number of tickets in the city, seven were located at intersections where the yellow duration is shorter than the bare minimum recommended by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)."

"3) Springfield, Missouri
The city of Springfield, Missouri prepared for the installation of a red light camera system in 2007 by slashing the yellow warning time by one second at 105 state-owned intersection signals across the city."

"4) Lubbock, Texas
KBCD, a local television station, exposed the city’s short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed.

Prior to the news investigation, Lubbock City Engineer Jere Hart assured city council members that he would not increase yellow times. According to the city council’s traffic commission minutes of September 19, 2006, Jere said, “if [the red light camera program is] implemented, the public would prefer to have an increased amber cycle,” but he stated that, “the program will not adjust the amber/yellow time.”

Shortly after the investigation became public, red-light cameras were installed in Lubbock. However, after they proved to be both unprofitable (due in part to a new state law giving 50% of the ticket camera profit to the state) and unsafe (accidents increased where the cameras were installed), they were taken down."

"5)Nashville, Tennessee
Even without red light cameras, police in Nashville, Tennessee have been earning hundreds of thousands in revenue by trapping motorists in conventional ticket traps at city intersections with the shortest yellow warning time."

"6) Union City, California
In 2005, Union City, California was caught trapping motorists with a yellow signal time 1.3 seconds below the minimum established by state law. As a result, the city was forced to refund more than $1 million in red light camera fines."

Done patting yourself of the back for failing to comprehend a sentance in a post yet? That's your winning analogy? No, you fight the ticket under the due process you are allowed under law, trial by jury. Something you don't have with a camera ticket. voting out a police department would not be legal, prudent or popular. Voting against an inherently flawed camera system is. Funny, I was thinking that the hick that didn't understand the system was you. It is woefully apparent you are uninformed about the system and how it works. How about it, when are we going to start lowering the penalties for other serious crimes so we can start getting tough on them? You don't want to be soft on drug dealers do you?

quote speakup;
"So since some jackwagon cop having a bad day could write me a bad ticket we should vote out having a police force?
Hicktoria,
the problem is not with the camera system, it is with hicks not understanding the system and have false ideas about it.
false ideas perpetrated by those who themselves dont understand and/or by those who do understand yet have their own "incentives" to get rid of them (those trying to get out of not getting caught).
EDUCATION, not getting rid of anything you dont like because you dont understand it, is the solution."

Speakup1968 - "I also work damned hard for my money and do not want to pay trumped up fees from a greedy corporation."

Here is an obvious solution. Vote against the cameras and you will not have to worry about it. DUH!

Take a look around bighorn they probably have.

Why do Crossroads residents seem to think they have the right to run red lights (in addition to talking on the phone, texting, sexting, etc, etc...). The whole bunch of you act as if you've driven in a pasture your whole lives..

Tell you what, speakup. I was thinking about this and you convinced me, the theory behind the cameras is so great and logical I think we are missing the boat. I hate crack dealers, there is a corner I know of where dealers hang out and sling rock. Usually the cops stake out the area and arrest those criminals and get them off the streets, but I really don't want a cop to do something as mundane as arrest drug dealers, they should be responding to more important calls. I am going to hire an out of state corporation to come in and put face recognition software in cameras at that corner, they will compare the images to a drivers license database, and whatever address that is on that license the current occupant will get a letter from the corporation asking them to pay $75 because they were caught on camera. Now even if the person on the image doesn't live there anymore the current occupant will be required to pay that fine, unless they just dont' bother, then there won't be any repurcussions, but if they did want to fight the notice they would have to drive 4 hours away to prove they really aren't the guy in the image. You got it, I am a believer, when can we get together and make this proposal to the council. I know you surely will support this grand idea to make the streets safer from drug dealers. I mean surely you don't want to let drug dealers get away do you?

speakup; as is usually the case you cry about what you are actually committing. You misquoted me saying that I said "They put the cameras where they would generate the most revenue, not stop the most accidents." That is not what I said, what I actually said was "selecting locations not based on accidents and fatalities but where they can make the most money" And yes, there is a difference, if there is an intersection that has a higher incidence of red light violation accidents but not enouch violations to pay for the cameras they put them at lower accident rate intersections with higher traffic. I read in Baytown there was only one intersection they evaluated for cameras that had a red light running fatality in the last 5 years, but that one didn't get a camera. If it was all about safety why not put a camera where there were proven fatalities? Why? Because the camera company got to decide where the cameras went and they knew they wouldn't be able to make enough money there.

