red light cameras from ars technica

[Fallguy]

Unfortunately.

Yep

[Guest grimel]

It's not about privacy. It's about the state not properly identifying the alleged light runner and just up and sending someone a ticket in the mail. How is it that a judge can find that you owe the government fine money when the government hasn't even demonstrated that YOU committed an infraction?

Because you own the vehicle and are therefore responsible for what ever is done by anyone who drives it.

I'm wondering what will happen when the car pool vehicles start getting tickets and nobody knows who was driving what that day. I wonder what DOE, B&W, BJC, etc will do.

[TripleDigitRide]

I just read in the Tennessean that we in Hendersonville will be seeing some new changes in the near future. Simialar idea to the one being discussed, just slightly different.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812260378

While Gallatin is one of two Middle Tennessee cities to use cameras at intersections, Hendersonville is about to become the state's first city to use White Light Enforcement, a pilot program of the Tennessee Department of Transportation.

The technology now being used in Florida and Texas involves the use of a light at the top of a streetlight that can be seen from any direction.

When a motorist runs a red light, a white light flashes to signal a nearby police officer of the offense. Unlike camera enforcement, the officer pulls the motorist over to issue an immediate citation.

City is a 'good fit'

TDOT spokeswoman Julie Oaks said a city the size of Hendersonville was a good fit for a White Light pilot study, and if it works, they may consider looking at a larger Tennessee city for a second run.

A combination of state and federal dollars from TDOT's Highway Safety Improvement Program would provide the approximately $40,000 needed to install the lights. The city's public works committee has discussed the TDOT contract, and Hendersonville Mayor Scott Foster said he expects to bring it to the full board for approval next month. If approved, it could move forward sometime in early 2009.

Foster said the city plans to install the lights at intersections along Main Street, or Gallatin Road, as well as on New Shackle Island Road.

Foster said he prefers White Light to the red light cameras.

"When we were looking at using red light cameras, we found that a large portion of the money generated goes to these camera companies," Foster said.

"It creates a lot of income for the camera company, and we're trying to make it a safety-related issue. I don't want a bunch of tickets written, I want our intersections to be safe."

Hendersonville Police Chief Terry Frizzell said he also favors the White Light program because it requires "human interaction, objectivity and good judgment."

The chief said he would not need to request more manpower or officers specifically to implement this program. The $60,000 Reducing Speed Violations Proactively grant from the Governor's Highway Safety Office has already allowed the department to pay to put more officers on the road, and provided educational literature on safe driving practices.

RSVP and the White Light program would provide officers the opportunity to educate drivers, not just write citations.

"We're a community-oriented organization," Frizzell said. "We want to save lives and prevent crashes, and we want to have human interaction between our community and our police department."

[Guest grimel]

It's a good thing those guys that threw the tea overboard in Boston didn't say, "There's nothing we can do about it." isn't, it? Just saying...

I'm sure there were a fair share of folk that said, "Just pay the tax, it's that simple."

Although I know both situations may not rise to the same level of government oppression, they do have similarities and thought I'd give a little more food for thought.

I'm starting to wonder about the age breakdown of those who don't see it as a problem and those who do. I'm betting those who exited the public (non)-education system are more likely to think it's okay.

[Guest grimel]

I just read in the Tennessean that we in Hendersonville will be seeing some new changes in the near future. Simialar idea to the one being discussed, just slightly different.

When a motorist runs a red light, a white light flashes to signal a nearby police officer of the offense. Unlike camera enforcement, the officer pulls the motorist over to issue an immediate citation.

City is a 'good fit'

TDOT spokeswoman Julie Oaks said a city the size of Hendersonville was a good fit for a White Light pilot study, and if it works, they may consider looking at a larger Tennessee city for a second run.

A combination of state and federal dollars from TDOT's Highway Safety Improvement Program would provide the approximately $40,000 needed to install the lights. The city's public works committee has discussed the TDOT contract, and Hendersonville Mayor Scott Foster said he expects to bring it to the full board for approval next month. If approved, it could move forward sometime in early 2009.

Foster said the city plans to install the lights at intersections along Main Street, or Gallatin Road, as well as on New Shackle Island Road.

Foster said he prefers White Light to the red light cameras.

"When we were looking at using red light cameras, we found that a large portion of the money generated goes to these camera companies," Foster said.

Silly question, if the officer is nearby why do you need a flashing light? How can the officer determine WHO ran the light if he didn't see it? Tell me again how it isn't about the money.

[Fallguy]

On the "White Light" thing.....I think it is better that there is interaction with a live person and the person in the car gets the ticket. But if the LEO simply sees the light and not the actual infraction....is it really better?

I mean to me, it's no different than if I go up to a LEO and say "I just saw that Blue Cavalier run that red light." Now do you think most LEOs would stop and write up that person based on my say so? I think not, the only difference here is a little white light is flashing saying the same thing.

[deerslayer]

Because you own the vehicle and are therefore responsible for what ever is done by anyone who drives it.

