E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCurrently 21 states and Washington, D.C., use automated cameras at traffic intersections to catch violations such as running through red lights and stopping over white lines. While the cameras bring in thousands of extra dollars, drivers and some government officials argue they are inaccurate and rip people off. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
Drivers dread it -- that flash as they try to speed through a yellow traffic light. It’s a red light camera, and a signal that a ticket is on the way.
A rarity 15 years ago, red light cameras have become ubiquitous in many U.S. cities. Communities in 24 states and Washington, D.C., now use the cameras to try to decrease illegal -- and sometimes deadly -- traffic violations. Supporters say it’s worked.
"In the last five years we went from 54 traffic fatalities to 19,” said Cathy Lanier, police chief in Washington, D.C., which began using the cameras in 1999. “I mean, that's dramatic!”
Red light cameras are one piece of a growing network of automated traffic enforcement. Cameras now monitor speed, bus and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and intersections with stop signs. Proponents like Lanier say they help to deter accidents, nab violators and allow states and municipalities to keep an eye on the roads for less.
But critics of red light programs worry about the Big Brother aspect of using cameras instead of cops. Many also say cameras, which are generally run by private companies, have spread not because they make streets safer, but because they mean profit for cities and companies.
“What the issue really comes down to is these companies are ripping people off by hundreds of millions of dollars, in the name of caring about our safety and our health and our kids,” said New Jersey Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, who has introduced anti-red light camera legislation to the state Legislature.
Recent news stories have fueled opposition. In Chicago, an alleged pay-to-play scandal led the mayor to ban one company from bidding for future contracts. Millions were spent on pro-camera lobbying in Florida and other states. In Iowa, doubts about the constitutionality of using cameras as traffic enforcers led a state senator to introduce a bill to ban red-light cameras – a move already taken by at least nine other states.
What does science say?
Red light violations were associated with some 700 deaths and nearly 90,000 injuries in 2009, according to a study based on data reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatalities and injuries have decreased in recent years, the study shows.
Researchers, however, are divided on how much red light cameras increase safety.
Charlie Neibergall / AP file
Traffic passes a red light camera at an intersection in Clive, Iowa.
In 2011, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by the insurance industry, released a study that found red light cameras decreased fatal accidents by an estimated 24 percent in large cities that use them.
But a 2005 Federal Highway Administration study painted a more nuanced picture. Data from seven jurisdictions showed a decrease in front-into-side crashes at intersections with cameras. But it also showed an increase in rear-end crashes. The researchers said that apparently was the result of drivers hitting the brakes to avoid a ticket. Overall, however, the research showed the cameras saved money by both decreasing the most serious accidents, and generating revenue.
However, the FHA says that red light cameras shouldn’t be a knee-jerk traffic enforcement option. The agency issued a number of recommendations regarding the implementation of red light cameras, saying cameras should be considered only after engineering solutions have failed in problem intersections. Among the possible solutions, it says: Give drivers more cushion. Increasing yellow time by one second, it found, can result in a 40 percent decrease in crashes in stoplight-controlled intersections.
“It all hinges on proper yellow light time,” said John Bowman, communications director of the National Motorists Association, a drivers advocacy group. “If yellow lights are set properly, based on established traffic engineering, red light cameras are unnecessary because you almost automatically have low numbers of violations and low numbers of accidents. If you shorten those yellow light times beyond bare minimums, that’s when you start to generate more accidents and more violations.”
Problematic cameras
A yellow light in Cary, N.C., had Howard Bond seeing red.
Last year Bond’s son was issued two different tickets for turning left on a red light at an intersection. But when Bond watched videotape of the alleged traffic offenses, he saw that in both instances his son had legally turned left on a flashing yellow light. The town had recently switched to a flashing yellow at the intersection, but Redflex, the private company running the cameras, kept treating it as a red, Bond said.
Each time, Bond, who lives in nearby Chatham County, went to the office that issued the tickets to complain. Each time, he said, his tickets were dismissed but the larger issue was ignored.
"I just basically stood there and said, ‘No sir, you’re going to look at the video,’” Bond told NBC News. But law enforcement officials told him he would have to attend a hearing to contest it.
"I said 'We’re not going through all that,'” Bond said. “He started hee-hawing around. Then he looked at the video and said, ‘This is wrong.’"
After a local television news station approached town officials with Bond’s tickets, details emerged about tens of other tickets wrongfully issued in Cary by faulty red light cameras last year. A review of its red light cameras found that cameras in one intersection had generated at least 31 false violations, many of which led to $50 tickets.
Town officials told the Raleigh News and Observer that Redflex had failed to report the error to the town.
But Jody Ryan, spokesperson for Redflex, said the company took action as soon as it discovered the wrongful tickets.
“In this situation, changes were made by the Town of Cary to the traffic light phases without Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. knowledge,” Ryan said. “Because we were unaware of these changes, our systems triggered a set of false positives. Once we were notified of the issue Redflex either dismissed or refunded all the affected citations on behalf of the Town of Cary.”
While major cities can make millions off red light cameras, in some contracts red light camera companies keep the majority of funds paid by violators. Redflex’s contract with Cary, for instance, allowed the company to keep 88 percent of the money generated by red-light camera tickets in Cary. Between April 2004 and July 2012, ticketed drivers paid $5.7 million to the company, and $646,000 to the Wake County Public School System, which received the city’s proceeds.
The controversy led town officials to abandon its red-light camera program altogether.
Cary is one of a number of communities, including large cities such as Houston, that have recently abandoned their camera programs amid opposition from residents.
Dollars and cents
About 700 municipalities in the country have cameras. One of the most prominent companies, Redflex, had about 2,000 cameras in operation around the nation in 2011, bringing in over $92 million in revenue, according to its annual report. American Traffic Solutions, another big player in the industry, reports more than 3,000 road safety systems installed in the U.S. and Canada, which include red light cameras.
Red light cameras can also pull in big revenues for cities. An investigation by NBC 4 in Washington, D.C., found the Capitol region drivers received tickets with at least $18 million dollars in fines in one year attributable to the cameras. NBC 5 in Dallas found a single camera in Arlington, Texas, generated $2.5 million over four years.
NBCDFW.com: Red light cameras make millions
Communities continue to adopt the technology. In 2011, East Cleveland residents voted to keep red light cameras. Last year, New Jersey’s Pohatcong Township voted to extend its contract with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions.
“The bottom line is that those who oppose cameras are the minority,” said Charles Territo, spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions. He added that American Traffic Solutions doesn’t issue tickets: a police officer reviews each image before issuing a violation. According to ATS, about 50 percent of traffic “events” each year are rejected before a violation is issued.
“The majority of voters around the country know the dangers of red light running,” Territo said. “Nobody likes to get a ticket, but cameras are used in a number of places around the country and the world. They’re used to help police officers do their job.”
But cameras have faced increasing opposition from drivers who object to the automated systems for many reasons, including the inability to confront their accuser in court. Facing pressure from constituents, local and state politicians in Iowa, Florida, New Jersey and other states have recently introduced measures to change or end the camera programs.
Other controversies have raised questions about red light cameras. Problems with short yellow lights, which may increase the number of tickets issued, have surfaced in cities from California to Tennessee. Judges in Baltimore have castigated the city and thrown out tickets after finding the city had shortened yellow lights below recommended limits. Last summer, the New Jersey Transportation Department ordered 21 red light programs suspended after finding yellow-light timing issues. Meanwhile, camera companies have sued, or threatened to sue, cities who back out of contracts. And they’ve been investigated for possible pay-to-play schemes with local governments.
“They’re very aggressive in terms of lobbying for favorable legislation or favorable court cases,” said Bowman of the National Motorists Association. “It’s big business, and there’s a lot of money at stake.”
Last October, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel barred Redflex from re-bidding on the city’s red-light camera contract after a Chicago Tribune investigation found that Redflex company executives and lobbyists had paid for hotel rooms and spent thousands on entertainment for the city official overseeing the red light program.
Chicago’s red light cameras raised big revenues for the city. Redflex has operated a red-light program in the city since 2003, generating about $300 million in fines for the city and $97 million in revenue for itself. Redflex. Residents in the city have long complained about discrepancies between yellow light times in the city and its suburbs.
“We authorized an internal investigation and, though the inquiry is not complete, have learned that some Redflex employees did not meet our own code of conduct and the standards that the people of the City of Chicago deserve,” said Ryan, Redflex spokesperson, of the Chicago case. “We will take corrective action and make additional information public.”
Automated traffic enforcement companies spend millions persuading local and state lawmakers to expand programs, using lobbyists, municipal partners and nonprofits to advance the cause. After spending $1.5 million lobbying Florida lawmakers over four years, American Traffic Solutions became the main-red light camera supplier in the state, winning contracts in more than 65 cities.
Territo, the spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions, defended efforts to expand red light camera programs, which he emphasized are above all about safety. “Just as opponents of red-light safety cameras fund efforts to remove cameras, we expend resources on efforts to defend them,” he said.
Recognizing growing opposition to red light enforcement technologies, companies are looking to new markets. Both Redflex and American Traffic Solutions have active speed cameras in various markets, though 12 states have banned the technology. Both companies have also started programs to enforce rules prohibiting drivers from going around stopped school buses.
Redflex recently became the nation’s largest provider of school bus arm cameras, which catch drivers who speed past the stop signs that swing out from the side of school buses. The company has launched 10 pilot programs in six states.
