Author Topic: Red Light Traffic Cameras (Read 895 times)

Eagler · « **on:** July 31, 2001, 03:20:00 PM »

What's the big deal? Follow the law, you don't have to worry. How can someone claim it's an invasion of privacy when you are in a public right away? If it saves lives while generating revenue for road improvements at the cost of the law breakers, I'm all for it.

mrfish · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2001, 03:27:00 PM »

they are a good idea.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2001, 03:34:00 PM »

It falls into the generic "big brother is watching" regime.

I can't say they bother me too much... but I do believe that I don't want cameras and radar detectors set up to cover every stretch of road to ensure that I don't ever do anything remotely illegal while behind the wheel of a car.

I guess it just depends on what end of the spectrum people fall under.

AKDejaVu

Baddawg · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2001, 03:44:00 PM »

Well I ask the question are the police doing this in effort of deterent or as a source of revenue?

What is more likely to stop a person from speeding ,a visable physical police presence or a ticket from a hidden camera device?

Cash Cow or a feature to make our streets safer... I feel cash cow.

Udie · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2001, 03:56:00 PM »

Eagler,

It's "public right of way

or R.O.W. for short. As far as traffic control cameras are concerned I like the idea. Give tickets through the mail and let the cops go catch murderers and what not. That being said, how do you prove somebody was driving a car just from a picture of the outside of the car?

BUT the instant you start talking face recognition software I start thinking we don't need no stinkin camera's at all. If they put the software in cameras near my home I'd probobly put on a mask and go out camera bashing.....

Udie

mietla · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2001, 04:24:00 PM »

From what I have heard everyone who challenges this kind of ticket in court wins.

My wife got a photo ticket for speeding (38 mph in a 35 mph zone). They have sent me (the car is registered in my name) a form with the following questions:

- does the car belong to you? I said yes
- did you drive the car? I said no
- do I know who drove the car? I left it blank (go fly a kite)

it also said that I can make an appointment to see the picture (which I declined), and asked me to send them a copy of my driver's license (they wanted my photo). which I did. They said that the employee will compare my photo with the one on a ticket and contact me if they have more questions.

Never heard from them again. Guess I look nothing like my wife

I think that they are just fishing. Install the camera and start collecting revenue (legal or not). Many (if not most) folks will just pay up. Those who do not, are ignored, and almost everybody is happy...

Fools, because they are left alone after paying up.
City, because they have a steady revenue.
Cops, because they can munch on donuts.

I'm not, because they wasted my time.

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]

SOB · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2001, 04:38:00 PM »

They just recently installed these devices at some of the major intersections in Beaverton, OR shortly after I moved from there. I think they made good sense there, as the traffic situation was getting out of hand. I drove to work through the city every day, and I couldn't go a day without seeing at least one or two solid red light runners. I'm not talking about pushing the limits of yellow either.

On the other hand, the boxes that they're mounted in are so big, that within a few days you'd be able to figure out which intersections had them and which didn't.

SOB

miko2d · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2001, 05:25:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Udie:
That being said, how do you prove somebody was driving a car just from a picture of the outside of the car?

That is excactly why the owner of the car gets the ticket but no one gets points and or violation on his/her record.
The distinctuion is huge. I once paid ticket $100)? for accidentally running the "yellow" light under such camera.
If I got caught by a cop and receved 2 points on my license, increase of insurance premiums over the next 3 years would have cost me over $2000.

When I received a letter requesting me to pay the fine, it contained 2 printed pictures of my car with clearly visible license plate - the second one a zoom-up of the license plate. Not much to argue about.

The traffic light is kind of sneaky - it is located on a steep incline and teh yellow light is kind of short duration. So you are tempted not to stop on yellow going downward...

miko

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: miko2d ]

mietla · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2001, 05:53:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d:
That is excactly why the owner of the car gets the ticket but no one gets points and or violation on his/her record.

.....

The traffic light is kind of sneaky - it is located on a steep incline and teh yellow light is kind of short duration. So you are tempted not to stop on yellow going downward...

Which would further support the notion that this is simply a revenue producing device.

[ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]

mietla · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2001, 05:55:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d:
That is excactly why the owner of the car gets the ticket but no one gets points and or violation on his/her record.

Which would further support the notion that this is simply a revenue producing device.

DmdStuB · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2001, 06:37:00 PM »

It's not the police who install the cameras, though they are usually the ones that have to maintain it (after all, the photos are evidence of an infraction). It's the city or county government that buys/installs it. They see it as a cheap investment that will bring in lots of cash over the long term, and it stops all the people that squeak about this or that intersection being too dangerous from dogging them during their re-election bid.

StuB

Quote

Originally posted by Baddawg:
Well I ask the question are the police doing this in effort of deterent or as a source of revenue?

What is more likely to stop a person from speeding ,a visable physical police presence or a ticket from a hidden camera device?

Cash Cow or a feature to make our streets safer... I feel cash cow.

mietla · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2001, 07:22:00 PM »

Not sure if this is true, but supposedly busineses installing and maintaining those cameras get a cut of the "revenue" as well.

Maverick · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2001, 07:40:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla:
Not sure if this is true, but supposedly busineses installing and maintaining those cameras get a cut of the "revenue" as well.

Mietla,

NO ONE installs expensive equipment and maintains it for free. A private corporation developed the system and certainly makes money selling it to the Govt. entity that buys them. They may or may not have a contract for manitenance. Many municipalities have their own mantenance facilities for all kinds of gear including cameras etc..

Police Departments, Sheriffs and other Public Safety entities do not make policy. The camera systems are purchased (authorized) by the political representatives of the comunity. In other words, the people you may have voted for. After having said that, the proper avenue for you to take with your objections is the local government that got the system.

Side note. There is a story, dunno if it's true, about a photo ticket.

Seems a driver got caught speeding on photo radar. The police agency responsible for monitoring the system sent him a photocopy of the picture and ticket.

The driver, thinking a photocopy isn't a real ticket, then sent them a photocopy of the amount of money required for the fine.

The Police Department then sent the driver a photocopy of a pair of handcuffs. The driver got the message and sent in the money.

Mav

mietla · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2001, 08:01:00 PM »

Sure they have to be paid, but is should be a fixed amount.

Gettting a percentage of the ticket revenue seems fishy to me.

Vulcan · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2001, 08:51:00 PM »

Hmmm you boys are behind the times a bit. I saw a new system rolled out in the UK a while ago where it calculated average speed by doing a OCR of the plates and date/stamping ALL vehicles passing through. Then calculating times vs distance between points.

It did stall however. Because the images were 'photo-enhanced and digital' the judge threw the cases out. Because the system enhanced the gamma to bring out the text and was digital the lawyers proved the evidence was not 'original', as the entire system was digital the Police couldn't produce an original 'non-digital' photograph.