I guess I will have to type more slowly for you as you seem to get confused rather easily, the incentive I was refering to is not the incentive to the drivers to run red lights but the incentive to the city and camera company for people to continue to run red lights. They want people to keep running red lights, their income depends on it, they budget for it each year.

That was no strawman argument, you are ducking the question just like you did with the accident studies that show increasing accidents at camera locations. It's simple deductive reasoning. You support the red light camera program. The red light camera program lowers the penalty for running a red light and lets the worst violators off scott free with no penalty. Therefore, and bear with me here because I don't want you to get confused again, you support lowering penalties for red light runners and letting them get a notice in the mail that they can ignore. Like I said, stop pretending like you are tough on red light runners, you are supporting a system that lets them get away with running red lights with NO PENALTY WHATSOVER. You can't talk your way out of that, you can't reason with it, all you can do is ignore it like you usually do when you are faced with a tough question. Instead of just crying "straw man" why not explain to us how lowering the penalty and decriminalizing a dangerous activity gets you less of that crime? Give me one example of something else we can point to where lowering the penalty is actually being tough on that criiminal activity. Seriously? I am wondering if you suffer from an open head wound. You talk about logic which you apparently are unfamiliar with then tell us that making a penalty lower for something is really being tough on those that commit that crime.

since you won't answer the repeated question of how the virginia DOT or USF healt department who both concluded cameras are associated with an increase in accidents, (among several other credible and impartial studies) are written from the anti camera bias or are nto independant. I can only assume you accept it as fact but your CM won't let you acknowledge the fact.

We do differ, you are correct. You believe lowering a penalty for a crime, making it no longer a crime but a civil penalty, one which the most flagrant violators can and do ignore without penalty is a deterant, I disagree. We also differ in the fact that you think sending a revenue request in the mail days after the offense to a person who may not even have been driving is an effective punishment. I happen to believe a police officer who can immediately respond to a violation and issue a REAL ticket with penalties for non payment and also have the potential of taking that lawbreaker off the streets by looking for arrest warrants or illegal drugs is the best enforcement. You would prefer the lawbreakers to roam the streets freely throwing away their notices as the worst ones do, you prefer no possibility of arrest, points on their license or insurance or a hit on their credit. I prefer real penalties with real consequences. If you want to keep supporting the cameras then please stop acting as if you are somehow tough on red light runners, you aren't.

It isn't the POSSIBILITY of abuse that concerns me as much as the DEMONSTRATED numerous examples that I can specifically point to of cities shortening up the yellow lights to make more revenue, issuing citations for violations most people wouldn't consider red light running, selecting locations not based on accidents and fatalities but where they can make the most money at, and I even just read about a city that put a camera up at an intersection with not one single red light violation accident that they have ever recorded. As long as there is an incentive for people to keep running red lights the camera company and the cities will continue to put profit over safety, when the baby is that dead black rotten and bloated then yes, it is absolutely time to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

One more time, I know it is a different time frame. Let us just concentrate on the amount collected.

"calendar year 2009 amounted to $278,840"
"this calendar year have pulled in $392,505"

From the Article... Police Chief John Stewart said," that fewer drivers are running red lights."

Draw whatever conclusion you want from the Chief s statement and the amount collected per Calender year.

All I have to say is the voters will vote it out and take the wind out of the sails of the pro red light folks once and for all.

