Speed and Red Light Cameras

[saevel25]

Because with the sole purpose being revenue generation, there's little to no oversight.  What if the device malfunctions or is set intentionally to ticket motorists going over 5mph?   I was under the impression we were still innocent until proven guilty and you had the right to face your accuser in court.  The local governments gets away with it by just fining the vehicle owner and not assigning points to the driver since they have no way to validate who was driving.

I'm not sure how it's gone in Ohio, but here in NY there are issues with red light cameras giving tickets to vehicles that it shouldn't have.  It's also all but undone the right on red law as there's uncertainty how long you have to wait before turning so now no one turns on right where these camera's are positioned.

I often hear your slippery slope argument if you're not doing anything illegal you have no reason to be concerned.  I guess we should all welcome government cameras in our homes and businesses so the government can monitor everything we do to generate more revenue since only the guilty have anything to worry about.

Speed camera's, immigration check points, invasive x-ray searches at airports, and who knows what else, leads me to think we better remove the words "O'er the land of the free" out of the Star Spangled Banner.

Really, then why did the police ask for an accident study to install speed cameras in Dayton? These cameras were driven to improve safety. They were installed in the top 5 accident locations due to cars going to fast. How do I know this, I work for the City of Dayton in their Traffic Engineering department and know the guy who put together the list of top intersections with speed related accidents. So lay off the "Oh its only revenue" BS. You know some cities actually think about what they are doing. Do some cities use it as a way to generate more revenue, yea. Others actually use it for a good purpose. Like everything, it isn't black and white you know.

You can also challenge the ticket in court. Nothing is stopping you on that. The tickets are written in the same format as a parking ticket. You can challenge parking tickets as well. You can go and have the speed camera tested, like you can have the laser or radar tested that police officers use to see if it is malfunctioning. You can have the cop who reviews the ticket testify. That is right, all tickets are reviewed by a police officer (at least in Dayton). In the end you will probably not over turn the ticket, like majority of all speeding tickets, but you still can challenge the ticket. That is a total MYTH, that you don't have due process.

Yes the camera does fine the owner of the car, but the owner can put down who was driving the ticket. Like lets say your best friend flies through a speed camera area. So that is completely wrong as well that it just fines the owner of the car and that is it. Maybe if people actually read the ticket they might actually learn something.

Yes red light cameras have an issue with "Right Turn on Red". In Dayton we have detection loops before the stop bar to assist with this. Not sure how they work in NY, but this is a problem. I would say put up "NO TURN ON RED" signs and be done with it.

Yet we are not talking about homes, we are talking about video cameras in the right of way. It sounds to me you are just more upset with the government that with the fact these cameras actually reduce speeding, reduce speed related accidents. They do what they are designed to do. These cameras are not in your home. They are in the Public Own right of way. So really you can't argue what the City puts in the right of way, unless you pass a law forbidding it. It certainly isn't in your home.

[saevel25]

Good to know that they give you +12. I love how everyone brakes to -5 and then gun it when they pass. I actually like the red light and speed cams. I admit that I run fewer yellows not knowing.

Yea, we have graphs of the number of speeding tickets. The first time they came out there was a spike in tickets, just because people were not use to them. Now we have less people speeding all together. Those cameras + loops act as data counters as well for speed. So they do their job, they lower the overall speed of the vehicles on that segment of roadway. Which is good because people fly down these roads that have frequent intersections and this greatly reduces vehicles who run red lights and rear end collisions. So yes, the speed enforcement cameras do their job.

[newtogolf]

Really, then why did the police ask for an accident study to install speed cameras in Dayton? These cameras were driven to improve safety. They were installed in the top 5 accident locations due to cars going to fast. How do I know this, I work for the City of Dayton in their Traffic Engineering department and know the guy who put together the list of top intersections with speed related accidents. So lay off the "Oh its only revenue" BS. You know some cities actually think about what they are doing. Do some cities use it as a way to generate more revenue, yea. Others actually use it for a good purpose. Like everything, it isn't black and white you know.

No need to discuss further, you're part of bureaucracy so there's no sense having the discussion.  Keep convincing yourself it's not about revenue if it helps you sleep better at night.

[saevel25]

No need to discuss further, you're part of bureaucracy so there's no sense having the discussion.  Keep convincing yourself it's not about revenue if it helps you sleep better at night.

I never said it wasn't revenue. My response from the other tread clearly showed it does generate revenue. What I am saying is, that it is a side effect, not necessarily the reason why they are put up. Given some might see the dollar signs, but it is inconsistent at best, and there are diminishing returns because people learn were they are at. Like I said in the previous post, we have graphs that show the number of cars that speed have gone down. This is a reduction in revenue from previous years. Also I have shown that at least for the City of Dayton they are put at locations where there are accidents. Hence showing that it isn't all about revenue generation.

Now if someone had a portable one that they bounce around all the time setting them up for 5 mph over the speed limit, that is totally revenue generating greed. Ours are put in permanent locations were there have been accidents due to speed.

I'm not trying to prove anyone is wrong in thinking they are not revenue generators. I am just saying that their purpose, when applied correctly is a great tool for Cities to use.

