Posted on 02/23/2008 4:44:15 PM PST by ChildOfThe60s
BRADENTON In Florida, the law on red light cameras puts cities and police departments in an odd position.
They can install the cameras, photograph cars that go through a red light and send the driver a warning. What the law does not allow, however, is sending the driver a traffic ticket.
But some cities and counties have found a way around that.
Across Florida, local officials are using the cameras and a loophole in the law to issue "civil violations" instead of moving violations to fine drivers for running red lights. It is the same method governments use to go after someone who leaves a junked car in the front yard or lets their grass grow too high.
The city of Bradenton is poised to become next to use the loophole to start collecting fines.
City officials will proposed an ordinance that would bring the cameras here and charge drivers $125 every time they are caught running a red light.
Police officials pushing the proposal insist that they are "only at the beginning stages" and have not hired contractors to install the cameras, which cost between $50,000 and $100,000 apiece, nor have they decided where to put them.
But the idea to use civil infractions instead of traffic tickets -- a $188 fine that could subtract points from someone's license -- is picking up steam.
Two Florida cities, Gulf Breeze and Apopka, already have the program, while officials in Orlando and in Hillsborough County are considering it.
And two state legislators from this region, Rep. Ron Reagan and Sen. Mike Bennett, have pushed for changes in the law for many years. The lawmakers, both Republicans, hope to pass the "Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act," named for a Manatee County man killed by a red light runner in 2003.
Last year, though, similar bills stalled and critics have called the cameras an invasion of privacy.
But police officials say the cameras work and that data show that motorists tend to pay better attention when they know someone is watching.
"It's not a privacy issue," said Maj. William Tokajer of the Bradenton police department. "It's a safety issue."
Red light cameras are in place at a few intersections in Manatee and Sarasota counties under the state pilot program to gather data but not to issue tickets.
The Panhandle city of Gulf Breeze has just four stop lights. Nearly all of the accidents happen at the busiest intersection, on U.S. 98 near the high school, so city leaders mounted a camera on the light in 2006.
They quickly got calls from transportation officials, who forced them to move the camera out of a state right of way. When the police chief told a local newspaper that the cameras were effective, the Department of Transportation made the police chief turn over records to make sure his story was accurate.
Once they realized that the state was not going to authorize the use of cameras to send out traffic tickets, Gulf Breeze officials considered the civil violations.
City Manager Ed Eddy says the state attorney general, who previously ruled against the cameras, has not weighed in yet.
"We didn't really ask," says Ed Eddy, the city manager in Gulf Breeze.
But crashes are down nearly 20 percent citywide since the camera was installed, says Chief Peter Paulding.
This week Paulding testified before a committee considering the "Wandall Act," and he says the camera has been an unquestionable success.
About 300 cities in the United States already use the cameras, and law enforcement officials such as Paulding say the system is overdue in Florida.
"We've had about 3,000 people take a $100 violation," he said, "but I don't think anyone has ever gotten a second one. Once they get that fine, I think they learn their lesson."
If the local governments really gave a damn about safety as regards running red lights, they'd have $500 fines and cops at the intersections. The fines alone would pay the expense of hiring the personnel. It's like taxing cigs and alcohol. If the goal was to stop it, they'd quit nickeling and diming you and go for the jugular.
I don’t quite have my mind made up, one way of the other. On the one hand, it’s one more way for gov to get in our faces; on the other, it really IS a safety issue.
Folks who run red lights can, and do, cause some serious wrecks.
Will it actually help, though? Or is it just another money-making scam?
In general, I oppose public cameras.
Seems people slam on the brakes...
I have yet to get confirmation on this, but I’m certain it’s a reality. There has to be an exempt from enforcement database with these systems. Politicians, cops, city council members, mayors, and family members have gotta be outside the camera systems. Getting access to that or confirmation would put this cameras nonsense to a close.
In Knoxville, TN the cameras brought in $2.5 million and the city got 37%. Buy stock in the owner/installers of the cameras for a good retirement income.
You can modify the definition of accidents. By massaging parameters like injury thresholds, financial damage to vehicles, deaths, failure to yield collisions, collisions when turning accross traffic, etc..... To construct whatever you want to claim as fact.
I have made up my mind, on the basis that I am responsible for making sure the intersection is clear regardless of a green or red light. I am willing to take on that mantle of responsibility. That, and I choose to buckle my seat belt. I teach my children the same things. I am not willing to give up my responsibility to protect myself in exchange for further empowering gubment to “help me”. The gubment can go help somebody else thank you very much, just leave me and mine alone.
Red light running is beyond stupid and dangerous. There is no question of that.
The question becomes, what is the best way to put a dent in the frequency. R-L cameras aren’t the way. Ipso facto, the reason politicians are are in favor of them is the income.
Look, local and state governments simply do not have the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes to rein in R-L running. Too many people would complain too much and too loudly. So they do this. It helps (maybe a little), brings in nice, effortless revenue to the city. And, it allows the politicos to sing loudly that they are firmly and bravely doing the right thing.
The cities and gov’t have found a way to keep money rolling in without a tax... This will be here until and if the public gets a belly full and votes the current crop of do gooders out of office with a slate that is committed to ending the charade.
Here are a couple of articles from yesterday with a bit of info from each....
The most critical programs for state and municipal governments in tough economic times, Blodgett argued, were those that transfer money from taxpayers to the government. He suggested that once a city tries red light cameras, it will never go back.
“The government services that we provide are either funded as part of entitlement programs, or they help generate revenue,” Blodgett said. “I mean, a red light camera system for a city generates a lot of revenue and so they’re not going to cut back on those type of areas in an economically challenged time.”
Next time you’re driving in Houston, be aware that the city has shortened the length on many of its yellow traffic lights — which means that you’re much more likely to get caught by a red-light camera.
Houston’s busiest intersection, the intersection of North Freeway feeder and West Road, generates 1,000 tickets a month with just 3.6 seconds of yellow, according to an investigation by Houston’s KPRC-TV. But according to TxDOT standards, the 45 mph intersection should get about 5 seconds of yellow.
Does that make a difference? A Texas Transportation Institute study says one less second of yellow from the recommended minimum will cause a 110 percent jump in the number of tickets. Voila! Houston might as well be printing money — it rakes in about $2 million every month from red-light runners caught on camera.
But ADDING one second to a yellow, according to the same Texas study, a city could reduce rear-end collisions by 40%. So do you think shortened yellow lights are to make intersections safer ... or to generate cash for the municipality?
A win-win.
Oh, that's diabolically clever.
Fair is fair.
General rule of thumb: Any act named for someone is likely to be bad law.
It's being sold on emotion, not reason.
We're an Oprah Nation today.
80% of the people in my driving school class were in for either speed camera or a red light camera. Many of them had convincing stories, but didn’t know how to fight them, so took the class. One old lady had just gotten out of the hospital and was taking the class. She somehow thought if she didn’t that she would end up in jail.
Once upon a time, people here (Redmond WA) stopped rather than run a red light. Today I see up to 5 cars enter an intersection AFTER their light turned red.
The police? Nowhere to be seen, for all there's easy money to be made handing out tickets.
What gives?
The one issue on the red light cameras.... you know how some people will think they are going to make it are caught by the red light, then are sticking out a little? I saw this happen and, even though stopped, I could see that light flashing because the camera had been triggered.
Don't worry. After they're done "helping" somebody else they'll be back to help you.
When the government went to help ------, I said nothing because I wasn't a ------...
Sadly, I agree with you 100%.
It was nice while it lasted... but I don't plan on retiring here.
Wheras the rifle shells to take them out cost only pennies.
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.