Glock doesn't have a financial incentive for people to break the law. The camera companies do. All good corporations have one responsibility, make a profit. If they are incentivized by having people run red lights they want as many people running red lights as possible. The numerous examples of them giving kickbacks to politicians based on how many tickets they get, fighting methods like lengthening yellow lights that would increase safety but reduce the amount of tickets, threatening cities from taking steps that would reduce violations and purposely installing cameras at locations that have engineering problems that contribute to increased violations bear that out. I didn't hear an asnwer, how exactly is the Virginia DOT and the USF health department biased from the anti camera view and not independant?

From my post "So, if fewer people have run the red lights, I guess the fine for doing so has increased. I know 1/09 to 6/09 and 1/10 to 6/10
for the number of citations, but the amount collected has increased by calender year."

Not a conspiracy mindset at all, I pointed out the different time frames. Less citations but more in fines, what other conclusion can be made?

Well I guess one could also conclude that more people run red lights from June to January.

SpeakUp...I don't take things personally and get my feelings hurt. I'm a big boy and have a hide like an rinoserce...uh, rinocero...like an elephant.

You said we can't take the profit away from the companies that make the equipment like we can't take the profit away from Glock for selling the pistols police departments use. I'm thinkin' you're using a bad analogy here. Glock makes their money at the point of sale and they are finished. The camera system company makes money from the sale AND from the tickets their equipment generates. It's like Glock got a kick-back each time a cop fired his weapon. I don't care if the company that makes the systems make a profit on the sale to the cities. Just let them be done with it when the sale is complete. Let the city police control the system and generate any tickets. That way, the city would be more responsive to the concens of the citizens. If the voters decide they don't want the cameras, the council would cause them to be disconnected and the city wouldn't be worrying about multi-million dollar lawsuits like Houston is facing now.

Wow!l I musta struck a nerve. In the first place, yeah, I do think the city sees fines as a major source of revenue. And, yeah, I do think $50.00 is a reasonable fine for running a red light. IF someone runs a red light and t-bones another car and injures or kills someone, that's a whole other ball game. The driver could be charged with being criminally negligent and face prison time. The injured or the survivors of the people in the other car can file civil lawsuits. This is IF there is an accident. If great harm was done, the penalty should be great. If no harm was done, a great penalty simply causes resentment and possibly the opinion that the police department is more a revenue agency than a protector of the citizens.

SpeakUp, I think even you would agree with me that the vast majority of official citizen contacts with the police is due to traffic stops. I can't think of anyone who hasn't at some time inadvertently broken a traffic law of some kind -- that is other than you,of course and some of the others posting comments. The vast majority of citizens are decent, law abiding people who, because of a momentary inattention did something against one or another of the myriad traffic laws of the state or city, some of which I'm sure most people never heard of. For the vast majority of citizens who get caught breaking a traffic law, the violation was certainly not intentional. It wasn't like a dope dealer or a thief who knows he is breaking the law and intentionally does it to further his illegal lifestyle. It's the seeming attitude of the police (and some of the posters on this forum) that there's no difference between someone who accidently runs a red light or breaks some other traffic law and a career criminal that makes me mad. Familyman1122 says that the police want the citizens to follow the law. Sunshine32 says to pay attention and respect the laws. Ishkabbil says if the truth were know the only people against the camers are those who habitually run the red lights. SpeakUP has written volumes. I'm certainly glad that all of you are perfect drivers who've NEVER violated any of the traffic laws. I, on the other hand, am not perfect. I got a ticket in 2005 and another one prior to that in 1975. I do my dead level best to follow the laws and I try to drive safely, but sometimes I drive a few MPH above the limit. Perhaps, I follow too closely sometimes. To my knowlege, I've NEVER run a red light since I got my license in 1964. I HAVE been in the box when the light turned red but I don't think I've ever entered the intersection after the light turned red.

Speak up said "those studies showing an increase in risk are biased from the point of view of the anticamera crowd and are NOT "independant" as they claim ."

Tell me exactly how the Virginia Department of transportation that did the largest most comprehensive study ever done on red light cameras, or the University of South Florida Health Department, or the doctors at loyola that wrote in the Journal of Trauma are not independant and are biased from the view of the anti camera crowd. Especially when you spout studies we KNOW FOR A FACT that are written by the pro camera crowd. And YOU want to talke about conspiract theories?

