Posted on 04/09/2009 11:23:46 AM PDT by Ken H
New York state legislature approves massive expansion in red light cameras.
As budget deficits continue to soar at all levels of New York government, the state legislature on Tuesday approved a package of bills to provide relief through the use of red light cameras. The package of six bills extends new authority to use red light cameras to Buffalo, Nassau County, Rochester, Suffolk County and Yonkers. The legislature also gave the nod to New York City's long-held desire to increase by half the number of automated ticketing machines already installed.
Each project is called a "demonstration program" that will produce detailed reports on an annual basis until the program expiration date of 2014. New York City began its demonstration project in 1994 and has never yet produced this report as required by law. Moreover, the city conceals the locations of cameras and allows no independent study of the effects on traffic safety.
The proposed expansions were approved in the state Assembly by a margin of around 100 to 35 and were adopted by the State Senate by a margin of about 54-8.
The bills' passage was made possible when state Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman David Gantt (D-Rochester) converted from camera opponent to promoter of red light cameras. This conversion happened last year after Sensys Traffic, a Swedish company interested in breaking into the US traffic camera market through the Albany firm CMA Consulting Services, paid $80,000 to Gantt's former legislative counsel, Robert Scott Gaddy.
The Buffalo News exposed the link after noticing that Gantt introduced legislation specifically designed to force local jurisdictions to use the technology offered by the client of his former employee.
Although Gantt's legislation is now technology-neutral, it opens the door for Sensys to bid for the lucrative red light camera contracts throughout the state. After procedural approval in the state Assembly, the bills will become law with the signature of Governor David Paterson (D), an enthusiastic supporter of photo ticketing.
Independent studies of the use of red light cameras show that the devices tend to create an increase in the total number of injuries and accidents (view studies). On the other hand, New York City has cleared more than $75 million in net profit on its program. The text of the New York City and Rochester bills is available in a 100k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Red Light Camera Legislation (New York State Legislature, 4/7/2009)
Ha! Those cameras are such losers. Many burbs of metro-Atlanta rushed to get them and when the state called for 1 second more on the yellow, revenue came to a crashing halt.
>>>NYC should ticket the jay walkers Ooops... better not give them any more ideas to tax. George Harrison was a prophet.... TAXMAN!<<<
Actually, Rudy tried to crackdown on jay walkers, about 10 years ago. It didn’t go over too well, so he backed off.
Speaking of NYC and cameras, I notice more and more “NYPD Police Camera” signs on light poles in Manhattan.
Actually, a parking ticket isn't the car owner's responsibility. It's not like they arrest you. But not paying a parking ticket can lead to being unable to re-register the vehicle and/or having it impounded. Not paying a speeding ticket however, will result in a bench warrant for your arrest. But perhaps the camera speeding tickets will be like parking ticket rules.
Remove New York as a place to visit.
Hah, changes his mind after an $80K kickback. But it’s fine, he’s a Democrat. Move along, nothing to see here.
The ticket goes to the vehicle.
It is not booked as a moving violation on the driver for just that reason.
Not in NY. Running a red light is a moving violation. The ticket is issued to the driver not the owner of the car, whereas a parking ticket is issued to the owner of the car, not the driver.
Or until the legislators who voted for them disappear
If you are correct, then someone ought to challenge the law under the equal protection clause. Why? Because the exact same act is treated differently depending upon whether the driver is caught by a human eye or a camera eye. If a LEO witnesses the car going through the red light, then the driver goes through the criminal court system and a conviction results in points on the driver's licence, a hefty fine and surcharge, and the possibility of jail time. The driver, however, enjoys due process, the presumption of innocence, the right to confront his or accuser in a criminal proceeding, the requirment that the people prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If a camera records the exact same conduct, however, the process is completely different.
Hey, make smoking in cars illegal and then those cameras can be real revenue raisers!
What self-respecting citizen would want to live as a subject in this virtual Nanny/Police State?
How many of these things have to be burned before the Gub mint gets the message.?
I thought they were about to run out of money.
Dalton, Ga just removed the two we had installed.
A win for the good guys!
I think the answer is when they no longer collect enogh revenue and actually have to pay for the system. It's certainly not about safety. Just revenue collection.
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.