More from Open Channel:
- Suburban Chicago cops allowed to work 'half drunk,' investigation shows
- GAO: Climate change poses big financial risk to federal government
- Death takes no holiday: Tracking gun violence over one long January weekend
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Road taxes.
A normal 200 dollar ticket breaks down like this. $25 o the state and $175 goes to lawyers and court cost.
Not sure about your state but in my state(New Jersey) typically for a traffic violation or a criminal offense heard in municipal court the entire fine goes to the state and the township/city/county is allowed to add a court cost, Any attorneys fees are the responsibility of the person who was issued the ticket and not included in fines/court fees.
Having said that I am opposed to red light cameras for a few reasons, Primarily because the accused is not given a right to question his accuser, second because there is no room for discression such as road or traffic conditions, As the article mentioned while the incidence of side impact collisions has reduced the incidence of rear impact collisions has increased.
It varies form state to state.
As I said " Not sure about your state" but if the violation is a state violation such as failure to stop at a red light I have to assume that this is pretty much consistent in most states, It is different if the offense is a County/City/Township ordinance violation but as far as I know only the state has the authority to regulate/set/control motor vehicle violations such as a red light or stop sign.
redflex refunded the money, did they also get rid of the points for a moving violation ?
Somebody explain this, if they are so much for "safety" : in every case where the money collected has been diverted from city coffers to other pursuits like cancer research, the cameras have been pulled out because "they cost too much".
These things have nothing to do with public safety. They are cash machines for cities .
If they are so good, how about this: The manufacturer gets 5% of the profits, the rest goes to the national debt. Anybody want to bet how long that would last?
In Maryland, they make it so you are afraid to contest a red light violation. If you pay the $75 dollar fine immediately you will not get DMV violation points and there is no additional court cost. If you contest the ticket and lose, you not only get the fine and court cost, you get the DMV points. This makes it almost impossible for a person to protest a ticket. You have a picture of the violation but not in real time, just a frozen in time picture. You could have been sitting in the intersection waiting to make a left turn and after it turns yellow you made the left turn but did not clear before it turned red. So in reality the state is making pure profit and blackmails you into paying up.
It wouldn't be about money if people stopped at red lights.
People are more concerned about avoiding the inconvenience of stopping at a red light than they are about making other people wait while they are breaking the law.
The idea that they could hurt or kill someone doesn't seem to phase people any more.
Actually, Tom, from my experience most red light cameras take several photographs to show that the vehicle was behind the line when the light was red, crossing the line when the light was red, and then passing through the intersection when the light was red. They take these multiple photos for the exact reason you say: it proves that you didn't enter the intersection legally and then get caught when the light changed. If you are ever ticketed when you know that you legally entered the intersection you contest the ticket. If you truly did legally enter the intersection, then the camera could not have gotten the photos of you before and while crossing the line and you will win you case. It's as simple as that. If you know that they don't have the proof to hold you in court, DON'T PAY THE FINE and CONTEST IT IN COURT, and the lack of supporting evidence to charge you will exonerate you.
Aslo, in response to the increased rear-ending accidents offsetting the reduction of cars being t-boned, that is true. However, the fault their lies in the cars behind counting on cars ahead breaking the law, rather than going a safe speed and distance that assures they can stop if the person in front of them does obey the law. In addition, rear end collisions are MUCH safer than being t-boned. Cars are structurally able to take much more impact that is direct and in the same direction as them than they can when hit on their structurally weaker sides by a car moving in a direction 90 degrees changed.
These companies are not badge wearing revenue makers so therefore their tickets should be illegal.
The cameras were pulled out of Chapel Hill, NC a few years ago when the citizens found that the company placing the cameras was focusing on placing the cameras where there were the most violations (earning them more money), not where there were the most accidents.
Yet the company claimed that it was all about safety....
It would help if people would realize that traffic laws are not in place to inconvenience them but to protect everyone else from their stupidity behind the wheel.
One very big problem with red light cameras that showed up in a northern Fl. community (Ocala I think) several years back, is the right turn on red. If you don't make a full 3 second stop, it hits you for a red light infraction. It generated a very large amount of money for the town, but a sh!t load of people complained in court and to the town. I don't remember the outcome, but I think they either modified the system or removed the right turn cameras altogether. The cameras are nothing more than a deficit reduction program. They do nothing to prevent accidents. Most modern traffic lights are set with a delay of 3 to 5 seconds before it changes to green for the cross traffic. The accidents are not caused by people trying to beat the yellow, they are caused by the butt heads that are either texting, yacking on the cell phone, playing with their Garmins or Tomtoms or doing someting other than what they're supposed to be doing like driving responsibly and watching where they're going.
Can you imagine, Redflex is too corupt for Chicago.
Anthony Territo (American Solutions) thinks that those opposed to his company's money grab "are in the minority". He is wrong. And David Mora, you are correct that once you enter an intersection (across the solid line) legally, you are entitled (nee, required) to continue on through. And the cameras are supposed to have multiple images of when your car entered said intersection. BUT just try and obtain those prior images from the company! I was refused such a request so I took them to court. The judge tried to compel them to comply so he could see them, and they said they could not. He then threw the case out, and used that as a partial basis to create an injunction in Florida against the enforcement of the camera citations. Money (power) corrupts, and absolute, unrestricted revenue has corrupted these companies, their officers, and city politicos, absolutely.
Why hasen't NBC blocked wilsonarden11's account yet?
In order for the ticket to be legit, a sworn officer of the law has to see the offence. If Redflex wants to hire sworn officers for the areas that they cover, which is like a call center in another state, then challenge the ticket in court. The officer has to come and appear or the ticket is thrown out. It's been working as a defence here in California. For example Victorville has these cameras, but after having to fight the tickets and Redflex they pulled all but two cameras after having a dozen.
I wonder what a paint gun would do to those cameras? Would they still work or would the paint make them not activate?
I figure someone has to have tried to disable these cameras as when people get pissed they do the craziest stuff.
I for one would not want them in my town and thankfully we do not have them here in MN, yet.
With the different seasons affecting the roads and no way to contest the camera properly it just turns into a scam that has made these people millions and still counting. Big brother is watching us more and more every day.
just a thought; if people weren't in such a big damn hurry, and break the law, then it shouldn't matter if there are red light cameras or not. Just a thought!
The Lawyers in N.C. beat these tickets so much because they are unconstitutional that they removed them. Although the Video camera is still watching and a sattelite in space can read the scew number on the emmissions inspection sticker. Our Nosy Government, Greedy Bastads. Ya know it's greed and lack of respect that causes Distrust. So Why should we offer them something they offer us not?
This paragraph in the story pretty much says it all. It is the end all and be all of the 'safety' argument.
Of course the gentleman also states in the paragraph very clearly why yellows are shortened, to generate more money. If the city or municipality was worried about safety they would properly establish the yellow light timing and cross traffic delay. They want the violations, they live off of them. You, your property, your person, and your children are distant secondary and tertiary issues.
^this.
I have no problems with red light traffic cams provided the take video (not just still shots) and that infractions are reviewed by the municipal POLICE and not a private firm whose sole purpose is to make a profit.
If it's really about public safety, then conduct a traffic study, place the cameras where the most fatalities incur (rather than were the most infractions occur, so that they make the most money), and hire another law enforcement officer to review the tapes.
Until them I'm convinced this is all a money making scheme (cause in it's current form it is).
ita a horse a piece no matter how you look at it.... when i see a red light, of course i stop, but then yellow-light shortness of time can change that. there have been a few times the light was ready to go red, and turned red just as i hit the intersection, but the person behind me is rather close enough that i avoived creating an accident.. there is a breif pause between most if not evey light i have come across, add in drivers sitting, and the amount of time it takes for them to go from brake to gas, and generate a forward motion... what is safer? but there are more yellow lights, that when doing the speed limit, make it next to impossible to stop in time at a safe distance.... hence most of those i have seen have the cameras.
in my opinion are they keeping people safer? no. most people try to stop at redlights... have to be a retard not to. i think the odds of running red lights amounts to a game of russian roulette... only thing is you have a 1-ton+ vehical, that involves innocent people, who usually end up being the ones who are killed, not the violator. 1 camera can bring in 1.2 million in funds to the government... if so... and we have nothign but constant revenu being dumped into the government.... why the hell are we so broke?
Why have police do their jobs, when there is a private company that can do it just as badly, if not illegally?
Most the problems I have seen are they never themselves actually watch the video. The only red light ticket I got a cop was standing in the road directing traffic. You can clearly see him in the video directing me and others to run the red light. This would stop if they had to pay for ever ticket that was issued invalidly. Took half a day to deal with the drones who try to say the machines don't make mistakes and they don't need to look at the video.
Red light cameras serve as behavior modification tools for the 'me-first' mentality drivers as well as those who don't know how to use a friggen bluetooth to talk on their cell phones with while driving.
Why are we so broke? Simple--- Because when you steal it and nobody is looking, you dont need a photo. Those be the brokers of politics.
Lets just call it a new way of sucking money from the middle class, this is one of the greatest threats to freedom of our roads and the tax payers are paying for this. Americans struggle to hold on, but all these taxes they are dumping on us is putting the country on welfare and making things worse !!!
We actually caught cities lower the length of the yellow light to create 80% more violations. We passed a state law to regulate light length.
Its simple....if these camera's bother you so much...than don't break the law...then you don't have to deal with them. Don't run the red light! and yellow does NOT mean go very fast!
In Florida the red lights made enough money that the state got in on the take. I believe now a red light costs $180 plus with most going to the state.