I guess you could say it generates large amount of revenue. Speakup has made a few lengthy comments, I didn’t notice anything about saving life’s in any of those comments. Cameras or not, folks will continue to run red-lights, the numbers are clear. Technology is a great thing, but maybe it’s going a little too far to put you into a position to defend yourself over a red-light camera, when it was only observed by technology and not a real person “police officer”♣ IMO☺

"The numbers the city provided compared January-June of each year. During 2009, 5,540 red-light citations were issued."
"The fines collected for the calendar year 2009 amounted to $278,840"

"This year, (2010), that number dropped to 2,790 citations, a sign, Stewart said, that fewer drivers are running red lights."

" Red-light tickets fines collected this calendar year have pulled in $392,505, Stewart said."

So, if fewer people have run the red lights, I guess the fine for doing so has increased. I know 1/09 to 6/09 and 1/10 to 6/10
for the number of citations, but the amount collected has increased by calender year. Doesn't sound to me like less people are running light,
unless, like I said the penalty for doing so has increased.

Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other, I just noticed the numbers, and claims based on them do not add up.

From what I have read about court rulings on this subject, I don't believe a ultimate ruling has been issued. Sure various attorney generals have issued opinions, pro and con, courts have ruled both pro and con, appellate and even state Supreme courts have ruled pro and con.

Camera companies have refused to release fine data or provide a technician to testify in court, ect. ect.

IMO, whether you agree with red light cameras or not, legally the issue has not been settled one way or another as of yet.

Red light-photo enforcement, the photo maybe true, but what about the credibility of the person or instrument taking the photo?

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Facts continued.

The Texas Attorney General said red light cameras violate the Texas constitution, until senator Brown got paid off from the camera company to sneak in a loophole into an unrelated bill.

The IIHS, quoted here is in bed with the camera companies and profit off of the camera tickets in states that the ticket can go on people's driving record allowing them to increase their insurance rates.

There is no possibility of a trial by jury with a RLC ticket, only appeals to city employees. There was a recent court ruling that said this violated seperation of powers.

Innocent drivers get ticketed everyday by cameras, in fact people who weren't even driving are ticketed. If you ever bought a car in your name for your kid or co signed for someone you could get a ticket for something you never did. There are also case after case of "mistaken identity" tickets where the plate number did not match the vehicle in the picture but a citation was still issued after supposed "careful review" by a police officer.

Most citations are issued for activities that haven't shown to be contributing factors in accidents like a slow rolling right on red or violations of a half a second or less.

Several cities have illegally shortened yellow lights to get more ticket revenue at the expense of safety.

Since there is no penalty for not paying a Texas RLC ticket there is little enforcement benefit. The worst red light runners ignore the ticket without any possibility for an arrest warrant, points on their license insurance or credit. The only drivers that pay are generaly law abiding citizens that get scared by a revenue request letter because it says it is from the police, when it is actually sent by the out of state camera company who collects the fine.

Red light cameras decriminalize red light running. RLC tickets aren't even tickets, they are "notices of violation" in fact drivers aren't even accused of running a red light but violating a city ordinance, no different from putting your heavy trash out too early or not mowing your yard. Since cities claim the cameras "free up" officers to do other things there are fewer officer initiated stops, meaning fewer opportunities to actually take red light runners off the streets by looking for illegal drugs or weapons, arrest warrants, expired licenses or insurance. The cameras have never taken a single red light runner off the streets.

Despite claims that RLCs save lives, over 30 years no one can point to a single life saved by red light cameras. While REAL safety technological improvements have demonstrated their life saving benefits with real world specific examples (Side airbags, ABS etc) the only evidence of life saving comes from propoganda put forth by the camera companies that profit from them.

Hope that clears up some of the misinformation posted here.

Red Light camera facts.