So what if your car is stolen?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Because you own the vehicle and are therefore responsible for what ever is done by anyone who drives it.

So, if my girlfriend is driving my car and gets a citation for speeding, I'm ultimately responsible for the fine? I don't think I've ever heard that argument made. Ever.

My beef is that it's a serious threat to our justice system if a photo of a license plate is, beyond a reasonable doubt, proof that a certain person committed an offense of some sort. Just the plate, or even a video of an automobile. Neither of those prove who the operator of the vehicle actually was.

[Fallguy]

If you knowingly allow your vehicle to be operated by someone under the influence or who does not have a proper license you may be somewhat responsible for their actions, but in general I don't think so.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

If you knowingly allow your vehicle to be operated by someone under the influence or who does not have a proper license you may be somewhat responsible for their actions, but in general I don't think so.

Sure. And I agree with that. Same goes for handing a pistol to a four year old.

What I would wonder, though, is if the state could prove that you knowingly loaned your vehicle to a known red light runner. Further, how could the state even prove that you did? They don't have any convincing evidence of the identity of the driver.

[strickj]

Provided they haven't changed the yellow duration. Provided you don't need to run the light to avoid getting rear ended.

If you get rear ended,then its because of two reasons.

First,the car behind you is driving to close,and it will be their fault.Second,you frequent fruit stands

So, if my girlfriend is driving my car and gets a citation for speeding, I'm ultimately responsible for the fine? I don't think I've ever heard that argument made. Ever.

No,because that is a moving violation where a person is at the offense,not the vehicle.Now if she were to run a light,or park in the fire lane,then it would be your car in the offense

[Fallguy]

Sure. And I agree with that. Same goes for handing a pistol to a four year old.

What I would wonder, though, is if the state could prove that you knowingly loaned your vehicle to a known red light runner. Further, how could the state even prove that you did? They don't have any convincing evidence of the identity of the driver.

I'm with you...in the two situations I stated, you know at that moment when the person takes possession they will be violating the law and you helped them. But if you just lend you car in general to someone not sure how you could be liable for speeding, running a red light and the like.

[Guest grimel]

So what if your car is stolen?

So, if my girlfriend is driving my car and gets a citation for speeding, I'm ultimately responsible for the fine? I don't think I've ever heard that argument made. Ever.

.

If you knowingly allow your vehicle to be operated by someone under the influence or who does not have a proper license you may be somewhat responsible for their actions, but in general I don't think so.

I guess the was missed by everyone.

That is the "idea" behind sending you the ticket; same for parking tickets.

I'd guess that is the "on paper" reason for changing it to a non-moving violation.

[Guest grimel]

If you get rear ended,then its because of two reasons.

First,the car behind you is driving to close,and it will be their fault.Second,you frequent fruit stands

Or, the second driver is drunk, or the second driver isn't paying attention, or anyone of a number of reasons.

Red light cams are nothing but a money grab. Everything they do with regards to the red light cams proves their actual goal.

[Guest jackdog]

Just a thought but exactly how easily can these cameras be used to just spy on the general public. Do the rotate, can they be controlled remotely? I view this as just a fore runner for the government to get us used to these things and become more intrusive. The fines and revenue they now generate seems to make this new attack against our freedoms more palatable for some folks here. No tin foil hat here, just don't need or want any more government in my life.

[Fallguy]

I guess the was missed by everyone.

I don't think so...it's just that the generally doesn't denote sarcasm. Especially when you quote someone else's post, then offer a counter point. (See below) I think most would take it as you saying the other persons position was screwy....as it seem most did.

It's not about privacy. It's about the state not properly identifying the alleged light runner and just up and sending someone a ticket in the mail. How is it that a judge can find that you owe the government fine money when the government hasn't even demonstrated that YOU committed an infraction?

Because you own the vehicle and are therefore responsible for what ever is done by anyone who drives it.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

No,because that is a moving violation where a person is at the offense,not the vehicle.Now if she were to run a light,or park in the fire lane,then it would be your car in the offense

I occasionally take trains down to Hamilton County. Around the rail yard, I've seen lots of odd things. Going to the hotel to take rest, I've seen lots of odd things. Never have I seen a car drive itself.

What do we do with repeat, recidivist vehicles that habitually run red lights? Take their tires? Put them on blocks in a solitary stall at some impound lot? What if they're genuinely sorry about driving themselves thusly? I know it might break the lectern, but do you think a ton chassis Chevy might be able to throw himself on the mercy of the court?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Guest tadams]

Yes, it is indeed a problem if the intersection with a piggy cam has a shorter time than the posted speed, congestion, obstruction of view, probable weather conditions, and possible heavy use of large vehicle traffic should allow. Proving that in court is questionable, at best. Proving it to the point that it gets you off the hook would require eloquence and careful wording and probably isn't worth the time away from work, especially if it's not a "moving" violation anymore. (adding more stupidity to an otherwise ignorant use of technology. )

If I'm not mistaken, however, isn't there some mandatory 3 second yellow law in place? It has to be set for 3 seconds or greater, as the above conditions allow and call for.