A little dramatic huh? I am not really for or against the cameras but I am way more fearful of being run over in an intersection than I am about losing "freedom of the roads" (whatever that means). People drive too fast, ignore lights and the cops around here can't be bothered to stop people for traffic light violations. It's a real problem in some places. Living in cities I've been hit twice by drivers ignoring signs/signals. I am lucky that I wasn't seriously injured or killed.
This is a real problem and not something that's being made up. If people paid attention to signals then there would be no need for any of this but that's not the case. Also, remember that the roads are public and not your personal drive.
The motivation is so obvious; these are money raisers. State level politicians cut taxes because that gets them elected and then local governments and police forces need to scramble to come up with revenue raising schemes - such as red light cameras. The offense, more often than not, is dismissed in court, but red light camera proponents count on the fact that it's such a nuissance to go to court so most people just pay the fine.
Don, I agree, but only to a point. The municipality in which I live has quite a few busy intersections which have no left turn arrow. Whenever there is a high volume of traffic it is nearly impossible to turn left on a green--or even a yellow. Oncoming traffic starts with the green and keeps coming all the way through the yellow light, leaving drivers who wish to turn left stuck in the intersection until the red---then the cars that have been waiting rush through. More often than not anybody who turns left at these intersections has already sat through one or two green lights.
I'm not necessarily opposed to red light cameras, but not until issues like the one above have been resolved first
This is simply a classic example of how townships and states are becoming more creative in squeezing more water from a stone - by targeting the people. I work with townships all the time for permitting, they're lazy and think they walk on water, so I have a particular dislike towards these people.
I can guarantee you, Mr Territo, that a MAJORITY of the public would vote against these in an up/down vote, you greedy sleezeball.
Does anyone think it's a coincidence that the yellow lights were found to have been shortened following installation of the cameras? I experienced this first hand in Maryland when a green light went from yellow to red in less than a second, followed by an immediate series of flashing. Ticket arrived in the mail a week later.
The only "safety" Mr. Territo cares about is what condom to use when he's partying with 19 year old escorts on his 100 foot yacht.
I read most of the comments above and a lot of people have some good points, but taking all of that into consideration. When I got my driver license at 15 we as a society didn't need camera's because people where mostly considerate and knew how to drive. Our country has come a long way in the last 20+ years, but it hasn't been in the right direction.
I know this seems like an over simplified approach. But if we are trying to increase safety at intersections, wouldn't there be an easy answer? They say to increase the time that the yellow stays up, but they are missing something.
Can't you increase the time between the lights changing? I mean, have a 1 or 2 second delay between the light turning red and the other one turning green. I know that is irrelevant in NY city, where the drivers begin to cross when the other light turns yellow, but most cities in the US don't have that issue.
Seems like the cities where I live prefer the income over the safety issue.
The battle against Redflex and automatic ticketing has been going on in Arizona for over a decade. The red light cameras have stayed, but thankfully, most of the speeding cameras have been removed -- with support from our elected officials.
Among the many problems is that tickets are automatically issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Redflex is supposed to screen the ticket photos against drivers license photos to see if they make sense (sex & age), but apparently the company doesn't want to spend money doing that.
We have 5 licensed drivers in my family, but all the cars are registered to me and my wife. Over the years, my 3 kids (2 boys & a girl) have gotten a few of these fake speeding tickets from Redflex, but they were all issued in my name -- even one that my daughter got, and she is young, has long blonde hair and is clearly female in the photo, yet Redflex issued the ticket to me, her dark-haired middle-aged father. In every case, I checked the box saying "that's not me" and included a photo copy of my driver's license and that was the end of it.
The fake ticket (it's actually just a request for payment, with no legal standing) strongly implies that if you are not the driver in the ticket photo, you need to identify who the driver is. Well sorry, I'm not being paid to do the police department's job for them, and I don't trust my non-expert photo ID skills to swear in court as to who the person in the ticket photo is, so if they want to pursue it, they can hire a process server and legally serve me, my wife, my kid, or whoever was actually driving the car, with a legal ticket that has a court date assigned to it.
I was on the road near my town and I looked up and the light was yellow. I didn't want to slam on the brakes and stand my truck on its head so I kept going. Flash. Then a $75 ticket came in the mail with a picture of my truck in the intersection with a yellow light. It said if I did not pay the DMV might not renew my registration. I called my cop friend and he said I did not have to pay it even if it was red because it is a municipal violation (in Texas) not a criminal one. I did not pay it. A few dunning notices came which I ignored. When it came time, the DMV renewed my registration with no comment.
Lets just say were Americans and based on our past history we despise an overbearing government we dont need a nanny state. This is what you get when you vote in control freaks like Bloomberg, Emmanual and Obama.
What is being missed is this..it is all about money..and just how much power lobbyist have in every state. Think for a minute on the funds spent by these red light companies to get what they want..and that is high profits...in order to get that profit they have no problem buying our politicans...and that is just what they are doing...to the tune of millions for themselves. And that friends goes on with every major company..and even countries to get what they want from the tax payers of this nation..and our elected wants that money...and have no problems with handing over what it takes to get that money.
I recently got a citation in the mail (I live in WI.) from Waukegan, Illinois for running a red light in a car I was not driving, or even a passenger in. The car is registered in my name however it is not my car, it belongs to my son who serves in the US Navy, who was driving it at the time the camera nabbed him running a red light. I thought of fighting the ticket on the grounds that I was not the driver, or even in the state at the time, and could prove it, but ultimately decided the risks were higher than the reward and had my son pony up the cost of the ticket, which was substantial. The thing that irks me about this is I would bet this is on my driving record and not my sons. I think the cameras are unethical, and are purely for raising cash.
"freedom of our roads" - what, so we should be free to burn through red lights whenever we want to? Talk on the cell phone oblivious to everything else around us? Text, file fingernails, comb hair, etc. while we endanger others with our bad habits behind the wheel? So maybe taxpayers should foot the bill for that to eh? Such liberal drivel so early in the morning.
I don’t like red light cameras because they don’t allow for mitigating circumstances. For example, my car was part of a funeral procession with a police escort at the front and back of the line. Only about the first 10 or 15 cars in the procession had funeral flags displayed on them (there weren’t enough flags for all 35 cars). As the funeral procession proceeded through a green light at an intersection in downtown Washington, D.C., the light turned red, so more than half of the cars in that funeral procession (those WITHOUT funeral flags) received a $75 ticket in the mail for “running a red light.”
The drivers I talked with later were livid. In order to fight the ticket in court, each driver would have to take the day off from work, drive into town, pay for parking near the court house, and plead their case all the while hoping they didn’t get a parking ticket during their lengthy appearance in court (which included a lot of waiting time). So, it was actually cheaper just to pay the “running a red light ticket” than it was to fight the fine in court. How fair is that? The system sometimes stinks because of its inherent inflexibility.
The governments love it as a cheap way to make tons of money.
The insurance companies love it because it gives them an excuse to raise premiums.
The people feel like they're living in Nazi Germany. In Los Angeles, CA, the judges are refusing to prosecute these tickets - too reminiscent of a 'Police State'.
Jim -768838: "This is what you get when you vote in control freaks like Bloomberg, Emmanual and Obama."
Uh, Jimbo, you do know that these red light cameras have exactly zero to do with the president, right? And most of that these things were put in place years and years ago, not jusdt in the past 4 years, right?
Clearly written by someone who's never been creamed by another car. I'm now permanently disabled, thanks to someone's running a stop sign. If having a camera on drivers at intersections decreases injuries from accidents, then governments are doing their job well. I'd rather be rear-ended than T-boned any day.
$50 ticket, $xxx auto insurance increase for the next few years.
Police officers should be scared for their jobs if we continue to embrace technology that is allowed to make black/white decisions with zero judgement call based on circumstances.
I'm all for the cameras. If you aren't, then your solution is simple....don't run the red light!
Do a web search on traffic / red light cameras.
I personally have seen them in Europe, burned, painted over, pulled over by trucks, put car tires over them and burned the camera. Even seen one where somebody must have used an explosive to blow it up.
The Russian seems to be the most destructive one for the cameras.
The US should take lessens from them in Europe. After all you have more guns, go and have a field day
Short yellow lights are nothing new. When I was working transportation safety in the late 80's we had a report come in from the University of Kentucky, which was commissioned to study this issue, in that report is showed across the states and across the board, yellow traffic light timing was too short, and was a primary cause of accidents, recommendation was to lengthen the timing. The downside addressed by this report was by lengthening the time of yellow lights would have a drastic effect on increasing traffic congestion.
Red light cameras are just a way to fleece the population. Approach the City Elders for a charter to tax the poor...with a cut going to the city, and you are in business. I'm all for ticketing red light violators, but what happens after you have installed this high dollar system, and people don't run the light? Well, we just change the conditions. I sat at one intersection early one morning, wondering why traffic was so backed up...then I saw it...the green light short cycled, and the yellow light lit for 2.5 seconds. Traffic backed up for a mile, and as frustration grew, people alternately blew through the red, or jammed their breaks hard. The camera flashed away...I'm sure it was all just coincidence. I sent an email to the Governors Traffic Overseer when I got to work, and it was "fixed". I think they moved their short-cycle-operation to another red light camera intersection.
Yep. A malfunctioning traffic light is a plot by the local police to increse revenue. Get a life.
The red light Cameras decrease accidents and deaths. We don't want them to be installed becuse they don't lie. A picture shows that someone ran the red light. If a Police Officer was present at the intersection a good Lawyer might be able to get the driver out of the ticket by saying the officer was distracted by a pretty girl or the Sun or by additional Police Radio traffic.