Photo enforcement is highly unpopular, it has gone to a public vote no less than 15 times and has failed every single time. 15 states have banned photoenforcement statewide primarily along constitutional grounds and concerns about safety.

The largest independant studies consistently show a correlation to red light cameras and an increase in accidents, making a safety argument NOT to install them studies are here http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/4... Houston saw accidents double at RLC locations after they went up. Baytown Texas saw accidents go up 75%.

Solid engineering improvements such as lengthening yellow lights have proven to be more effective than even the claims of the camera company.

Camera corporations repeatedly con cities into installing RLC programs using false information and wild claims of safety and revenue. These are the same corporations that sued Houston and Baytown saying the citizens don't get a vote.

Speakup...I like hyperbole as much as the next person -- been known to use it myself on occasion. No, I don't think thirty days in the slammer for failing to use turn indicators is appropriate. I don't think thirty days in jail is appropriate for running a red light either. A fine, perhaps $50.00, is appropriate. Fifty bucks is enough to be noticed but won't prevent most people from buying groceries either. I don't know what the fine is for a camera generated ticket in Port Lavaca and I don't know what the split is between the city and the camera company.

The people developing the DNA evidence you mentioned are probably from a police crime lab. Those people can be asked specific questions about how the evidence was developed and preserved. They are (we hope) dedicated to the truth and justce. The representative of the City that confronts the accused in court on the red light case didn't develop the evidence. I suppose we have to have faith that this representative of the City is also dedicated to truth and justice. We KNOW the camera company is dedicated to their profit.

The camera takes an image of a car. That image is magically developed into a photograph that is looked at by the representative of the City. Does the picture that so clearly shows the license plate and the make and model of the car also show the red light? If it doesn't show the light, how do we know the accused ran it? Do we know that the yellow light stays on for the same amount of time at a camera intersection as it does at an intersection that has no camera? Does the representative of the City KNOW that the camera ignores cars that enter the intersection on a yellow light, or does he parrot what he's been told the cameras are supposed to do? Since the camera is computer controled, can that computer's program be altered from the company's home office? Can it be hacked into and the programming altered like the famous sign on the Loop near East High School? Just how secure IS that computer's programming? Does every picture generate a ticket? If not, why not? I know the judge will be convinced by the representative of the City. The judge works for the city, too.

Carl Baugh stands in front of the intersection at Interstate 35 and Half League Road holding a citation he received for running a stop light there a year ago. The citation was sent to him by Redflex, the company that operates the five red-light cameras in the city. Baugh contested the citation and won. He is now getting together a petition to call for a vote on whether to keep the cameras.

Guess you did not look hard enough .....

i support people taking the initiative to make change to things they disagree with, but i didn't read that this guy exhausted all avenues to appeal his ticket....if he really did have a brake lock up and felt he was wronged, he should work to remedy that situation and not put the blame on the cameras.

Don't remove the cameras. I am sure there are some bugs that need to be worked out but keep the cameras. They are a great way to help keep our roads safer.

I'm sure there has been a lot of money collected which should make you realize the need for the cameras since running red lights has become a serious problem and needs to be fixed. Of course there are going to be cases where someone is wrongfully nabbed, just like it would be with a cop, but for all the other blatant infractions, the cameras are doing their job.

You’re wasting my time and tax dollars on this petition.

Funny how all of the sudden the people who maintain those cameras are here right now as we speak tweaking them. I would lay a million to one that they are adjusting the amber time...Just my opinion...

After reading all the comments we can definitely determine one thing, the people who have posted comments wanting to keep the cameras all have one thing in common - They are wrong.

The main point of this arguement, and reason the cameras will be removed as is unfolding in Houston, is that they deny Due Process - a term not very well known by politicians and apparently some citizens of Port Lavaca.

If you run a red light and receive a ticket in the mail, generated by a camera you do not have the right to confront your accuser.

This denies you due process of law. I, along with all others who are going to vote and get the cameras removed, do not want the government to overstep it's boundries any longer.

It is not a question of saftey, like or dislike, or anything else. The cameras are not lawful and they need to be removed.