As for red light cameras, I like them for one reason. They decrease fatalities. People know the intersection has them, so they don't try to fly through the intersection. This decreases head one and T-bone collisions which are more fatal. So I ask to anyone who bitches about revenue generation, tell that argument to the people who lost loved ones because someone ran a Red Light when they stepped on the gas instead of slowing down. If one ticket can save one life, then I think that revenue generating device is worth it.

I sleep better at night because I am on the right side of this argument

[newtogolf]

I never said it wasn't revenue. My response from the other tread clearly showed it does generate revenue. What I am saying is, that it is a side effect, not necessarily the reason why they are put up. Given some might see the dollar signs, but it is inconsistent at best, and there are diminishing returns because people learn were they are at. Like I said in the previous post, we have graphs that show the number of cars that speed have gone down. This is a reduction in revenue from previous years. Also I have shown that at least for the City of Dayton they are put at locations where there are accidents. Hence showing that it isn't all about revenue generation.

Now if someone had a portable one that they bounce around all the time setting them up for 5 mph over the speed limit, that is totally revenue generating greed. Ours are put in permanent locations were there have been accidents due to speed.

I'm not trying to prove anyone is wrong in thinking they are not revenue generators. I am just saying that their purpose, when applied correctly is a great tool for Cities to use.

As for red light cameras, I like them for one reason. They decrease fatalities. People know the intersection has them, so they don't try to fly through the intersection. This decreases head one and T-bone collisions which are more fatal. So I ask to anyone who bitches about revenue generation, tell that argument to the people who lost loved ones because someone ran a Red Light when they stepped on the gas instead of slowing down. If one ticket can save one life, then I think that revenue generating device is worth it.

I sleep better at night because I am on the right side of this argument

As I said we can agree to disagree, Dayton is not Long Island.  I don't know anything about how Dayton implemented the red light cameras compared to Long Island so maybe your local government isn't as desperate to collect revenue as mine.  I agree the studies here indicated they reduced fatalities, but the number of severe accidents at these intersections on Long Island increased because people slam on their brakes on a yellow to avoid a ticket and get rear ended by the driver(s) behind them.   Again Long Island drivers and Dayton drivers are two different animals.

Our local governments are already considering cutting back on the contract for red light cameras because the revenue they collected this year is lagging far behind last year.  Based on decisions like that, it doesn't seem saving lives is at the forefront of our local politicians minds, does it?

As for speed cameras, they are limiting their installation currently to school zones which I have no issue with.  I am sure the plan is to get people to accept the idea we're protecting our children and then once they get passed we'll see them on major roads without schools.

[saevel25]

As I said we can agree to disagree, Dayton is not Long Island.  I don't know anything about how Dayton implemented the red light cameras compared to Long Island so maybe your local government isn't as desperate to collect revenue as mine.  I agree the studies here indicated they reduced fatalities, but the number of severe accidents at these intersections on Long Island increased because people slam on their brakes on a yellow to avoid a ticket and get rear ended by the driver(s) behind them.   Again Long Island drivers and Dayton drivers are two different animals.

Our local governments are already considering cutting back on the contract for red light cameras because the revenue they collected this year is lagging far behind last year.  Based on decisions like that, it doesn't seem saving lives is at the forefront of our local politicians minds, does it?

As for speed cameras, they are limiting their installation currently to school zones which I have no issue with.  I am sure the plan is to get people to accept the idea we're protecting our children and then once they get passed we'll see them on major roads without schools.

Well the City of Dayton sees none of the money. The Red Light cameras and Speed Cameras in Dayton are contracted out through the Police Department. So it goes straight to their funds. So the Traffic Department sees none of it.

Well rear ends are much less severe than hitting a car that makes a left turn because they think they need to get through the light. Also the car behind them should be slowing down anyways, so really that accident shouldn't be severe at all. Cars are much more protected on the front and back as well.

School Zones and high pedestrian areas are a great area for speed cameras.

City isn't going to do something that wastes that much money no matter what. In the end Revenue is important, but implementation should be around safety. Given highest speed areas are a safety issue, so the revenue and reduction in speed go hand in hand with the locations. It is a side effect really. I can see trying to put too many up would be a burden because some sites just don't have the volume to support the contract anyways.

[LuciusWooding]

I welcome self driving cars as soon as they come out. I absolutely hate driving. Not only is my commute a huge waste of valuable time I could be using to do other things, it's a huge risk to my life and property because of the amount of dangerous drivers and roads. It's the most likely source of any catastrophic event in my life and a slight mishap could bring me complete financial ruin or put my life at risk. Even if I drive carefully I can still get into an accident and develop huge problems.

The red light and speed cameras just add even more stress; I want nothing to do with any of it. It's like I'm paying to do dangerous work I don't wish to do in addition to my job. And the sheer amount of tax money and police time that gets wasted on traffic enforcement is ridiculous. They barely fix the roads but they make sure to ticket everybody they can get away with. Not to mention the cost of insurance as a young male being totally unrelated to how well I drive; I get the job of subsidizing the insurance company's profits while the other idiots in my risk pool text and drive. Mass transit would be nice but unfortunately it's useless where I live.