Posted on 08/01/2005 10:00:38 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
Some nights as Chuck Kesterson watches TV, it seems like there's a neon sign flashing "Eat at Joe's" outside his second-story apartment window.
But he doesn't get irritated, he smiles only because he knows the flashing is just the newest member of the Gardena Police Department doing its job.
Just a few feet from his backyard fence sits a 15-foot-high camera that takes a picture and a video every time a driver blows through a red light at Rosecrans and Budlong avenues.
"You used to hear cars gun their engines and trucks honk their horns to let people know they were going to run the light," said the 59-year-old salesman.
Now drivers who might have run the light before slow down or screech to a stop -- or say hello to the candid camera.
A red-light camera issued the first $351 ticket in Gardena on March 11 and, while officials say money has nothing to do with the primary purpose of the system, the city banked about $450,000 in the first four months of operation. Over the next year, the tally should hit $800,000, according to the city's budget.
"I'm more interested in seeing the number of accidents and fatalities that have been eliminated because people are more mindful of not running red lights," Councilman Ron Ikejiri said. "Revenue is secondary."
That may be true. But the money is sorely needed in this city, which is barely making ends meet with a $35 million general fund while facing a $26 million bill for a debt that's due Aug. 31.
Under the city's contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, the equipment will cost the city about $6,000 per month. Redflex also contracts locally with Hawthorne, Inglewood and Culver City, for now the only other South Bay cities with these systems.
It's too early to tell if the lights have had an effect on accident rates. But about 33 percent of traffic fatalities in Gardena resulted from red-light violations in previous years. And according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, photo enforcement programs have reduced red-light violations by about 40 percent and reduced injury crashes by about 25 percent.
The city now has five intersections covered, each one coming online about a month after the other.
About 2,144 tickets have been mailed.
In the same period, Gardena officers wrote a total of 450 citations, for everything from broken tail lights to red-light violations.
The sixth and last red-light camera was activated July 20 and after a 30-day grace period will start issuing tickets Aug. 19.
The system is activated when a vehicle trips sensors in the road about 8 feet before the intersection begins.
And the cameras are activated if the car is going too fast to stop for the red light, said police assistant Yecenia Correa, who reviews the videos and photos before tickets are sent to violators.
A camera will record video for about six seconds, in addition to taking photos.
"If you're in the crosswalk, we'll reject it," Correa said.
Already 25 percent of the photo tickets are rejected, said Sgt. Thomas Kang, the program's supervisor. He said the city's policy is to give citizens the benefit of the doubt.
Redflex downloads to Gardena police computers the video and four photos that show the driver's face, the vehicle license plate, the position of the vehicle and the color of the light. Images will be accessible online at the Police Department for alleged violators to review.
"This is a great deterrent and it frees us up to do other things," said motorcycle officer Victor Gomez, who works with the program.
While some see the cameras as obtrusive and worry about Big Brother's expanding presence, Kesterson is ready to take the next step. He wants the cameras to catch speeders.
They already have that capability, Kang said. "As soon as they allow it in California," Kang said, "we will work to use them here."
I have no problem with that if you were actually driving.
Suuuuure.
That's why, in the interest of "traffic safety", municipalities have the cops patrol the streets and highways in unmarked cars, too.
These red light scams have been rejected in some states as a violation of rights ... the old "right to confront the accuser" right that has been tossed out the window by greedy left wing fanatics hungary to fill insatiable coffers to further their social engineering programs and expand their power base. The people that make the most money on these scams are usually the ones who sell, or own and monitor, the cameras. Leave the cameras to the Socialist Euroweenies and help keep America Big Brother free!!!
We have them in AZ, it takes 2 photos, one of the driver and one of the Lic. plate.
Wasn't always that way; up until about eight years ago, CHP couldn't use radar for speed enforcement, as the California courts felt it was too unreliable. That was before the Democrats' domination of the Assembly and the regime of "Red" Davis.
This thing costs $6,000 a month? That's $72,000 a year, why not just hire more cops?
And of course police officers never lie.
I knew a few who did, I did not. Most do not as opposed to those we stopped who always had an excuse or lie thought up.
cops cost more than that!