If you ran the red light you should PAY the fine. Very Simple.
Well voters- I hear a lot of complaints about how the gov't is fleecing us with red light cameras, etc. Just remember where this is coming from. Oh yeah, I know, redlight cameras were around before this administration came along. But the same government isn't doing anything to stop them either- the same one that has set 30,000 drones to be utilized across the country.
I support these cameras 100%. The "me" mentality of liberals has affected (infected?) the way people drive nowadays as well. People are rude, they don't give sh!t about anyone else on the road, they're dangerous because of this, and they deserve a goddamned ticket if they run a red light, irrespective of whether or not a real cop is sitting there.
We have a couple near me and I love watching them go off on a$$holes who think they're special and don't need to obey the rules of the road like everyone else. Of course, if there was any justice in the world they'd just get T-boned and that would be the end of that - no more a$$hole.
Yes gdsmith, I agree. The point is politicians ramming through unpopular legislation, policy, etc without public approval because of that persons will or agenda.
People eventually get the laws and the degree of enforcement they really want. Not surprisingly , they usually like the laws better than the enforcement.
Carrying concealed - a mental tour de force turning this into a rant against Liberals. I can feel your anger. it feeels funny kind of artificial and contrived, but I feel it , nonetheless.
I agree with the post by FEDUP_STL. It is one solution that would save lives and cost nothing. Set the timing of the lights so that all lights stay red for a two or three second delay, before switching to green in one direction. Most violations are caused by people trying to beat a cautionary yellow through the intersection. If the vehicles from the crossing direction stay stopped for a few seconds longer, it would hold people back until the intersection is clear. Of course that doesn't prevent the fools who are not paying attention from crashing through a red light and t-boning another driver, but neither would a camera.
You sound like the type that likes to be rear-ended.
It has nothing to do with safety but MONEY!
As most Americans are struggling to get by in this depression the states need to feed massive spending habits.
People running red lights so that they can quickly get to their jobs, or the store, or the hockey game, also have "nothing to do with safety, but MONEY!"
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...
I'm all for automatic enforcement. I'm against private companies doing law enforcement for profit.
its another form of robbery
Roads would be ALOT safer if only people drove like they worked....SLOW!!!
If it was truly about safety the yellow light timing would be extended by a couple of seconds and light cycles would be made longer by a couple of seconds allowing the intersection the chance to clear of vehicles and pedestrians.
I think it was in the third grade when they taught us about D=RxT. Distance covered equals Rate of speed, times Time. And Red light cameras do not take in the weather conditions or road hazards.
Red light cameras are for making money off the mass's and nothing else.
Outlaw Red light cameras.
exactly
Those plastic computer screen security covers, designed so no one can see whats on your screen unless the are directly behind you, also work on traffic cameras if you put one on your license plate. I know someone who put two on top of his license plate for added protection.
One state and the camera company got caught trimming a second off the yellow light to get more violations. They pleaded ignorant of course. But they were ignorant thinking someone would not eventually find out. A judge made them go back and refund EVERY violation for a 3 month period and add 2 seconds to the yellow light.
Zheng, what you are suggesting is illegal. Any attempts to obscure your license plates or tags is illegal, and that includes measures to obscure them from cameras.
David, you're correct. A policeman behind you can read your tag plainly; it's the camera that has difficulties. I was in China recently & a guy was caught doing something similar. His fine was around $800.00 USD
We really need to stop the red light running. But shortening the yellows to force violations so the revenue stream to the gubmint increases is a mob action against the people. The mob being the gubmint employees to arrange it. The city traffic engineers control the light timing and cameras - not the police. IT takes a deliberate conspiracy of local traffic engineers and their city supervisors to decide to "get the people" for cash. And it does nothing for safety as the FHA and Mr. Bowman's organization attest. It's a scam pure and simple. There is no reason why they cannot rapidly flash the yellow when it has only 1 second left before the red comes on. There should be a national standard for yellow timing the same way as all the states agreed on Green-yellow-red, they should agree on an engineering standard for yellow timing.
Zheng, Not sure about other states, but in Illinois, it is illegal to put ANY cover on your license plates, even of it can be clearly read from behind.
^basically what I said above.
I have no problem with red light cameras per se, just have the cameras placed at the most dangerous intersections and have the tapes reviews by the POLICE, not a private firm trying to drum up as many infractions as possible to make the most profit.
Not that I agree with cities having red light cameras, the fact that they need a contract with the company that gets a cut of the profit just opens the possibility of abuse by these companies. I'm assuming that the price of a ticket must be increased to cover fees that these companies want and that's plain wrong.
There are also clear lacquer sprays that are sprayed on the license plate, which would make the plate appear "white" from the traffic camera's flash, as well as plastic license plate covers with fresnel lenses that distort the plate's numbers from the camera's angle, but could still be seen at eye level from the road. These methods are illegal as well, but people are always out there to try to "beat the system". And I have been known to stop on yellow when I approach an intersection which I know there is a camera. Most camera intersections do have warning signs posted ahead of the cameras.
Okay for all you simpletons out there when approaching an intersection of any kind BE PREPARED TO STOP OR AVOID AN IDIOT DRIVER. The problem is not red light cameras but hoe you drive. You do not drive offensively but DEFENSIVELY tOO MANY PEOPLE ARE MORE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR AGEND THAN THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. You are given the priviledge to drive on our streets not the right bully others. If you would leave earlier you wouldn't have to be speeding or running red lights. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEED INAPPROPRIATELY too many self centered people invading the rights of others.
okay, I should have known that any comment which began like that^^^^ wouldn't be worth reading. and the all caps---yelling does not make your point any more credible
In my city there are almost no left turn arrows and the intersections which do have them won't flash the green arrow until 5 or 6 cars are in the left turn lane. During a typical rush hour, cars sit in the left turn lane for at least 2 green lights before they even get to the intersection, then they are stuck in the intersection until the light changes back to red. There are also a number of busy intersections which have virtually no time on the yellow light. With a 35-40 mph speed limit, even if the light turns yellow just as you've entered the intersection, it is red by the time you are through,
It's not always people in a rush or "worried about their own agenda". The fact that you can't make your point without being combative makes you look like the "simpleton"
Dromes would even be better than a stationary camera...and you wouldn't have to worry about people running into them.
Pleasure to see your post Gordon. Finally someone who has as much or more trouble typing as I do !
I love those cameras. I don't run red lights, so I feel no effects from having the cameras. People who do run red lights, could have an adverse affect on the safety of me and my family, if they slam into my car.
In addition, I like the revenue which goes into the state coffers from people who choose to break the laws.
It is a win, win for law abiding citizens. For those of you who routinely run lights, screw you and thanks for the revenue you provide.
You're right Rockyroad. It all for the money. Lot's of money - no new city/county/state employees. Someone else takes the heat for problems caused by it. We know that yellow light timing is a problem in a lot of area. We know that legal right hand turns at reds are a problem in lots of locations. We know that there are problems of context that a police officer would recognize and not pull someone over in the first place. Our state is starting to step in and as it stands now, our Department of Transportation is required to approve any stop light camera or speed camera placed on any state road and they refuse to allow any - period. That started because one city placed a speed camera on the freeway where it nicked the very corner of the city limits. (About 100 yards of the freeway was in their city limit.) When people complained they got the safety speech from that city government. Everyone called BS (As it obviously was.) and the DOT required them to remove it. My nephew gets tickets often for a legal right turn on red near his home. Now he just hands it to the judge in town and walks out. The judge no longer even calls a case. I told my nephew he should sue the camera company. I'll tell you also the flashes are startling. You don't expect them and suddenly there is this bright flash. It's really bad a night and not a lot better during the day. Everyone looks around to see what it was and then who got the ticket. (After you can see again.)
I can maybe see a few cameras on problem intersections for a time until the intersections can be modified to not be a problem anymore. That's it. All the others need to go away.
RalphH. The FHA and the other orgs have stated their is no safety improvement because the cities intentionally shorten the yellow cycle to get the cash. I too have no sympathy for a red light runner - fine 'em all they want, but messing with the light timing is a bogus tactic. You could become a paraplegic, or someone you love. The next red light runner could be aimed at you. I want fewer red light runners and more safety - not just cash going to the city.
If ever I get a red-light-camera ticket - I immediately snap a photo of the amount they require and send them the photograph.
Of course that has been done and yes it was humorous. The response in that case was the police sent back a picture of handcuffs at which point the individual decided the wiser decision was to go pay the fine.
then you would pay double. There is not recourse when you get one of these tickets. If you go to court then you could end up paying double. Naples Florida has them and I will not go there to shop again. It's Ft Myers. I am a safe driver and I had no choice but to go through. My mistake. But there is no chance to explain or reason. Just the ticket a month later in the mail.
Hardworkinggal, so you admit you ran a red light, but you are mad that you have to pay the fine for running a red light? How would the situation be any different if you had been seen by a cop in a squad car and been pulled over right afterwards? If the fact that "you had no choice but to go through" was a legally justifiable one that clears you of responsibility, you could very well have presented that case to the courts to have the fine removed. You had a chance to explain or reason with the courts, as is clearly informed to you when you receive the ticket. You waved that right when you chose to pay the ticket without contesting the charges
The cop has the right to write the ticket unlike a company who is only making profit off of something they have no right to do. Pretty simple don't you think?
@David Mora
but if you live in another state what are your options ????
If I get pulled over I remember clearly what happened and the sequence of events. If I get a ticket in the mail a month later I don't even remember the last time I was through that intersection.
