Posted on 09/21/2006 2:41:54 PM PDT by weegee
Sept. 21, 2006, 12:57AM
Red-light cameras allow lucky turns
About 300 citations are thrown out because of a loophole in the ordinance
Hundreds of drivers who ran red lights while making turns at intersections newly monitored by cameras have not been issued tickets because of a loophole in the photo-enforcement ordinance.
"The way the current city ordinance is written, turns are excluded, even if they are illegal turns," said Houston police Sgt. Michael Muench.
Traffic officers reviewed more than 1,000 violations caught on camera during the first two weeks of the program, the police department reported. A third were thrown out, many because the driver was making a right or left turn while running the light, Muench said.
Muench was unable to provide data on exactly how many violations were thrown out because the vehicle turned. Officials said officials would review the statistics before deciding whether to press for a change in the ordinance.
Councilman Adrian Garcia, chairman of the public safety committee that vetted the ordinance before approving it in late 2004, said he and his colleagues did not intend to exempt turning violators from the $75 civil citation.
The sticky part of the ordinance reads: "The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for a civil penalty of $75 if the motor vehicle proceeds into a system location without turning when the traffic control signal for that motor vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red signal."
City Attorney Arturo Michel said the language was included to avoid ticketing vehicles that entered intersections legally but were caught there when the light turned red.
Councilwoman Pam Holm said the panel should consider amending the ordinance, and a spokesman for Mayor Bill White agreed that may be an option. "As with any new ordinance, we would always look for ways to make improvements, particularly if it involves public safety," spokesman Frank Michel said.
Violators who have avoided tickets because of the loophole were turning right on red or left on red at intersections of one-way streets, said Muench, who reviews all of the dismissed violations.
Police Chief Harold Hurtt today is expected to release more detailed statistics on the camera-enforcement program, which went into effect Sept. 1.
The cameras photograph vehicles that run red lights at 10 intersections throughout the city. The city plans to install them at 40 more sites where many crashes occur.
The system takes two still photographs and a video recording of the car's back license plate, not the driver, so the owner of the vehicle is fined.
The system is not triggered by vehicles that make a full stop before turning right on red, said Jim Tuton, CEO of American Traffic Solutions Inc., the Phoenix-based company in charge of the project.
It does, however, snap photos of cars that roll through while the light is red, he said.
A total of 1,729 incidents were caught, police reported. After ATS reviewed the images and removed the unclear ones, the company sent 1,040 violations to Houston police.
Though many of the dismissed violations were thrown out because of the turn technicality, some were dismissed for other reasons, Muench said.
"We try to err in favor of the driver, so if it's a question whatsoever, we just don't issue it," he said.
No talk of making a change to provide protected left turns at these intersections to prevent "stranding" drivers in the intersection without an opportunity to make a turn.
Violators who have avoided tickets because of the loophole were turning right on red or left on red at intersections of one-way streets, said Muench, who reviews all of the dismissed violations.
If you are making a LEFT TURN on red from a one way street to a one way street, you are NOT making an illegal turn. The police need to realize this (they don't understand it yet and I refuse to argue the issue with police downtown anymore and don't make left on red turns since I'd be wasting my breath on idiots, including judges, working for the city).
Houston PING
"The city plans to install them at 40 more sites where many crashes occur."
After they work the kinks out of the system with these 10 cameras (determining manpower to review tapes, defend the ticketing in court, maintain the cameras...).
Wonder what they'll do to prevent crashes where people are getting rear ended by drivers that intended to run...
This is what worries me. I now avoid streets without a protected left for fear of some violation.
I also do not turn left on red on one-ways downtown. Even if I could beat it in court, it's not worth the hassle of going downtown to do it.
I don't see how that's the fault of the city.
I'll step you through it.
The city puts up red-light cameras.
Drivers start to stop at yellows because they don't want the ticket.
Drivers following those drivers rear-end them, because under normal circumstances people go through yellows.
Were it not for the cameras, yellows would be okay to run and no rear-ending.
Make sense?
There are already national statistics by the government that shows this result from red light cameras. They can't claim ignorance of the trend.
I'm not running lights but I did almost get creamed last week and there were even open lanes for the driver behind me to change lanes.
Why on earth would it be their responsibility for idiot drivers?
I see your point, though.
Ok, make it a $5,000 fine (or your drivers license if you can't pay) if you rear end someone within 500 ft of an intersection.
Good start?
According to the U.S. Constitution, people are entitled to confront their accusor. How does that work with a machine?
Right, it doesn't work... some one needs to take this issue to the SCOTUS as a test to see where the chips fall. And no, don't give me that civil vs criminal penalty justification... its all b.s.
So, you are saying that because drivers are stupid, allow the original problem to continue?
That does not make sense....??
Sounds to me like some drivers need "additional drivers training."
People have been driving safely through yellow lights since I started driving, which was around 1985. I can't answer for what happened before then.
It is a proven fact that intersections do NOT get safer when red-light cameras are installed.
Given that, why would a city install them?
An interesting aside: in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Michigan and B.C., you can turn left on red from a two-way to a one-way street.
"Even if I could beat it in court, it's not worth the hassle of going downtown to do it."
And that's why they issue citations for taking a legal left hand turn.
I have a problem with this.
You mean besides the automatic $$ maker, right?
I would say safety is a huge concern.
There are many intersections in this town that remind me of the "Running of the Bulls" thing you see in Spain - it's a free-for-all.
They got over running a yellow light a long time ago. Running a red light is now common. No kidding, you have the right-of-way, your light is green but you can't go because of the stream of on coming cars - all running a red light.
If I was Pres for a Day, I'd install those instant pop-up, industrial strentgh barrriers. As soon as the light turns red - bam, all you see is steel. And if you were speeding up to run the red light, well that is just too darn bad......
Not sure how the automatic debris removal system would work...working on it.
But that is just me...:-)
There have been studies that show a reduction in broadside collisions by 12-15%. These studies show an INCREASE in nose/tail collisions by 8-11%. Hmmm looks like the statistical averages show no overall improvement, other than revenue generation to the local law enforcement!
I know just what you mean. It's the same around here. We also have the following problem: You are stopped at a red light with the intention of heading straight through the intersection. The car opposite you is turning left. When the light turns green the car opposite you guns it through the intersection cutting you off. It is now Standard Operating Procedure to wait for awhile when the light turns green.
My goal would be neither accident reduction nor revenue generation. Simply punish people who break the law.
What about punishing law breakers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.