Red Light Cameras coming to an Intersection Near You

[fsujax]

or Green Cove Springs! woohoo.....

[KenFSU]

The article states that the money received from citations would go to cover the cost of the monthly operation of the camera ($3,999).  Anything over that would be split between the city and state.

So with 25 cameras (a number that will surely increase), we're talking about $100,000 per month being taken out of the pockets of Jacksonville citizens and leaving our local economy for good.

It's a cash grab, plain and simple.

I sincerely hope that some of our more enterprising local rednecks dust off their shotguns and blow these things to pieces.

[cline]

Yes, 4k per month to operate one camera seems excessive.

[ChriswUfGator]

These should be easy to beat. Regardless of what their silly contract says, as with anything else, the burden is on the state to show the person they cited committed the infraction, not just their vehicle. If these are like most of the camera systems, they just snap shots of the license plate, which doesn't cut it. Of course, over $100-whatever dollars, almost nobody will challenge it, I guess that's what they're banking on.

[BridgeTroll]

Is redlight running an issue?  How many pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, not to mention autos are affected by redlight scofflaws?  From my perspective... redlights today seem to be almost a "suggestion"... rather than something to be obeyed.  Left and right turners are the most frequent violators.  Left turn signal turns red and you can count 3-4 autos continuing through though the light has been red for a long time.  People turning right almost never stop. 

[Tacachale]

It's amazing that they ever kept the roads safe before red light cameras and radar and unmarked cars. Oh wait, they did just fine...

Sounds like a "Kafka tax" - busting people for infractions of bewildering, inscrutable minor rules, and using it to generate revenue.

[aclchampion]

Is redlight running an issue?  How many pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, not to mention autos are affected by redlight scofflaws?  From my perspective... redlights today seem to be almost a "suggestion"... rather than something to be obeyed.  Left and right turners are the most frequent violators.  Left turn signal turns red and you can count 3-4 autos continuing through though the light has been red for a long time.  People turning right almost never stop. 

BridgeTroll I think you just answered your own question. If 3-4 autos continue through a red light after its turned and if red lights are just a suggestion rather than a law, then yes I think it is an issue. I'm guess I'm going to be in the minority here when i say bring the cameras on. Don't run the red light and you have nothing to be concerned about.

[ChriswUfGator]

Fine, bring the cameras on, lol.

I just ordered mine 5 minutes ago...

http://loover.com/looverdetails.htm

Muahahahaa

[BridgeTroll]

It's amazing that they ever kept the roads safe before red light cameras and radar and unmarked cars. Oh wait, they did just fine...

Sounds like a "Kafka tax" - busting people for infractions of bewildering, inscrutable minor rules, and using it to generate revenue.

I think the answer is... once upon a time... in an era long long ago... people generally obeyed stop signals and speed limits.  Now... they are disobeyed with regularity.  It is the norm... not the exception.  So many of us look to European solutions to American problems...   red light cameras AND radar cameras are being used extensively in Europe and Asia.  If they are a good enough model for healthcare... they certainly should be looked at for traffic enforcement...

[KenFSU]

All about safety, right?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10458570-71.html

Shorter yellow lights boost red-light camera revenue

Some cities have reportedly found a new way to make money out of red-light cameras. They are shortening the time that the yellow light is on.

The annals of capitalism are full of ingenious money-making ruses.

These are the kinds of things that have the potential to turn you into an ax assaulter. My favorite has always been ticket Web sites that charge you a convenience fee when the convenience is actually being delivered by something they don't own--it's called the Web.

There may, however, now be a new capitalist champion of gall. According to AlterNet, some of the more enterprising and caring cities of the United States have used their almost limitless brains to increase the revenues they accrue from red-light cameras.

Are they placing strategically undressed out-of-work pole dancers around the traffic light poles to encourage a little untimely accelerator pressure? No, they're shortening the time that the yellow light is on.

This is almost as clever as the iPod. It's so simple. It's so effortless. Surely they will charge a convenience fee just for privilege of being caught by a yellow light that is there one second and magically gone the next.

You will, I am sure, be wondering if your own city is one of the progressive urbanities that has taken this positive step toward whipping red-light-running humanity. Well, according to the National Motorists Association, these six cities have been cited as reducing the yellow light duration: Dallas, Chattanooga, Tenn.; Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock, Texas; Nashville, Tenn.; and Union City, Calif. The question now is how many more might have joined the fold of the enlightened.

I know some of you will be concerned that red-light cameras don't actually slow people down. I know that speed readers among you will point to evidence that these cameras might cause more accidents.

Others of you (anarchists, no doubt) will tell me that in Seattle some cameras might even be illegally situated.

Several of you might even want to scream that in 15 states, red-light cameras are prohibited under state law. Well, I will tell you that one of those states is Utah and we all know that many entirely bizarro things go on in Utah.

No, shortening yellow lights is thunderously exciting news.

So what if Gary Biller, executive director of the National Motorists Association, told AlterNet that "the larger issue today is that the duration of so many yellow lights has never been adequately set for optimal safety results. An increase of approximately one second can reduce the frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent."

And so very, very what if he added: "The kind of red-light running that causes the serious broadside accidents touted by the camera companies are those where the vehicles enter the intersection three seconds or more after red."