Fight cameras with cameras. Install a dash cam and archive your footage.
Helps with illegal searches too!
Tickets have become the number one revenue source for cities. It is a gutless form of taxation. I go an $80 parking fine after look at the sign a head of me, an arrow pointing up, no parking to here to corner. Which corner is still the question, I paid the ticket. Which side of the sign would you guess. You will not like what happen, it will become a $357 dollar ticket and they will revoke you driving privilege. Then you will get arrested for driving while suspended, a $250 ticket, and loose you licence for one year and have two file proof of insurance for two years. Which will cost you 3 times what you are paying now. This may vary from state to state.
said error posted twice.
to Johnny: If you live in another state your options are the same as anytime you are accused of a crime in another state. If the incident happened when you were not in the area they claim, the issue can usually be resolved through the mail without you paying the ticket. If you were in the area but are fighting the ticket on the ground that it is a wrongful ticket, you options are, again, like any options when charged from out of state. There are multiple free online resources offering advice on how to handle such cases, including hiring specialized, low cost attorneys to defend yourself. If your case is based around light cameras it should be pretty easy to tell whether you should just pay the fine or not, since they either have pictures of you running the light or they don't. If they don't, case can be contested and thrown out quite quickly, usually without you having to travel back to that state in person (though not always, interstate laws can be tricky, so this is not legal advice, just generalities).
to Demsarehypocrites: The company doesn't write the ticket. The state is still writing you the ticket, and the fine is being paid directly to the state. The state then turns around and spends that money on their operating expenses, which in this case goes primarily to the supplier of the cameras. Legally speaking the money going to the supplier of the camera is no different than money collected in fines, taxes, and city budget going to pay for an officer's car and equipment or training.
To Learnt Hick: installing dashboard cameras is a very good idea, and can help in a variety of incidents, not just red light violations. It could clear up a case rather quickly as long as it is deemed admissible and credible (which I'm assuming in most cases it would, unless there was evidence of tampering, etc), assuming you didn't run the light (if you did run it, additional video evidence of you running it isn't going to help you). As to the not remembering, the law assumes that you don't run red lights on a regular basis, and would remember if you did so, seeing as it is supposed to be a very uncommon occurrence. If you argue along the lines of, I run red lights often enough that I can't remember if I did the specific time you accuse me of doing it, that probably won't fly over very well.
LOL
When didn't I run the light? I ALWAYS didn't run the light.
Defending yourself takes details. Every ticket I have ever contested, sometimes successfully, where I was coming from and where I was going to was an issue to the court. If I can't recall if I was going from home to the convenience store and back or on my way to work it becomes an issue of "Well how do you know you didn't run the light if you don't remember what you where doing that day?"
Asking the wrong questions is a common practice in court to make the defendant look incompetent, stupid, a liar or all 3.
Without recalling details all a defendant can say is "I didn't run this red light because I don't run red lights." When the laughter dies out in the courtroom the judge will instruct you to pay the fine.
Yesterday I watched a "cop" run a red light on his way to get donuts. Had to be donuts since they do nothing else here in Irmo, SC. "Cops" here are lazy.
ok, so when someone is climbing through your window at 3 am, do not call a cop
hey cupake , if they made it in through the window @ 3am it is aready too late to call the cop !!!
At 3 am, if someone crawls through my window, I'll call 911 to tell them to send an ambulace for the shot intruder.
What kind of donuts were they? I only run red lights for the jelly filled.
People who don't like these cameras will of course dismiss them as "money makers" that have nothing to do with safety. I disagree. I'm a full time pedestrian who frequently sees cars and bicyclists zip through red lights, sometimes with pedestrians in crosswalks. The inability of some drivers and bicyclists to slow down and WAIT a few seconds so as not to endanger the lives of others is appalling. God forbid that they be denied their "right" to step on the gas and try to get through that yellow light before it changes to red. These cameras make a lot of people think twice.
Equally ludicrous is the comparison of the use of these cameras to those used by "Big Brother" in the novel, 1984. Look at the number of criminals who have been apprehended and identified in recent years because a camera was mounted in a building lobby, elevator, or parking lot. I suspect that even most camera naysayers would DEMAND that taped videos of the jerk that killed or injured their loved ones be admitted in court as evidence. They wouldn't demand that such evidence be excluded in the name of privacy.
I always wonder why people haven't figured out that, if they don't want a "nanny" state, they should stop behaving like spoiled children.
In the case of cameras that are used to monitor properties by private businesses they are doing it to protect themselves and not generate an income from it, Those cameras can be considered uninvolved independent witnesses and in the case of redlight cameras they are more like paid informants, In a court of law an independent witness holds more credibility than a paid informant because they get no benefit from it.
sheep
My solution? Build out better public transportation systems so there are viable options, even if they aren't more convenient than driving. Then, toughen traffic laws and start taking away aggressive and reckless driver's licenses. The problem is we have no real consequences when it comes to our cars.
$200 red light ticket? A $300 speeding ticket?? Most people just whip out that credit card and, just like everything else they can't afford, pay these "fines" off like they're nothing. Put drivers backs against the wall with the REAL threat of losing their driving privilege and that will make real changes towards safety.
Um . . . LostinthePineBarrens, about your whole "Those cameras can be considered uninvolved independent witnesses and in the case of redlight cameras they are more like paid informants, In a court of law an independent witness holds more credibility than a paid informant because they get no benefit from it."
. . . . yeah, that's not how camera footage in court works. Camera footage in traffic cases is used like any other camera footage: as a piece of evidence. It is NOT a witness. It is a piece of evidence used to show that a crime has been committed and the identity of the person committing it. They don't put the camera on the witness stand and say "Now, Camera 347B, what did you see the night of October 5th?" -.- Also, the camera is NOT your accuser. The state is your accuser, and the camera footage is the evidence on which they are basing their charge against you. Your ability to defend yourself in court against the state gives you the right and ability to challenge your accuser (the state) and the evidence they are leveling against you (the camera footage that allegedly shows you committing a crime)
"if they don't want a "nanny" state, they should stop behaving like spoiled children."
Could not have said it better, you don't want to pay a fine, then drive properly, it's easy.
@Hans-285771
ok , i'll go against what i truly believe & let you keep your cameras @ the intersections , but not to give out tickets just so there is a documentation of the events that you have mentioned .... that compromise should make us both happy ... what do you think ????
You missed the whole point, An independent video is a piece of evidence just like testimony from a witness is evidence and a video from a business that operates red light cameras that is specifically in business to make money no better than a paid informant, One has no compelling reason other than civic duty and the other is being paid.
In the case of redlight cameras a proper challenge requires that all documentation and testing and certification regarding that camera be testified to in court and that testimony must be done by a representative of either the company or the state, The judge should not just rely on the photo/series of photos/video provided by the company or state, There has to be certifications of accuracy and these certifications must include before and after the incident in question testing and a live individual must testify to them and the accused has a right to challenge both the certifications of the equipment and the testimony of the individual certifying them and the individual presenting them. Redlight/speed trap cameras are no different than Radar or breathalyzers, They must be tested and certified to insure accuracy, The redlight itself must also be certified to be in proper working order and any lawyer can mount a simple challenge to the light timing and the actual redlight camera.
All evidence must be certified and must have some type of expert to testify to what it actually represents
Yes Johnny, cause we all know that a nice "please stop running red lights" instead of a fine will change the behavior of irresponsible drivers.
Lostinthepinebarrens: Yes, if you contest the charge the prosecution must present evidence to show how the camera works, and that is was working properly on the day of the incident. It is NOT just like witness testimony on the stand. For example, if they can show the camera is set up to work in a manner it should, and that it was working properly on the day of the incident, the defense will have a very, very hard time attacking the credibility of the photographs, compared to witnesses who are routinely cross-examined and credibility attacked on ground of human error/malice (both of which a properly operating camera can not be found to have).
No where, in ANY court case, is there legal precedent for camera footage being officially entered into the record as an "uninvolved independent witness" and especially not as a "paid informant" (consider that, for a moment. If the camera was a paid informant, then that implies that the camera itself is being paid by the state for its testimony).
Camera footage can not be entered without someone who can document that the footage in question represents the incident in question , Every piece of camera footage ever submitted into evidence has to have a human to describe who,what when and where, and that person who testifies can be questioned as to their credibility and credentials and it is that person who is treated differently. A person who represents a business that makes a profit from redlight tickets is not treated the same as a person who videotapes or photographs an incident because they were simply recording a specified time period.
In my city, we have separate "crime" cameras and "traffic" cameras. The city crime cameras produce no income for the city and are rarely ever in working order, while the traffic cameras, income producers, always work. 95% of crimes captured on film/tape are from private security cameras, which often can show clear images two blocks away. The police look for nearby private cameras before even looking for anything on a city camera.
Despite proof that our yellow light timing has been shaved and that simply changing to a delayed green system reduces the number of accidents significantly, our city won't even give that system a trial. It loves that ticket money pouring into its coffers, so overlooks the minor detail that its share is a small percentage of what the private operator gets.
For those that don't know, a delayed green system means that when a light turns from yellow to red, the cross-street lights don't change to green immediately. Having the lights red in all directions for a few seconds gives time for the intersection to clear completely. The only cost is that portion of the city traffic engineer's salary earned while changing the timing.
I agree that if they would just pay attention to how the yellow lights work, they could reduce accidents without any expense. There should be at least 1 second for every 10 mph posted on the road and 1 extra second between red and green. It will give everyone time to see that traffic has stopped.