The City does not even have the power to enforce payment. Just ask all of the people who never sent in a payment.

If you want the cameras to stay, show up and vote to keep them because I can guaranty one thing - people are voicing their opinions, standing up for their rights, and telling gov't to back off!

I so do enjoy reading the ASTRO turf comments by the scamera side.

Trying to use emotions to stop a public vote! TYPICAL! Go look at Houston, ATS over there is trying to THWART the will of the voters!

We live in a DEMOCARCY, not a ATS or REDFLEX POLICE STATE!

Anyhow.

let me also mention two reports on REDFLEX operations where the "massive safety" benefits were found to BE FALSE!

Chicago: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/... (see page 8). http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3...

Clarksville, TN: http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/06/red... City OMMITTED DATA that showed MORE WRECKS!

IN fact I wouldn't even trust the claims of "less violations". ATS over in Baytown increased their "rejection rate" to give the illusion of less violations. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3...

Other tricks the scamera side like to do, adjust amber times, grace periods, and trigger lines to influence violation rates!

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2... (nice picture of what Tuscon did to entrap motorists, move trigger line two car lenghts).

Fight the SCAM!

Ban the CAMS!

www.motorists.org
www.banthecams.org
www.camerafraud.com
www.bancams.com

It seems to me that the solution is not to take out the cameras, which provide a valuable public service, but rather improve ways to dispute the violations. I am not exactly sure the best way to do that, but that is why we hire and elect official to solve these problems. Just make your voices heard, but don't go overboard.

Speakup...IF what you say is true then I am obviously wrong. Everything I ever read about those cameras was that they took a picture (and thus accused a driver of "running" a red light) anytime the car had not cleared the intersection prior to the light turning red. This has been my complaint all along -- that tickets were generated even though the driver entered the intersection when the light was yellow and was still within the box when the light changed to red -- thus generating revenue both for the city and the company. IF the camera ONLY takes a picture of cars that ENTER the intersection AFTER the light turns red, I withdraw my complaint about that. I do want confirmation that the camera will NOT take a picture of a car that enters the intersection with the light yellow and is still not clear of the intersection when the light turns red.

I'm still not comfortable with it. I firmly believe that an accused person has a right to confront and CROSS EXAMINE his accusor if he wishes to contest the charge against him. I'm not sure how one goes about cross examining a camera. This is crucial to the tradition in this nation that the accused has the presumption of being innocent. But then, this is why it's a civil procedure and not criminal. The citizen isn't afforded his Sixth Amendment rights to confront his accusor and cross examine him. No expense to the city for a court date and they get SOME of the money from the fines. Can you say revenue enhancement? I guess I'm just old fashioned enough that I believe the laws should be enforced by, oh, I don't know, maybe the POLICE. I don't always trust'em, but I do believe they are more reliable than some company with a definite profit motive.

Familyman1122 stated: "JD read my post again..." I did and I apologize for crediting that statement to you....i saw your user name at the beginning of the post and was already composing what I wanted to say in my mind.....my fault.

Decisions about traffic law enforcement and methods should be made by the elected officials not by a popularity contest. Enacting laws to protect the public is what the officials are elected to do. If enough people are not happy with positions taken by an official, they can vote the official out of office at the time of the next election. In this case the council also has the professional judgement of Chief Stewart and should give great weight to his determination that the camera enforcement has reduced collisions.

JD read my post again because it was TheWayWardWind that said what you are claiming that I said. My point is that if you obey the law and stop at the light as you are supposed to you won't get a ticket. Simple as that. No tickets then no one gets any money. To me it is just a bunch of law breakers that are complaining about the cameras. They got a ticket or soon will get a ticket for not following the law and don't want to get caught.

another thought.

If everyone slowed down in anticipation of a light turning yellow, then what good is a speed limit, and wouldn't that cause traffic backup?

The cameras do not keep you safe. All the camera does is video and photo you if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The yellow light is set to the minimum thus allowing for more revenue. I can not stress this anymore. The camera will not press your brake pedal for you. If they do not generate money, why not put dummy cameras up as a placebo effect? If they did not generate money they would not be put up.