Can we really trust engineers and people with large analytical brains to decide how long yellow lights should be illuminated at different intersections? Politicians have always made better decisions than engineers. You only need to look at their personal lives to realize that.

No, people are merely slightly glorified animals. People in cars, even less slightly. They only understand absolutes, not gray areas. Come to think of it, why have yellow lights at all? Let's just go from green to red. Then it'll be even easier to catch the bad guys.

It's like waterboarding. You just know it works, right?

[KenFSU]

P.S. I strongly agree with the statement that I bolded in the above article. Yellow lights are very hard to read in this city, and most seem too short. The best interpretation, on average, seems to be STOP IMMEDIATELY. I like to consider myself a fairly safe, responsible driver, but at least a few times I year I find myself, with no bad intentions, accidentally running a red light because of it.

Traffic patterns are going to take a major hit if people are afraid of yellow lights, and rear end collisions are going to become a real problem if you see people slamming on their brakes because they are afraid of getting a ticket.

Here's a question for proponents:

It's just rained, and the roads are slick. You're driving the speed limit on Beach Boulevard and you've got an obnoxious tailgater driving too close to you from behind. 75 yards ahead, the light turns yellow.

What do you do?

[thekillingwax]

I remember reading in some states that these citations weren't even valid because they're mailed out- something about them not being binding because they can't prove that you've received them. Is that the case here?

I'm a pretty awesome driver, I think I've been under one light that's converted to red, that's about it but I totally understand people's fear about these things. I was on San Jose at the Baymeadows intersection a couple of weeks ago and a minivan slammed on their brakes for a yellow light and the suv behind them hit them so hard that it knocked the van well into the path of the oncoming turn lane. Stuff like that's going to become a much more common sight. And I don't care what the company says, they do shorten the length of yellow lights- I've been at the ones in orlando and they are insanely quick- like 2-3 seconds. That's dangerous as hell.

[Dog Walker]

P.S. I strongly agree with the statement that I bolded in the above article. Yellow lights are very hard to read in this city, and most seem too short. The best interpretation, on average, seems to be STOP IMMEDIATELY. I like to consider myself a fairly safe, responsible driver, but at least a few times I year I find myself, with no bad intentions, accidentally running a red light because of it.

Traffic patterns are going to take a major hit if people are afraid of yellow lights, and rear end collisions are going to become a real problem if you see people slamming on their brakes because they are afraid of getting a ticket.

Here's a question for proponents:

It's just rained, and the roads are slick. You're driving the speed limit on Beach Boulevard and you've got an obnoxious tailgater driving too close to you from behind. 75 yards ahead, the light turns yellow.

What do you do?

Properly calculated, yellow light durations are based on the speed limit on that particular road.  If you are driving over the speed limit they are going to feel too short.  Drive the speed limit and you will find it easy to stop.....unless of course they have fiddled the yellow durations to raise revenue.

[Adam W]

Is redlight running an issue?  How many pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, not to mention autos are affected by redlight scofflaws?  From my perspective... redlights today seem to be almost a "suggestion"... rather than something to be obeyed.  Left and right turners are the most frequent violators.  Left turn signal turns red and you can count 3-4 autos continuing through though the light has been red for a long time.  People turning right almost never stop. 

I think it's gotten worse, from what I can tell. In certain places (like the St Johns town centre), you'll see multiple cars run red lights. Constantly.

I don't understand the opposition to cameras. I think they're a good idea. That said, if they aren't legal, then it seems like a waste of money.

[ChriswUfGator]

Is redlight running an issue?  How many pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, not to mention autos are affected by redlight scofflaws?  From my perspective... redlights today seem to be almost a "suggestion"... rather than something to be obeyed.  Left and right turners are the most frequent violators.  Left turn signal turns red and you can count 3-4 autos continuing through though the light has been red for a long time.  People turning right almost never stop. 

I think it's gotten worse, from what I can tell. In certain places (like the St Johns town centre), you'll see multiple cars run red lights. Constantly.

I don't understand the opposition to cameras. I think they're a good idea. That said, if they aren't legal, then it seems like a waste of money.

Aren't legal and waste of money are two different things really. Almost nobody challenges the tickets, so it's basically a non-issue, it's uneconomic for most people to take a day off work and go to traffic court cattle call to challenge a $100 ticket, the only reason anybody does it is to protect their license or insurance rates, neither of which is an issue here where these tickets don't assess points. And there is a logic to that, it's to remove the incentive to challenge them.

The money front is a little more complicated, there is a pretty good 10 year history of the two companies that control this industry (including the one installing the cameras in Jacksonville) ripping off the municipalities they deal with. They'll come into a new area, set up with one or two small towns first and let them make money, then use that as an example to land bigger fish. Then the large cities wind up getting byzantine accounting statements and million-dollar bills due under the contracts. California has pretty much had the ballgame with it, these things usually wind up costing money when it's supposed to be the other way around.

And there is some pretty good data that the cameras actually result in a net safety decrease because the severity and frequency of sudden-stop rear end collisions shoots up at the intersections where these are installed (people slamming on the brakes, afraid of a ticket) and this can easily outweigh the reduction in intersectional accidents. Of course the companies don't tell you that, they just point to a reduction in intersectional collisions, not the increase in rear-end collisions that accompanies the installation of the cameras. These things suck for a variety of reasons. But it doesn't bother me, for $40 just get a loover and don't worry about it.