There is a light on the road I drive everyday that gives you 3 seconds to stop while driving 50 mph. If you drive a heavier truck it is undoable. People run it all the time.
Minnesota used to have the cameras, problem is the owner of the car got the ticket, not the driver. They couldn't prove who was driving so the courts were full of people fighting and winning, so they stopped using them.
Why should the owner skate on this? If he/she is irresponsible enough to loan their car to an irresponsible driver, their liability should extend to them. If that irresponsible driver is in an accident resulting in property damage and injuries, whose insurance covers that? It's the owner, and that's as it should be. When one of my kids earned the privilege of using the family car, they knew full well the rules and consequences.
Simply a money grab. If I am making a left turn or crossing an intersection at the instance when the light turns red I should not receive a ticket, a second or two delay is needed. There is not safety concern in that scenario because there is no way that the millisecond the light turns red that crossing traffic could get into the middle of the intersection to collide with me. Additionally most of the tickets that are written are for not coming to a full stop when making a permissible right on red.
Aren't you supposed to come to a complete stop before making a right hand turn on red? My driving instruction manual says you are.
@Enid - The code is that you need to come to a full stop but implicit is that you need to check for oncoming traffic prior to proceeding. If that situation is met then it is more fuel efficient to not come to that full stop and thus it become purely a matter of following the intent and not the letter of the code.
There are dozens of such situations that are pedantic nonsense that real cops never hand out tickets for but money grabbers will. If I follow any cop for one day I can document enough similar motor vehicle violations that would assure that they patrol on a bicycle when all the infractions are adjudicated. Does that make them bad drivers that deserve the tickets or bad cops for breaking those motor vehicle codes? I say neither but I will let you draw your own conclusions.
It's a lot more "fuel efficient" to run through red light and stop signs. /s
It's funny cause I always come to a complete stop when turning right at a red light. And guess what ? No fine and no accidents in more than 20 years. But if you want to save a few cents on gas rather than a few hundreds on fine then go ahead.
the driving manual also says you're supposed to keep your hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel (old form, now it's 4 and 8, I believe).
Do you follow that all the time?
"the driving manual also says you're supposed to keep your hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel (old form, now it's 4 and 8, I believe)."
The traffic code does say that you have to come to a complete stop before a right hand turn on red, but say nothing about hand position on the driving wheel. So your point is moot.
@Joe – If pedantic and getting an inch and taking a mile is your battle cry, there is no reasoning with your argument.
I recently got a red light ticket for making a right turn on red. I made a complete stop behind the pedestrian line, but couldn't see to the left past the car next to me in the left lane. I rolled forward a couple of feet, saw that there was no one coming, and made the turn.
The camera caught me as I did, and I was sent a notice for an $85 ticket. Took it to court and lost because the judge decided I couldn't prove that I'd made the original stop because there was no picture of it, just a picture of me moving through the intersection.
I don't make right turns on red anymore, stop or no stop. If you are behind me just stop honking. Same to you copper.
When I learned to drive, I was taught to stay just under the speed limit, not to follow too close, and NOT to run red lights. Yellow lights did not mean to speed up and get through it before it changees to red. These days there are more bad drivers than good. Everyone is in a hurry to get somewhere and appear not to cate about driving laws. I am all for the cameras to catch red light runners. I was hit by one. I am also for doing whatever it takes to catch speeders. It seems that whatever the speed limit sign says, there are more drivers who seem to think 5-10 miles OVER the limit is okay or that the signs don't apply to them. Comuting has become more like the Daytona races.
When was the last time you slowed down and enjoyed the scenery on a drive through the country? People drive so fast all they see is a concrete or asphalt blur. Tailgaiting is rampant! No wonder there are so many rear-end collisions. All drivers need to keep a safe distance between them and the car ahead, slow down and get where they are going safely. If it takes camers, computers, or anything else to make drivers obey the laws, I say use them. The police can't be everywhere.
If you drive properly, you won't be providing the revenue you are complaining about.
Everyone is taught the correct driving habits or they could not pass a driving test. All of that becomes irrelevent when the system for rational traffic control fails. Yellow light timing, green light timing for maximum traffic flow being the primary breakdown. THEN you concentrate on the few who will not conform. I have driven in camera heavy nations and this is what I find: The Nanny-State solution is always reducing speed limits until they actually impede traffic flow, red/green lights are timed to impede traffic flow rather than inhance them, success becomes measured by "revenue" rather than safety.
If all you are concerned with is "traffic flow", and your "inconvenience", then I would suggest you stay off the roads and the streets. Too many people have no concern over safety, and following posted speed limits, etc. And, from what I observe, many more than "just a few" do not see the need to drive safely....speeding and recklessness is one huge BAD habit. Just because you pass a driving test does not insure that you will drive in a safe and courteous manner.
In my city there are these cameras at various intersections. The problem is with the timing of the stop lights.
But an even bigger problem is when you try to make a left hand turn at an intersextion that does not have a turn arrow light, but there is heavy traffic. You are lucky if even one car is able to make the turn before the light changes. So the at lesat one or two cars are trapped making their turn when the light changes. This happens with right hand turns after stopping too.
Complaints to the city go unheeded. The city and the company make money and that is all that they care about and now another city near me wants to use the traffic camera to help them in investigations of criminal activities. They are saying that it would just be another tool in the box to help them solve crimes.
What about our right to privacy? What about having the ability to face our acuser in court? Where do we draw the line at becoming a survailance state with government watching your every move?
Sounds like metro Detroit drivers every single day. And they wonder why they have pileups in snowy weather lol
I live in Brazil now and thank them for installing these. It has cut down traffic jams and accidents by over 50%. I wish they would install them on all intersections here.
There are some disturbing issues brought up. First and foremost, if the goal is safety why does revenue raised keep entering the picture? Once a government becomes concentrated on revenue source that becomes its objective and that is wrong, every action of a government should be revenue neutral or it is overcharging and fleecing the citizen.
Next question is what is happening with that "revenue"? Is it used constructively in road mprovements, or going into general funds and wasted. A government will never give up a revenue source once it has put one in place it just finds another pet project to waste it on.
The article repeatedly pointed out yellow light timing as the most effective "safety" measure. When total number of accidents increase (braking suddenly) how is that an improvement? Back to revenue being the goal. Another tax when legal tax increasing measures have been rejected by the citizen base?
I hate the Nanny-State.
Are you going to stop running red lights if they send you a "please don't do it again" notice or if they fine you $200?
We have had red light cameras in Australia for over 20 years and they do reduce accidents which in turn reduces costs to the city for emergency workers and medical car and such so it is a win win for everyone imho.
We also have speed cameras.. I can't wait until they allow them in the US (I do live in the USA now) :)
If Australia was so great then why did you move to the US and why do you want it to be just like Australia.
And no I am not bashing Australia but this is not Australia this is the United States
Aussie
Scottsdale AZ has speeding and red light cameras. My husband (who drives like every other Ahole here in this state to fast to close and thinks a yellow light is actually pink) got a ticket for going over the posted limit. He was MAD!! I probably didn't help much when i asked what is the posted speed limit? he said he didn't know so I told him then pay the ticket and keep your foot out of the carburetor and look for the big black and white sign that says SPEED LIMIT, that should take care of it in the future.
I truly don't have a problem with the cameras. I do the speed limit,if you don't like it go around, I use my turn signals etc... I grew up driving on military bases so you haven't seen anything until you get a ticket on base.
Well if "braking suddenly" cause an accident then it's the fault of the idiot following too close. No one else.
You don't want the nanny state, then drive responsibly. A lot of drivers enter their car and instantly they start acting like 5 years old kids. And of course it's then the fault of the camera and short yellow light.
Jo is right on... on both accounts. Many folks think a yellow light means "speed up to make it through the intersection" and when the light changes before they clear it, the adjacent traffic gets the green light and accidents happen. The cameras are a definite deterrent to at fault accidents.
@LostInThePineBarrens |
I originally visited the US to meet with a women I have been in contact with for years and well it turned out we wanted to be together so we got married.
We are still in the US because her mother is elderly and unable to care for herself, so we take care of her.
We do have plans to move to Australia at some point though.
“The bottom line is that those who oppose cameras are the minority,” said Charles Territo, spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions. He added that American Traffic Solutions doesn’t issue tickets: a police officer reviews each image before issuing a violation. According to ATS, about 50 percent of traffic “events” each year are rejected before a violation is issued.
The above is definitely misleading as there is no data to back up the claim. This article does not bode well with your statistics.
A mayor saying sorry we aren't going to let you in must be in the minority.
Shortened yellow lights and companies that deploy these systems allowed to make money from the tickets is a crime in itself as it appears the article points out. As a ticket is for breaking the law and the money is suppose to go to the city or county not to a company selling camera equipment, then of course the lobbyists wining and dining the council to get approval should be considered what it really is a BRIBE.
The shortened yellows also opt in for a lawsuit if anyone was injured or rear ended due to the yellow lights being shortened along with loss of time for the job etc...due to going to court to answer a picture which maybe in sync or not. But then again its just a picture of a car and tag can't prove who was driving it. Or just place some reflective tape or cover over your tag and that will put these shady operations out of business.
The article states that 88% of the revenue went to the company that placed the camera's.
"Redflex’s contract with Cary, for instance, allowed the company to keep 88 percent of the money generated by red-light camera tickets in Cary."
You also lose your right to question your accuser, just saying...
I also am not arguing for or against, if it makes people slow down great and no one gets hurt. But a private company making profit from a system that is designed by them to uphold the laws of the state that is sworn to the officers who can make judgement calls, instead of here is a picture of your vehicle pay us.