My beef with the red light camera's are:

1. The yellow light is not long enough, so if you are driving the speed limit and are in a larger PU (which doesn't stop as quickly as a car) when the light turns yellow, you have 2 choices. Stop on a dime and throw everyone forward, or if the streets are wet, slide half-way into the intersection, or keep going and hope you get through in time. If you decide on the first option, you will still get a ticket if you happen to go over the line just a little bit.

Citizens...listen, driving is a great luxury for all of us and if everyone would just obey the laws, we would not need such things in place as these cameras. People be alert and prepared to stop at all times, not just at red lights...you never know when you will need to stop on a dime.
The cameras are there for YOUR protection, your family & friends protection. One day they could save your life or their's and would it be worth the extra few seconds of your time!!! Stop and think about this for a moment? What is it worth to you? A mear $75? But if you took the time $0!

If the truth were known , the only people against the cameras are the ones who habitually run the red lights, the un-insured and or un-licensed,or probably talking or texting on a cellphone. These dodos need to be ticketed ,un-licensed, impounded or jailed.

ricky64 stated: "just the other day i saw a eighteen wheeler trying to stop before the light turned red and almost hit a car scared the crap out nof me" Ricky that 18 wheeler was either driving too fast or the driver was inattentive...camera or no camera there would have been a problem.

familyman stated: "The camera company depends on people getting trapped by the coffin corner wherein they are too close to the intersection to safely stop when the light turns yellow and the intersection is too wide to make it through before the red comes on". Just as with ricky64's situation...there is no coffin corner if drivers will watch their speed, and will anticipate a light change is coming if it has been green for awhile.

I agree with several other posters here that the cameras should not increase the hazard at a red light. They only do so because drivers have become so used to not worrying exactly when the light will change and being willing to run a light or cut it close rather than simply drive slower and anticipate. With cameras in place, they suddenly realize this fact and slam on their brakes when they suddenly realize they can't make it legally through the light. It is all about being alert, paying attention and extending the area a driver watches a bit further down the road.

I will agree that having to drive (4)hrs to appeal one of these tickets is hogwash.

Well, obviously, the cameras DO work, or we would not be having these conversations. The cameras will not generate any money ONLY if the law breakers quit running the lights!

Those cameras do not work. There is no force field that will stop a car from running a red light and broadsiding someone. These cameras generate money plain and simple.

I suggest using in-ground spikes that come up at the white line when a light turns red. After a few popped tires...well you get the idea.

i think the red lights need to go before the red light were put up i did'nt see any wrecks just the other day i saw a eighteen wheeler trying to stop before the light turned red and almost hit a car scared the crap out nof me so come on port lavaca lets get rid of those money hungry freaking cameras and use the noney for destroying all those crack houses amen you have my vote

The cameras provide solid evidence of driving violations, where as if stopped by an officer, it is simply your work against theirs. Look at the cameras installed at the beltway toll booths in Houston. If they were not there, do you REALLY think people would stop to pay? I doubt it. While the cameras may not be your best friend, if you are ticketed by one then I would guess it is doing its job effectively. How many non camera intersections did you burn thru before this one got you?

Good thing Mr Baugh didn't kill a family that day when he SLID through that intersection and ran a red light. I guess in his mind, since no one was hurt, it shouldn't be illegal.

familyman has a point, if you don't want the ticket, don't run the red light.

Statistically speaking, the the lights seem to work. They had a 50% decrease in violations in one year--2,760 fewer opportunities for someone to be injured because somebody ran a red light.

What kind of a community do we live in, where citizens can vote OUT something that enforces the law and catches those breaking the law and endangering lives? Probably no one that has been broad-sided by a red-light runner will vote them out. Of course, they are most likely not alive and able to.

