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."
call 9/11, tell them the lights are inop, and that you are treating it as a four way stop.
call 9/11, tell them the lights are inop, and that you are treating it as a four way stop.
yes, but you could subpoena your call if you were issued a ticket.
Zuh? Every single red light camera I've ever seen is placed so as to include the signal in the frame. Otherwise, it's just a picture of a guy in a car and there's no proof of the violation. If you want to claim that this ever, ever happens, submit a picture of a cited traffic violator with a visible green light, or with no signal visible at all.
No, that happens when the police reviewer gets the images and can then use them to blackmail people to get what he wants rather than have their driving record get a black mark.
Money is what it's all about.
They really don't give a rip about safety.
IIRC, in this case the owner of the vehicle is ticketed, but no points can be assigned. If you loaned the car out, then go after the person you loaned it to I guess.
You seem to think this is the way to go. If the use of cameras proves to be effective at traffic lights, where would you not put a camera? Could cameras placed in private homes be justified on the basis of stopping domestic assault or child abuse?
No, because there's a distinction between public places and private property. There is no expectation of privacy in public, and a reasonable person is aware that anything he does in public may be witnessed. This is not true of private homes; there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your home and people in their own homes can expect to be secure against unreasonable search.
Yeah, this isn't the first time this particular fallacy has reared its ugly head in this thread. You are arguing, in essence, that because one type of corruption is possible, we shouldn't fight corruption.
The way to legally get around that legal issue is to issue the citation as you would a parking ticket. The infraction follows the car not the driver.
Thus no insurance consequences and no need to really fight it in court. Since there is no long term record, it does not pay to hire a lawyer and those "caught" just pay.
IN essence if you have the money, you have the ability to buy your way out of obeying red lights. (Mr. Physics is another matter.)
"Thus no insurance consequences..." I have long thought that insuring a vehicle is crap. Insurance should be carried by an individual like a license. If you don't drive you don't need it. By law if you borrow a vehicle and it does not have insurance you are at risk of a fine.
The wreck or tickets you get goes on your record not the cars so why put insurance on the car?
It's a big racket.."Observe and Protect" has become "Observe and Collect".
Also keep in mind that while the cop is chasing down one driver, writing the ticket, and getting back 'on station' six more have blown by Scott free. The camera would have nailed all seven.
It isn't 'cost per year' that matters, but 'cost per conviction'.
At one intersection!
Does this mean the city govt will grow, and just hire more employees, or does this mean future tax breaks for the citizens?
I should have added a down side to the "savings" of not hiring the cop over the cost of cameras: When a cop stops the vehicle, he can often write or arrest for other things; a camera can't.
The cameras don't differentiate between a simple lack of attention, and a drunk; both are equally mailed a simple red light ticket.
The camera won't see the drugs or other contraband on the seat or floorboards.
The camera will ID the driver, but not the wanted perp in the back seat. For that matter, the citation may be mailed, but the driver with warrents out on him won't be hauled in by the camera.
Coming to a municipality and a stoplight near you...
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.