Posted on 12/10/2004 6:37:24 AM PST by Redbob
Red-light runners beware: Cameras soon will be watching in Denton.
The City Council this week approved a new ordinance for the installation of cameras on some streets to photograph cars that run red lights. The measure, similar to ones in Garland, Frisco, Richardson and Plano, aims to prevent accidents.
City officials will search for a vendor early next year to install and operate the system, and cameras will be placed at yet-to-be-chosen intersections by the end of 2005.
Violators will be mailed $75 tickets. For people with three or more violations, the ticket is $150.
"Hopefully the cameras will cut down on the number of people going through red lights, and cut down on the accidents we’ve had," said City Council member Jack Thomson.
Advocates for camera-based red-light enforcement note studies in other states that show up to a 60 percent reduction in red-light running accidents, but critics say the cameras intrude on privacy and are simply a revenue-generating measure.
No residents voiced opinions on the camera system at a City Council meeting this week.
Council members say the pros outweigh the cons.
Denton had 213 accidents involving red-light runners between 2002 and 2004 and police issued 2,354 citations for violations in that span, city statistics show. Cameras could reduce those numbers, said council member Bob Montgomery.
"It’s a reasonable way to enforce traffic rules that’s not too Big Brother," Montgomery said.
Here’s how the automated camera system would work:
With street signs warning drivers that an intersection is "photo-enforced," a pole-mounted camera would snap pictures of vehicles that run red lights.
A citation and photo of the violation would be mailed to the vehicle’s owner. Drivers can either pay the ticket or appeal to a city-appointed hearing officer. A car owner can sign an affidavit that someone else was driving the car, and that person then would be liable.
The citation is civil, not criminal, so it wouldn’t show up on a person’s driving record or affect car insurance rates, said Denton police Lt. Scott Fletcher.
"The goal is to eliminate violations and prevent accidents," Fletcher said.
While several attempts to pass laws that allow red-light cameras failed in the Texas Legislature in recent years because of privacy issues, a recent amendment allows cities to issue civil penalties based on camera-observed violations.
Garland used that rule to set up the first camera system in the North Texas area in September 2003.
It charges $75 per red-light violation caught on camera at four different intersections in the city. The city has recorded 29,000-plus violations.
Garland’s program prompted Frisco, Richardson, Plano and now Denton to advance plans for cameras at city intersections.
In Denton, finding locations to install cameras might be a problem because the Texas Department of Transportation doesn’t allow cameras at intersections on state-controlled roads. The majority of the city’s 101 traffic signals are on state roads.
So police identified the intersections of Eagle Drive and Carroll Boulevard, Bell Avenue and Hickory Street, and Bell and McKinney Street as potential camera sites.
More research on locations will be done before installing cameras, Fletcher said.
Each camera costs about $6,000, and the program would pay for itself from there, Fletcher said. If the program generates revenue, the money would go into a public safety fund dedicated to traffic improvements.
Overall, city officials laud the plan’s potential to bolster safety because cameras would monitor intersections 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
"People will be a lot more aware," Thomson said. "It will be a big deterrent."
HOW THE STOPLIGHT CAMERAS WILL WORK
By the end of 2005, the city expects to install cameras to snap photos of red-light runners.
Here’s how it’d work:
A camera mounted at an intersection activates when a light turns red
The cameras takes a picture of a car that enters on red
A second picture is taken of the car’s license plate as it goes through
Embedded on the photo is the date, time, intersection, car speed, length of the light’s yellow interval and the length of time the light had been red at the time of the photograph.
If police verify a violation, a violator would be mailed a $75 ticket with:
An explanation of the violation
An 8-inch-by-10-inch photo of the vehicle in intersection
Tips for handling tickets and how to pay
A process to contest the violation
Third and subsequent violations would be $150.
As if they were about ANYthing other than raising revenue. Once Denton discovers revenues falling, they'll take two steps: First, they'll reduce the length of time a light is yellow to almost nonexistance; Then they'll remove the signs indicating which intersections have the cameras.
Note in this article that:
"More research on locations will be done before installing cameras, Fletcher said."
And the "research" isn't even going to consider which intersections, if any, actually have problems with accidents caused by red-light runners.
I don't never run red lights, but I think I'm going to get one of those light-diffusing license plate covers...
Can we sue the City of Denton when people start slamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow in an attempt to avoid the camera fine? The City of San Diego provded that these things are just another greedy government tool and not for traffic enforcement.
I suspect a lot of people despise those f*#@ing selfish b*st*rd red-light runners, and think it's high time something was done to kick them in their arses (and wallets). If it also just happens to generate revenue for traffic enforcement, so be it.
Last I heard on this issue, Lockheed Martin manufactures these cameras. They install them, maintain them, and they get a peice of the action for their efforts. That's right they get a percentage of all the fines generated. They have already been caught, in at least one instance, lowering the yellow light time as a way to increase their take. They would have gotten away with it, but an engineer got ticked and he challenged them and won. I wonder who monitors these revenue generators for accuracy at all the other locations???
If you want to find where such cameras are in your community, or just report them so others will be forewarned, go to
http://www.photozones.homestead.com/
What, for the cost of excessive brake wear?
The City of San Diego provded that these things are just another greedy government tool
If it turns out that the city shortened the length of the yellow light, that would be the case. Indeed, there have been studies that show when the city lengthens the duration of the yellow lights, red-light violations go down. However, once the driving public gets used to the longer yellow, the red-light violations go back up.
Bottom line: a certain group of people will run red lights as long as they think they can get away with it. If the city is using the cameras as a tool to generate revenue -- e.g. shorter yellow lights -- city officials must be exposed.
Yeah, well if you actually read the article, you'll see that here in Denton, as in most other places, this is not about "stopping those ferdammt red-light runners" at all:
It's all about, and only about, generating revenue to support a profligate, irresponsible city government.
Time and time again, where these cameras are installed, the number of light runners drops so sharply that the cameras no longer produce the amount of revenue guaranteed to the private camera operating company.
What happens then?
Take a guess.
That's right: the next step is to sharply shorten the amount of time the yellow light is on, to increase the revenues.
So tell me again: What does this have to do with highway safety?
Why don't we install "photo enforced" pork spending cameras in legislatures around the country? The moment a politician proposes useless wasteful spending or attempts to sneak it into budgets, the camera snaps a picture and sends them a bill.
Think of the improvement in citizen marksmanship though, now that the city is kind enough to provide all these free targets.
And Australian study found that that is exactly what happens, and the number of rear-end collisions increases accordingly.
http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/australia.html
Surprise, surprise!
Reckon I'll need a silencer for my sligshot?
Heeheehee...
Well, I read through it a second time, and the only fact in the story that I could find which could remotely support your claim is that a lot of the heavy traffic is on state roads and the cameras cannot be installed on them.
That's right: the next step is to sharply shorten the amount of time the yellow light is on, to increase the revenues.
If you'll actually read my response (again?), you'll note that I addressed that potential problem. Get your stopwatch out. Time the yellows now. Time them again after the cameras are installed. Time them again a year later. Time them until you get what you're looking for. It's not rocket science and it doesn't take a lot of effort. If your city officials are so stupid as to shorten the yellows, nail 'em. Then, look at the bright side: maybe you and your fellow citizens will vote them out of office.
By Jove!
Now THERE's an idea!
Problem is, we'd need our Congresscritters to approve it, and the likelihood of that is...
This crap (raising taxes under the pretext of law enforcement) is giving respectable middle-class folks a contempt for cops that rivals that of ghetto gang-bangers.
This bears repeating.
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.