You got a ticket for doing wrong. Own up to it and pay it. Your the adult, handle your business. If you were speeding or any other violation you would go through the same appeal process. Pay attention and respect the laws. It hurts when you get hit in the pocket book. So it should just take one time for you to learn a lesson. I wish more places would use them. They make people be more responsible drivers.

familyman...The camera company depends on people getting trapped by the coffin corner wherein they are too close to the intersection to safely stop when the light turns yellow and the intersection is too wide to make it through before the red comes on. The fact that the cross traffic light is still red and there is no threat of an accident means noting to the camera. I commented just a few days ago about a Victoria cop who got into that coffin corner. HE should be glad there are no cameras in Victoira. Of course, HE wouldn't have been ticketed anyway.

TXWader...Two things. First, with the cameras, there IS NO due process. The geniuses who thought up this money grab have made it a civil penalty so they don't have to worry about providing due process. What do you want to bet the people in Harlingen who want to appeal have to go to San Antonio or some place equally convenient?

Second...Houston citizens voted to eliminate the cameras. However, they are still operating because the COMPANY that installed them is sueing the city for millions of dollars. Just because the people tell the city they don't want them, doesn't mean they'll go away. The city signed a contract with the company and the company wants their money and they don't care if it comes from tickets issued or from the city's general fund. So far, it's coming from the tickets they issue.

You are absolutely correct. It's ALL about the money.

Do the cameras save lives? If the drivers of PL would obey the law there would be no need for the cameras. Just follow the law and show that the cameras are not needed. The cops just want you to follow the law and if the cameras will do that then they will stay in place. It is a costly ticket so just stop at the red light. simple as that.

We agree oh mighty Police Chief who so finely represents the City and the citizens. The city makes nothing off the program. It is all about safety as it was in Houston eventhough all we have heard is about the $10 million that they will no longer receive from the program. What a crock. But I can tell you that as a member of the team that has brought this petition to life we have almost 700 total signatures now and we will have over 400 city voter signatures prior to submission. The people are fighting made about this issue and the support FOR the cameras is very minimal and most of them are connected with the city or the city council. If we dont stop this program it will only get worse for us and soon big brother will watch over you in all aspects of your life. Cameras INCREASE accidents and the better answer is yellow light timing if you dont beleive me look at the studies that have been done.

Oh don't let anyone kid you; it's all about the money.

What I've never been able to figure out with these cameras...what happened to a citizen's right to due process? Seriously, you have to go to Harlingen to appeal a citation?

Houston voters sent a message when they voted the cameras out of their city.

I hope Port Lavaca can do the same.

Wikipedia doesn't have all of the information. Far more than 4 cities have ended their photo enforcement programs in the US due to INCREASED accidents. Just look at http://PhotoRadarScam.com/lesssafe.php for more examples. It is a HUGE money grab, and I am glad someone is doing something about it. You wanna know how it's all about money? They didn't conduct any comprehensive engineering safety studies at any of the locations where they put cameras. If you have a legal problem you call a lawyer, you have a traffic safety problem you call a traffic engineer. Unless you're Port Lavaca and have fallen for a slick sales presentation.

From Wikipedia: "Four U.S. cities have dropped contracts with Redflex, citing ineffectiveness in reducing crashes as well as in revenue generation.[5] Despite lobbying residents,[6] Redflex has lost in every ballot against photo enforcement of traffic laws where the referendums allowing voting on the matter were not legally challenged.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redflex_...

"Loma Linda and Whittier became the most recent examples of California cities unplugging their automated ticketing machines after noting that the devices both failed to reduce accidents and generate the promised amounts of revenue.

In 2005, Loma Linda allowed Redflex Traffic Systems to mail tickets, now nearly $500 each, to motorists who primarily made slow, rolling right-hand turns on red. In the second year of the program, the city lengthened the duration of the yellow light at the enforced intersection. As a result, straight-through violations -- and profit -- plunged. This convinced council members that the program was not worth keeping, but Redflex prevented the city from canceling the contract by threatening to the city to pay for three years' worth of "losses" accumulated since the signal timing change. The Australian company then took steps to conceal the long-term effect of longer yellow on straight-through citations."

http://bit.ly/hooGCC