Why are our TN communities just now being turned on to technology that has been in use, for 25 years or more or more in some locals, and has since been thrown away and even permanently written in law to never allow their use ever again. Of course it's the money, people. It's not just our elected that are to blame, it's the companies that sell these traps. Other states and cities have discontinued their use and the salespeople are moving east, from California, in search of new suckers... er, clients. The technology has improved over the years, but it's just the same basic principle and the same basic problems.

It's amazing to me that insurance companies haven't sued entire municipalities for an increase in rear end collisions caused by these cameras. I suppose that rear-end collisions, while greater in frequency than a broad-side hit, take less money to resolve due to lessened medical injuries. Most vehicles currently on the road have headrests and are more properly equipped to secure a body for that type of impact.

If it wasn't about the money then why don't they simply elongate the yellow light a half second or a whole second to cut down on T-bone collisions? Common sense (as well as more dollars wasted at the public expense) would dictate that this simple and FREE maneuver would hold the same outcome.

Edited December 29, 2008 by tadams
added last paragraph

[Guest jackdog]

Good point tadams

[Oh Shoot]

.... but do you think a ton chassis Chevy might be able to throw himself on the mercy of the court?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

I liked it

- OS

[strickj]

Well it would seem to me that by adding an extra half second wouldn't do much except let one more car through to run it.

Its like the speed limit.If the speed limit is 40 mph with countless speeders,it doesn't help the problem to increase the speed limit to 45 mph simply because the people that were going 5 over before will continue to go 5 over.(thats been proven countless times)

It's amazing to me that insurance companies haven't sued entire municipalities for an increase in rear end collisions caused by these cameras.

Do you have any proof to show an increase in rear end collisions?

Like I stated above,if someone rear ends you,its their fault for their poor driving.

Also,like I stated,what if they are driven by dollars,and dollars alone?Whats the problem with the people running lights,and causing wrecks having to pay? I would rather their fines help pay to clean up wrecks,then me ..... I dunno,maybe I dont get it ...or maybe I'm the only one who does

[Guest tadams]

Well it would seem to me that by adding an extra half second wouldn't do much except let one more car through to run it.

Its like the speed limit.If the speed limit is 40 mph with countless speeders,it doesn't help the problem to increase the speed limit to 45 mph simply because the people that were going 5 over before will continue to go 5 over.(thats been proven countless times)

True. That, too, would necessitate common sense; at least up to the point where those same speeders felt comfortable driving at that same increased speed, with banking, angle of turn, water runoff, etc providing the criteria.

Your logic, however, doesn't necessarily dictate the logic for an elongated lapse between traffic flow at any given intersection. In TN a yellow light, by definition, means to prepare to stop by slowing your vehicle. If the vehicle can not be slowed to a stop in a safe manner, given vehicle weight/ type of brakes/ speed/ weather conditions then you must continue forward through the yellow light before it turns red and clear the intersection entirely. Further, if you are stuck in the middle of an intersection after a yellow light, you are to clear the intersection at the nearest opportunity thus avoiding congestion for the opposing traffic.

While I feel your use of the 5mph-over logic is flawed by inserting it for use regarding a traffic light length, I will concede by saying that there will always be the incorrigible a-holes causing wrecks by running red lights. It is these very same people that SHOULD have to pay the fines written from the use of traffic cams. If a municipality still chooses to purchase a traffic cam, then it's these losers that should pay for the installation and upkeep; not the average citizen, not even the out-of-towner as someone else suggested, but the person (or vehicle;)) who abuses the system purposely.

If the municipalities reasoning for adding the cameras was TRULY to protect their public (and employer) then simply elongating the yellow time or increasing the time between a red and the opposing lane's green would have much better results, while lessening stress for all drivers. To actually make a traffic cam beyond reproach, I see that as the ONLY reasonable, justified method for their use. Unfortunately, that probably means that it will cost the city more money to install, use, maintain, and operate the cameras than the fines will pay for, because these companies that sell them reap the real reward percentage from the fines and NOT your local municipality. It is only by an inflation of numbers or improper traffic engineering that these boxes actually pay off to help pay to sweep up the debris from an intersection wreck.

Do you have any proof to show an increase in rear end collisions?

Like I stated above,if someone rear ends you,its their fault for their poor driving.

This info is all over the net with countless articles, research, and dollars invested. Here's a couple, both from the National Motorist Association: Increased Yellow light times and Red-light cameras

Edited December 29, 2008 by tadams

[Smith]

Man! You spent some time on that.

[bubbiesdad]

Not all red light runners do so at the change. Some go through long after it turned red.

[Guest tadams]

Man! You spent some time on that.

Middle of the night; couldn't sleep. I wasn't even sure it all made sense, but I suppose you can get the gist of it.