I opt for the officer any day of the week. Then there is also the fact that the lobbying or bribing even if you don't view it that way, I do, of the council to sway the vote for contracts of something that appears to have plenty of potential for corruption. I would prefer a law officer any day. Are there bad cops, there are bad people in any job, but the majority of the time your going to run into a decent person sworn to uphold the laws of the country who shows common sense and wisdom when making a decision on the spot, especially if they witness the entire event.
But I do appreciate the comments and discussion of the issue at hand.
That I believe lol...
Cheers
Was going to work one day in the right lane when I went through a light. As I started through a person made a right turn on their red into the lane I was in. I hit my brakes and the camera fired showing me in the cented of the road, you could even see the Ahole that caused it in front of me but I still got a ticket. Cop may look them over but that doesn't mean he's right or know what caused it.
I say ban them all.
It isn't just red light camera's it's more a matter of where it ends. Speed camera's are increasing in numbers and in many places placed in locations where speeds are deliberately unreasonably low. I've read of cases where almost every car passing is speeding. As the article notes they're now placing them to catch anyone passing a bus with the warning arm out and I don't oppose that but am afraid there's no end.
Mike you know it doesn't matter how careful you are sometimes the idiots get through. But as long as you drive the way you are supposed to then at least you have that feeling I did all I could. If everyone in the world were responsible adults (roflmao) we wouldn't have any problems. but we have those few that are going to beazzholes and speed because they are in a hurry instead of planning properly to arrive in safety or take that chance of getting a ticket. the same idiots that when you are riding down the interstate at 3-5 miles an hour over speed limit run up behind you and stay on your bumper because someone else in other lane (those people on your bumper like that should be hung) Speeding is illegal even 3-5 but when you have people running at 10-20 over limit those are idiots that get people killed
How many more rear end collisions from cars slamming on the brakes at red lights to avoid a ticket ? ? ?
Wonder how many were due to a shortened yellow light?
And how many T-bone accidents avoided by it? (T-bone accidents, by the by, are usually much more dangerous and damaging to both parties). If people are getting into accidents because they can't follow the law at the speeds they are going and the distances they are placing between themselves and the rest of traffic, then we should be arguing for them to amend their driving habits to be safer, not argue that people should be allowed to break the law because they are driving so recklessly that they cause accidents when other people follow the law.
How many were due to following to close? If you'd like to see the main cause of rear end collisions, come to Sarasota, Florida. Just sit on a bench by any intersection in the city and watch the tailgaters playing bumper cars because of following too close - it could become Americas next reality show.
You should be able to slam on the brake for any reason (kid, cat...whatever) and not be rear ended by some idiot following too close or not paying attention.
If it happen then it's the fault of the one following you, and no one else.
drive defensively and dont worry about that guy behind you SLOW DOWN APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION
The mayor here in Columbus OH said the cameras reduced right angle crashes by 79%,an unbelievable figure..And they can't put them up fast enough .I believe the revenue to the city after Redflex's cut was over 2 million annually.
Every driver who gets one of these tickets needs to fight them in court. All profit will be eaten up by court costs and the cameras will go. I got a ticket for a right hand turn when I had stopped twice before proceeding. Very evident in viewing the video. Went to court and it was dismissed before I said a word! The companies who run the cameras issue tickets to non-violators and hope no one objects! Fight these in court every time. Also, I got rear ended because of one of these cameras. I stopped and the fellow behind me did not! Luckily neither party was injured or my city would be in a large lawsuit.
While I support your call to fight tickets in court when you know you are in the right, I can't agree with your last statement. If someone rear ends you when you stop at a red light, it is not the city's fault the accident happened just because they own the light and camera that made you stop. It's also not your fault that you stopped as you are legally required to out of fear of getting a ticker. The person legally responsible would be the driver who rear ended you because they failed to stop at a legally recognized and protected stop which any reasonable driver is expected under the law to be able to do.
Excellent points Donna. I was amazed to find that the yellow timing had been tampered with by the same company making a profit from the device, in the name of safety. The motive is profit; shorter yellows AND an abrupt unexpected yellow timing change, to most drivers, should make conditions less safe.
I was always taught that a yellow light meant ‘clear the intersection.’ If your car was in the intersection making a left turn as the light turned red, but you turned immediately as traffic cleared, you were considered to have ‘cleared the intersection’ in a safe and lawful way. I don’t see the problem with that engineering.
Of course, the timing of the yellow light must be “engineered” and not arbitrarily set by some civic amateur. It’s funny how common sense seems to be lost when logic is not set down in statute. If the yellow light means ‘clear the intersection’, and the timing of those lights is set long enough to make that safely possible (or simply possible), I personally have no problem with the red-light-cameras.
Oh, one more thought that has always bothered me. If our road systems support Interstate Commerce, wouldn’t it make sense to have a set of national standards for traffic engineers that are reliably abided by. I live in Indiana, but I often drive in states like Michigan and New Jersey that have their own peculiar set of traffic rules and signage. Shouldn’t we all be playing to the same set of rules? I’m reminded of increasingly popular addition to traffic engineering, the round-about; was there ever public instruction on how to use such a traffic structure?
I cut and pasted this comment that went along with a youtube video that shows a deliberate trap.
If you legally entered the intersection, you may legally leave the intersection. Pull into the middle of the intersection on green (left hand turn); once the light turns red, and traffic is clear, complete the turn.
Your solution is to block the intersection until the light changes? I don't know where you live, but in many parts of the country (like the NY metro area, where I used to live) doing something like that would get you killed.
Has anyone studied if accidents would be decreased if the red light going both north/south and east/west were red for one second? THEY talk about adding one second to the timer for yellow lights and that makes sense, but what if we had that light turn red and not have the light for the other direction turn red immediately? What if there was a one second delay on the red light turning green?
Nice simple solution to an ongoing problem. I like it. Then the city or counties would not have to pay an exorbitant amount of money out to pay for what appears to be a flawed system in my opinion.
Thus lowering the tax bill of the citizens. Kudos
Especially in these times....
Inside the traffic boxes are disks that control the traffic lights and trip it's actions sort of like an automatic piano player turns or a music box. It's not possible what you are suggesting. It cannot work that way.
Your saying they could not make a 4 way light turn red on all sections? I believe it is very possible to do that and for a lot less cost then that has been paid for of the cameras and their systems.
Just an opinion, not a traffic expert but I do know my way around a computer some....
Jerry - I'm a retired cop. Most cops carry the keys on their patrol car key chains to get into the traffic boxes. We are all trained to put the intersection on "flash" whenever the lights are messing up. Then, call out the repairmen. I know how they work. And, no,,,, you can't hack into it and make it go bizerk. lol,,, It's not that sophisticated. It's all screws, disks, and timed sequences like a swiss watch.
There are traffic lights in my state that do just that, The traffic light turns red for a second before the light turns green for the intersecting traffic, There are even delayed green lights for opposing traffic lanes to accommodate left turn signals. While it may be true that where you live the older outdated traffic signal control boxes may still be in use there are newer updated versions that can be adjusted to control traffic without having a light turn green and a light turn red simultaneously at an intersection.
I have worked on traffic signals for many years. Nearly all intersections have an all red display for a minimum of 1 sec some have upwards of 2 sec. Yellow light timings go off of a formula involving posted speed limit and sight distance. These typically are around 3-5 seconds. In FL traffic engineers are usually adding time for problematic intersections. For the most part nearly all of the US goes off of the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) and or the IMSA (International Municipal Signal Association) guidlines. Adding too much yellow time can affect daily commuters and the flow of normal traffic and should not be abused, too much yellow time means cars would speed up knowing that the yellow time is extended at an intersection creating a dangerous situation.
That's the way it work where I live. After the yellow turn red there is a short delay before the green come in the other direction.
So obviously it can work that way Perry.
Well, where there are cameras, that means off-duty cops can't run red lights anymore. On duty cops will have more time to hang around the coffee shops though. So, there's always good and bad in all things. I remember them in Germany in 1971. Wife got caught, and since I was the owner of the vehicle, I had to pay. You don't have to be the driver, just the owner of the vehicle, and you pay. Think about that. You are being fined for something you did not do and they are telling you that anything someone does who drives your car is going to be your responsibility. Forget about pleading 'not guilty.' That isn't ever going to happen, because, it might set a precedent. Instead of generating revenue, cities need to use more cameras to prevent crime. But, instead of that, they want to generate revenue so they don't have to pay policemen.
They need to extend the time on the yellow light so you do not get rear ended
and do away with the cameras. The speed limit will change and before you have
achance to slow down some fool is on a bridge taking your picture and you are in a
strange town or the light will go from green to red and you are in the intersecton to
mae a left turn and they got a picture you get the ticket and not a chance to
say anything.where are my rights?
By now a business should have sprouted up wherein the individual ticketed would send in (say) $10 to have their ticket reviewed. This would save the ticketed from taking a half day off work. It will give the ticketed a third party to fight for his right against these red light camera companies that apparently are taking advantage of some of us. The cities should force the red light company to reimburse all involved plus make it pay a penalty.
Not too sure about paying someone to review something in question.
But making the camera company pay heavily to both the city/county and to the individuals involved if the system pushes out tickets that are false would be a great place to start a contract people may have faith in.
The do have private businesses that offer legal services (including reviewing the ticket filed against you) for a fee . . . they are called attorneys. There are entire law firms devoted to contesting traffic tickets . . . .