I am ready for those...to deploy in South Central now.
Then deal with that. One problem at a time. But I for one would much prefer laws to be enforced by objective, heartless machines, not subject to the vagaries of human emotion. When they invent a computer that's capable of evaluating the facts and interpreting the law and thus serving as a judge, I'll be all for it.
I was a State Trooper for 4 years and worked undercover narc for 8. About half of the perps lied under oath it was not them I bought from.
Here's your talking about a criminal violation, not a civil infraction, where the penalty for conviction is much higher and the standard of proof for acquittal is much lower.
When I did traffic I had several sit there and say straight faced it wasn't them but their brother or sister had their drivers license
Now don't you wish you had camera footage of these violators?
As for witness it is common in Texas if the officer cannot witness or prove you were driving he cannot cite you.
"Prove you were driving" is the operative word. If you've got a picture of the perp behind the wheel of the car, with a nice tamper-proof electronically-generated timestamp emblazoned on it, that's proof... at least, that's supported by a preponderance of the evidence. No witness necessary other than the camera lens.
I drive a 300ZX, and have gotten out of 3 speeding tickets. Basically when the cop walked up I was upbeat and friendly, when asked if I knew the speed limit I said yes and quoted it, then admitted I knew I was speeding. They generally just asked me where I was going, (which was usually to work), I would tell them. Then they ran my lic and insurance, and came back told me to slow down a little and have a nice day.
Still haven't figured out how that worked, but hey, I am not gonna complain.
Because not only does the camera operate 24 hours a day, without vacation or potty breaks, but the $6,000 a month covers all of the camera systems, not just one. How many cops will $72,000 a year hire? Keep in mind that the cost of a cop is not just salary, but also benefits, insurance, equipment, and so forth.
And do you think this is fair? Not only were you a lawbreaker, you confessed to lawbreaking in front of a cop. But the cop liked your attitude, so you got away with breaking the law. What if he didn't like your attitude? What if you were of a race he wasn't kindly disposed towards? What if you reminded him of the guy who porked his ex-wife? What if you had a bumper sticker supporting a politician he despised? What if you were driving a Nissan, and the cop's brother had just been laid off by General Motors? Would you be any more or less deserving of punishment for your lawbreaking in any of these cases?
This is what I hate about our current methods of law enforcement. They're capricious and arbitrary. They excuse some and convict others based on completely subjective criteria that have nothing to do with the violation. Yes, bring on the robots with cameras. They don't care what bumper stickers you display.
" When they invent a computer that's capable of evaluating the facts and interpreting the law and thus serving as a judge, I'll be all for it."
In my new line of work I am a software engineer and I can say without a doubt that is a wish you do not want. Software has more "bugs" and anomolies in it then you can fathom. It is only as good as the people programming it and your problem lies with people right? At least with people you can have a good one with a machine you get what the creator of that machine gives you.
And I darn sure do not want artificial intelligence units dictating my life.
I am praying that never happens so we cancel out each other.
If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hop.
You can "what if" anything. It isn't perfect but I like over what else is available.
Just like the futuristic view of no pilots in the future. My dad was a commercial airline pilot for 30 years and when confronted by someone who said he got paid too much he said yep I am until we catch on fire or something falls off and then I am worth every dime, right?
I prefer people anyday.
Then put all the ticket money in a blind trust, which is donated to a charity selected by the voters at the end of each year. Better yet, match a small percentage of the ticket proceeds, say 5% so that the process is slightly revenue negative, but not strongly enough so so that it will break the city to enforce trafic laws.
Then I'll believe you.
Actually, I've always thought fine revenue should be handled this way to avoid, as the Democrats would say "the appearance of a conflict of interest". And the pols can't select the charity as there would be the opportunity for them to profit under the table by their selection, and they would probably just give it all to some lefty cause not approved by those from whom the funds were pried.
Of course they do. It happens so often that cops even have a name for it, "testilying".
Testilying is police slang for the practice of giving false testimony against a defendant in a criminal trial, typically for the purpose of "making a stronger case" against someone they believe to be guilty, although it may also be for the purpose of framing an innocent defendant.
I wonder which week of the police academy they teach that little trick?
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.