Lawyer subpoenas red-light traffic cameras to testify against her clients...

[TMMT]

Lawyer subpoenas red-light traffic cameras to testify against her clients...

Cameras no show in court || OnlineAthens.com

Key witnesses failed to show up for trial Tuesday in Athens-Clarke Municipal Court.

Lawyer Regina Quick, defending two clients from charges that they were photographed running red lights, subpoenaed five traffic cameras at the West Broad Street-Alps Road intersection to testify that her clients did indeed barge through on red.

"I didn't observe them as they came in, so I don't believe they'll be appearing," Quick said.

Jim Davis, the assistant county attorney who prosecuted the cases, said Quick should have subpoenaed county officials to produce the cameras if she needed them to make her case.

"It's not proper to serve an inanimate object, such as a camera," Davis said.

Municipal Court Judge Kay Giese found the defendants not guilty because Athens-Clarke County failed to produce any evidence that they are the registered owners of the cars caught on film illegally turning left on red, she said - not because the cameras did not come to court.

But Quick's tactic spoke to what many people loathe about red-light cameras: That they can essentially be ticketed by a machine, not a human being. The cameras snap a picture of a car's license plate when it runs a red light, then a citation is mailed to the car's registered owner.

Usually, the only way for the owner to get out of the ticket is to sign a legal document stating that he or she wasn't driving the car and naming who was. The tickets are not a criminal offense, so they are tried under different rules than most crimes.

Quick questioned a police lieutenant who signed off on the citations mailed to her client and a civilian technician who printed and mailed the images, both of whom said they do not know how the technology works. Therefore, she said, the cameras themselves are the only witnesses.

"It is Orwellian at best," she said.

State law, though, says that the picture is all the county needs to fine someone for running a red light, Davis said.

"The citation speaks for itself," he said. "There is no other evidence required."

Since they were installed, red-light cameras at the Lexington-Cherokee-Gaines School Road and Alps-Broad-Hawthorne Avenue intersections have drastically reduced the number of drivers who run those lights, especially young drivers who "caravan" through the intersections 10 or 12 at a time, Athens-Clarke Manager Alan Reddish said.

The number of tickets issued dropped from 1,791 in 2005 to 667 in 2009 at the Eastside intersection and from 13,222 in 2007 to 4,043 last year at the Westside intersection because drivers now know the cameras are there, Reddish said.

Rear-end collisions are up slightly at those intersections, he said, but sideswipes that often result in more serious injuries are down, he said.

The cameras work so well at deterring drivers from running red lights that they no longer generate revenue for the county government. Money from fines is set aside to operate the cameras, and officials expect them to run a $53,000 deficit next year. Funding left over from past years' fines will be used to plug the hole, Reddish said.

County officials are considering adding red-light cameras to more intersections, he said.

[Guest gts]

I don't know what to say about that one. My first impression was this nut lawyer has lost her mind. Then I thought...this is exactly the kind of thing we need in the traffic courtrooms in today's America.

I think TN should simply do what Mississippi did and ban the damn camera enforcement of traffic laws.

The article stated they are facing a $53,000 dollars deficit and they are going to order more? Man, I really despise government at all levels these days.

Why don't they just give a cop the sole duty of watching the intersection and pay him 40,000 a year?

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

... officials expect them to run a $53,000 deficit next year...

Calling bull:poop: on that one... Although their definition of "deficit" could be profit that is not being brought in, rather than debt. If that is the truth, a cruel choice of words inside a carefully placed statement. I mean, the entire population KNOWS that those cameras make money, so why not come out and say it... Really? Why keep lying to us and saying there will be a "deficit"....

[Guest gts]

Calling bull:poop: on that one... Although their definition of "deficit" could be profit that is not being brought in, rather than debt. If that is the truth, a cruel choice of words inside a carefully placed statement. I mean, the entire population KNOWS that those cameras make money, so why not come out and say it... Really? Why keep lying to us and saying there will be a "deficit"....

I was thinking the same thing. I mean, how much could it possibly cost to purchase once, run and maintain annually?

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

I was thinking the same thing. I mean, how much could it possibly cost to purchase once, run and maintain annually?

My point exactly. All they wanna do is justify this is to the M.A.D.D. and people like that. Those cameras are not gonna lose money, no way. I mean, what maintenance is there? Electricity?

Grant it, the camera company is making a KILLING because, from what I've read, the camera company gets like 50-60% of the ticket and the city keeps the rest, but the city just sits there and does nothing, while the camera company does all the work. My grandfather got one in Morristown last year while we were at our lake house, and my grandma had to mail $50 to Arizona...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Calling bull:poop: on that one... Although their definition of "deficit" could be profit that is not being brought in, rather than debt. If that is the truth, a cruel choice of words inside a carefully placed statement. I mean, the entire population KNOWS that those cameras make money, so why not come out and say it... Really? Why keep lying to us and saying there will be a "deficit"....

Because our good uncle government always needs more revenue:D

[Guest gts]

My point exactly. All they wanna do is justify this is to the M.A.D.D. and people like that. Those cameras are not gonna lose money, no way. I mean, what maintenance is there? Electricity?

Grant it, the camera company is making a KILLING because, from what I've read, the camera company gets like 50-60% of the ticket and the city keeps the rest, but the city just sits there and does nothing, while the camera company does all the work. My grandfather got one in Morristown last year while we were at our lake house, and my grandma had to mail $50 to Arizona...

Seriously? I have never received a camera ticket so I wouldn't know. But, I assumed the equipment was purchased outright by the city and then installed by the city as well. I had no idea is was contractual agreement between a company and the city.