As for charging the company, you can sue for that, but in order to collect you (generally) have to prove either malice or willfull negligence on their part. The occasional, completely accidental, and non-malicious misfiling with no clear negligence is not something the courts would generally try to impose fines for.
Not that it will make a difference I will add my input. Currently I live in Michigan where there are no traffic enforcement cameras. I am in favor of these devices and here is why. Leaving work at a previous job the first intersection I encountered there is a traffic light where I had to turn left. There is no left turn light there. It was very common that I had to wait through multiple light cycles before I could turn. One day I started to make my turn after the light changed red. I was out in the intersection and had to turn. I even let one car speed through the red light before I started to make my turn. Another car drove through a blatant red light. We both had to swerve or there would have been an accident. When I lived in Fort Collins, CO they do use cameras at problem intersections, and mobile cameras in school zones. I was caught going 7 mph over the limit in a school zone. But guess what? In CO traffic tickets must be presented by an officer, officer of the court, or certified mail. When I received the ticket in the regular mail I threw it away. No harm, no foul. I never saw anything else about it. Maybe if all states had such laws there would be such a fuss. People became aware of these camera and started slowing down and stopping at red lights. My ex had the mind set that if the light was turning yellow, yet there was ample time to stop before the light turned red, she would speed up to get through. we had many fights about this and she would yell at me if I didn't do the same. It got to the point that I told her if we had a child she would not drive that child anywhere. She acted reckless. People, stop your damn whining and stop for those lights. Don't want to pay a ticket, stop for the light. You might save a life!
AMEN!! The driving laws were written for a reason, to keep us from killing ourselves or someone else. Slow down, don't speed, don't tailgait and don't run red (or yellow) ilghts.
StevenB-1414634
Just wait until you get rear ended by someone because you tried to make a sudden stop at a improperly timed yellow light, while trying to avoid a ticket. How about trying to make a sudden stop on a yellow to avoid that ticket during icy road conditions. You could slide thru the light, loose control and hit a pole, building, pedestrian etc...all because you slid while trying to stop at that yellow. I too live in Michigan and I had a similar situation happen except I went thru the yellow while a traffic cop was sitting there as he does every morning. Of course he pulled me over but no ticket because he was able to use discretion which a camera can't. P.S. I wasn't speeding either. In fact I was going slower than normal because of the bad weather.
Well you're supposed to keep a safe distance, that should take care of rear ending. And you're supposed to adjust your speed to account for road conditions, that should take care of the icy road condition.
What ? Don't you know how to drive ?
Steven
LOL my husband did the same thing. I finally grew tired of "nagging" him and told him flat out "if you run a yellow and we get hit you better hope it kills me, cause if it don't I WILL get better and make you wish you had stopped, and if you run one and you get hit and the kids are in the car, YOU BETTER just get out and step in front of a semi, it will be much less painful than what i will do to you."
He got into an accident one time when I got there as i was walking over I heard him tell the police officer. "ut oh here's my wife, don't leave." Turned out it was not his fault, the other guy ran a red and hit him.
Sometimes i feel sorry for my husband ;-)
I had a similar problem with an ex. She would get mad at me when I would start slowing down at an intersection either in anticipation of the light turning yellow then red and especially if it was yellow. She claimed I had the “Right Of Way. Maybe so but I wanted to make sure the other drivers were aware of that. That action saved me from being involved in numerous accidents over the years. I cannot say the same for her.
I think they call it “Defensive Driving”
OHHH PISH POSH,,,,my GOSH,,,Big Brother Barry,,and the GODFATHER,,and the rest of the Democrats,,will provide you a warm,,safe blanket,,,and have you live in fear of big brother...you people are two steps late,,,RED LIGHT CAMERAS? Yesterday the FAA approved the use of Drones over all of us....for peaceful purposes of course. Even the FAA said " AT this time there are no permit to allow armed drones in US cities" Does anybody see a key word in that sentence? Meanwhile Last Weds O'barry, and the DOJ says he has the right to KILL,,,KILL,,,Americans without any form of trial or due process....Anybody got a beef with drones over your head? And Barry with the sole power to execute? WTH is wrong with you people...stand up you sheep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please cite your source on this BS.
It was all over the news! Google it yourself ya lazy ass!
Yes, after being elected by over 50% of the population, he is now free.... FREE... to complete his master's work of murdering each and every civilian! Oh, you silly sheep, oh how you know not what you have done! The Final Plan is in its final stages......
Perhaps now would be a good time for all of you to take that morning walk.... in a very open and secluded part of your neighbourhood, if you don't mind.....
/sarcasm
EXBOSTON
I read that in Army Times this morning.
I loved the "we currently do not have armed drones over any U.S. cities."
About ten years ago, my boss, a lawyer in Tampa, went to a seminar in Orlando and could prove he had been in Orlando all day that day. Well, wouldn't you know it, he got a traffic ticket from St. Pete on the same day he was in Orlando. How in the world did that happen to someone who was nowhere near St. Pete that day? Needless to say, he was pretty ticked off and fought it, but how could that happen in the first place?
Probably because his boyfriend near St. Pete was driving his car that day. The ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle. Not the driver. Since running a red light is technically a misdemeanor and but requires nothing more than prima facia evidence, the requirements of "wllingly and knowingly committing a crime" is a totally moot point when the courts have upheld you are responsible for other drivers in some states. Not all of course. But, in Florida, it may be your teenage son runs a red light, then, you pay. Get over it.
Umm get over it. hahahaha not likely. That's exactly the point, your the owner of the vehicle so get over it. That is how you would respond if it were you?
I guess nothing but sheep live in Florida, but I guess there is a bright side to it. As you stated not all states are that way.
And JerseyKat lets hope he didn't pay a thing.
Jerry - look at the bright side. All those 'snowbirds' Canadians down there won't be running red lights and causing mayhem because they were watching out for moose or whatever it is Candadians do while their mind draws a blank and we can mail them a ticket to Canuckistan and get more of their money :))
I have to laugh when I see these "It Was Not Me" claims. I don’t know about others but in the years I have owned a vehicle it has been extremely rare and I mean extremely rare that anyone other than me has been allowed to drive my vehicle.
But how many times do you see one person after another saying “It was not me driving the vehicle, but never do they tell who was actually driving the vehicle.”
If someone else was driving your vehicle when the incident occurred the solution is simple. Take them to court with you and have them take responsibility.
If you don't know who is using your vehicle then you deserve the ticket they get.
I got a ticket when I wasn't even in the state! The dumb cop wrote the wrong license plate down! I had to show my plate. And I had my car all day long! After 6 weeks of bullcrap and red tape, I finally got the ticket dismissed.
Also, just because a cop issues the ticket, doesn't mean it's right. I also got a ticket for not stopping at a stop sign. Not true. I stopped, looked (as I was counting to 3) and saw 3 cop cars parked on the street just pulling people over. I wanted to fight it, but in NJ, it's not worth it. If you fight a ticket, the judge can and will change the fine to whatever he wants. It was easier to pay the $85 and take the 2 points. I could have ended up with $300 and 4 pts. You can't fight against crooked cops.
Our 19 & 20 year olds drive our vehicles,our philosophy is simple. you wreck it you pay for it. I am the one that taught them how to drive, my husband seems to wreck everything he gets in so they requested that I teach them. I started driving at 17, I am 46- i have never been in an accident, never got a ticket (i probably just jinxed myself) my first car was a 77 camaro, I grew up driving on military bases so I had to follow the rules, no questions. (my dumb sister found out if the posted limit on base is 25 do 25 NOT 27.)
And before anyone says anything I WORKED MY BUTT OFF TO GET THAT CAR cost me 1,600 bucks. the kids dad sold it because he got to many speeding tickets. His loss my gain.
Governments do things because of statistics. Take for example, if an intersection without any traffic control has lots of accidents, then, the state (is this way in Misouri for example), will not put a traffic light at that intersection until there are a minimum of five traffic deaths. Once there are five deaths, then, a work order can be written. Think about that, because, that's the real deal. They contribute that as their concern for our safety ?? They know X number of deaths will occur because of budget concerns. The first five deaths supply the statistics neccesary to take action. Without that, there will be no light. But, if they can make money by putting in a light, then,,,,, wooohoooo,,,it's on.
While the topic is red light cameras, which proves we have the technology for the future to better control traffic movement, and safety,let's include the feature of the cameras controlling when the d... lights timing is. Keep the cars moving! Safely! Think of the barrels of oil that can be saved! Hate it when I come to a light and nothing is moving in any direction because of the timing set on the lights. Let the cameras change the lights automatically to keep the traffic moving! We'll see it someday, let's get started now!
myreview, cameras already have and use that technology, the lights you are dealing with must be older.
I can understand that. Here, many light cycles seem to be determined by the time of day. I leave for work at about 5:15 AM, and there's a traffic-actuated light that begins to cycle for my direction as I approach the intersection.
However, at the same intersection at 6:00 PM I wait for a minimum of 90 seconds, even if there are no cars coming, before it changes for me.
Just as people who speed are always speeding, so with people who run red lights. And while I sit at some lights waiting to make sure people are going to stop before I make a left turn, I am treated to horn honking from the clown behind me who can't see that there is another clown about to run the changing light (and who had planned on doing so, judging from where he was when the light turned yellow). I am against cameras for some of the reasons others have cited, but I would sure like to see tougher penalties. When my kids were learning to drive, I would tell them to glace at the eyes of the driver of an oncoming vehicle. If they were looking straight ahead on a yellow or red, they were not stopping. With all of today's window tinting, you can't even do this anymore.