[USMCJG]

Seriously? I have never received a camera ticket so I wouldn't know. But, I assumed the equipment was purchased outright by the city and then installed by the city as well. I had no idea is was contractual agreement between a company and the city.

The red light cameras in Kingsport are installed and maintained entirely at the cost of a private company. Every ticket is split 50-50% between the company and the city.

[Guest gts]

The red light cameras in Kingsport are installed and maintained entirely at the cost of a private company. Every ticket is split 50-50% between the company and the city.

Considering these things are going up all over the country, one may be inclined to consider purchasing stock in said companies.

Anyone know how this panned out in the TN Legislature? I know they were considering a ban similar to Mississippi's but have not heard anything about it lately.

[Guest 1010011010]

Rear-end collisions are up slightly at those intersections, he said, but sideswipes that often result in more serious injuries are down, he said.

What's the net effect on public safety? Because every other analysis I've seen has shown that red-light camera cause more accidents than they prevent.

What exactly is public safety doing making our streets less safe? Oh, right, they're raking in fines and buying more red-light cameras.

[Guest gts]

What's the net effect on public safety? Because every other analysis I've seen has shown that red-light camera cause more accidents than they prevent.

What exactly is public safety doing making our streets less safe? Oh, right, they're raking in fines and buying more red-light cameras.

1010011010 (binary) = 29A (Hexidecimal) = 666

[Guest 1010011010]

1010011010 (binary) = 29A (Hexidecimal) = 666

You rang?

[Mike.357]

you might as well have added an 88 onto it

[strickj]

What's the net effect on public safety? Because every other analysis I've seen has shown that red-light camera cause more accidents than they prevent.

What exactly is public safety doing making our streets less safe? Oh, right, they're raking in fines and buying more red-light cameras.

Rear end collisions are caused by following to closely.

Doesn't matter why the front car stopped or how quickly it stopped.

The law designates so many seconds to speed ratio to prevent rear end collisions from happening.

A rear end collision is also a lot safer of a crash then two cars T-boning at full speed.

[Guest 1010011010]

Rear end collisions are caused by following to closely.

Doesn't matter why the front car stopped or how quickly it stopped.

Indeed. What also doesn't matter is how much money in fines a public safety program brings in. If it reduces public safety it needs to go.

The law designates so many seconds to speed ratio to prevent rear end collisions from happening.

A reason we need laws to designate the length of the amber change because it's a known problem with red-light fines for the interval to be reduced to maximize revenue without respect for public safety.

A rear end collision is also a lot safer of a crash then two cars T-boning at full speed.

Agreed. But the increase in "safer" crashes even when a decrease in T-boning is observed and taken into account, ends up making these sorts of programs a net negative for public safety (though a net positive for the budget).

[Guest gts]

you might as well have added an 88 onto it

I was trying to be a little humorous....

No matter how much you try to provoke me, I am not going to discuss race. I did my time, now let it go.

[hkusp40cal]

Not sure the cameras are doing anything but helping sell the GPS radar detectors that have them mapped out and warn you when you approach an intersection with a camera.

[DaveTN]

Murfreesboro has them and the city says they reduced the serious accidents “in†the intersection, but increased the less severe rear end accidents “at†the intersection.

But it’s not like they care about safety anyway. These are revenue generators pure and simple.

On one hand I hope the courts outlaw them and the city gets stuck with them, but on the other hand they are getting revenue from bad drivers and saving us a few bucks on our property taxes. They have an amount of money they are going to get; it’s just a question of who they get it from.

[strickj]

They have an amount of money they are going to get; it’s just a question of who they get it from.

That's the main reason I like them.

"A tax is a fine for doing well. A fine is a tax for doing wrong"

I would rather those doing wrong have to pay versus me having to pay to doing nothing wrong.

[Guest gts]

... but on the other hand they are getting revenue from bad drivers and saving us a few bucks on our property taxes.

Did or have the property tax rates gone down since the cameras were installed?

[strickj]

Generally, taxes don't go down, gts.

They may stabilize or not go up as much, but they won't go down.

[dats82]

Shelbyville was looking at putting them in a couple of years ago. The system is run by a private company. When the system is installed, the company was going to get 100% of the fines until the system was paid for. After that point, they would get 50% of the fines. I am not completely sure on this, but I think the system was about $200,000 per intersection. That is a hellofalota tickets at $50 a pop.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

It is a lot of tickets... But they get them. In my hometown, the officers on patrol were told that if they went through a light and weren't running code (lights and sirens) to a call... They could pay the ticket....

[Dolomite_supafly]

The tickets in Knoxville are signed off by cadets or at least the two I received were. I got to thinking about it and a member of the Explorers, that probably isn't old enough to carry a gun yet, is doing the review of the video the signing off if they think it is a valid infraction.

I can say that in both cases I did run the red lights and paid the fines. You can view the pictures taken as well as video of you running the lights before paying. They are online and the tickets give you the access code to view them. My wife laughed at me over them.

I think they do "some" good but are no where near as good as having a patrol visible at the intersection. And to those who drive impaired the cameras do absolutely nothing to prevent it or catch an impaired driver, only a patrol officer can do that.

Dolomite

[Guest gts]

Generally, taxes don't go down, gts.

They may stabilize or not go up as much, but they won't go down.

I know...that is why I was so taken aback when I read the following:

but on the other hand they are getting revenue from bad drivers and saving us a few bucks on our property taxes.

How can he save, if they haven't decrease the rates?