Tennessee Town Releases Red Light Camera Stats

SonicSpike links to what he calls "a transparent look at some statistics released by a small town's red-light camera program," writing "Specifically, in the last fiscal quarter, 7,213 incidents were recorded, 2,673 incidents were rejected by the reviewing officer, and 662 incidents were not processed due to technical issues or lack of information. All in all 3,878 citations were issued between April 1 — June 30 in a town of 17,000 residents. Interestingly enough there are two nearby cities claiming that individuals 'have no presumption of innocence' when accused by the red light cameras." Fines for no-harm-no-foul rolling stops bug me, and remind me of Gary Lauder's suggestion to merge stop signs and yield signs.

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[cosm]

The photograph IS the proof.

Hi,

We're from The National Enquirer [google.com]. We would like to make you an offer.

Sincerely, The National Enquirer

Re:no-harm no-foul

[jimmyfrank]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Off Topic

[networkzombie]

I always stop at intersections with cameras, but because some intersections have them and other do not, I take the intersections that do not have them less seriously. No red light camera, no traffic, and no cops, means drive through. I feel if they want to force their authority down my throat on some intersections, say by giving me a ticket because I missed the yellow by less than 1 second or inched into the crosswalk, then I can practice my free will at unmonitored intersections by yielding rather than stopping.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[causality]

I think it sucks that even such draconian measures don't get people to STOP RUNNING THE DAMN RED LIGHT!

There's only one method I'm aware of which has been proven to reduce the number of people running red lights: increasing the duration of the amber light. Red light tickets merely increase accidents on the approach to the light as people slam on the brakes to stop and idiots go into the back of them.

But North American stop lights are a disastrous design anyway.

I know a good way to stop people from running the red light. Increase the duration of the amber light. Put a countdown timer (like an LED display) telling the driver exactly how long until the yellow light turns red. Then have a hydraulic system that very quickly raises a heavy steel plate in front of the place where a car is expected to stop for the red light. The steel plate lowers back into the ground when the light turns green so that cars can safely roll over it.

Problem solved! Of course this would adversely impact ticket revenues...


Incidentally -- watch someone take this post seriously. I should have omitted this line to see how many would.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[dgatwood]

"Hey look kids, there's Big Ben, and there's Parliament. "

Re:no-harm no-foul

[kryliss]

Actually ticket revenue could remain the same but ticket the idiot who hit the barricade $500 or more dollars because they "damaged" government property by scratching the paint.... New paint job $10, have unskilled monkey... er uhm.. state worker repaint said barricade, $10. $480 profit.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I agree with your solution with one additional step - after the light has turned red and the steel plate is raised up, but before the light for the other direction can turn green, the center of the intersection should open up like a trap door and dump in to a pit all the cars who entered an already full intersection so they wouldn't have to stop for the red light and wait for their turn. I'm not sure what should be in the pit -- hungry tigers, or maybe a pool filled with ill-tempered sea bass - either of those would be fine.

I propose we remove all redlight cameras

[netsavior]

Obviously they don't work.

The obvious solution is RED LIGHT SPIKE STRIPS.

Severe tire damage has 3 awesome consequences:
1) no court proceedings
2) no appeals
3) stimulates local economy

Re:"Presumption of innocence"?

[causality]

I'm not sure where you've been for the past 150 years but photography is not new.

Who do you think has to prove innocence when the likeness of a man with no twins is caught on film shooting someone? I'd say a photograph is very compelling evidence and I'm pretty sure the courts agree, but, IANAL.

I heard a story about a guy who got nailed by a red light camera when they were new. The camera captured a photo of his vehicle and license plate going through the intersection. A printout of this photo was mailed to his home address along with the traffic ticket. He wanted to protest the use of cameras. Let's assume the fine was $100. So he takes five $20 bills and lays them out on a table. He snaps a photo of the $100 and mails that to the courthouse with a note asking that they accept his payment.

Several days later, he receives another piece of mail from the police. It contains a photo of handcuffs. So he promptly stops by the courthouse and pays the ticket with actual currency.

Re:But people stopped doing rolling stops!

[Culture20]

...How many of these drivers were traveling at a safe posted speed limit and caught a yellow on a rainy day and had no choice but to either enter a skidding sliding stop or get a ticket. and now due to their unfortunate luck have the added benefit of fighting this in court...

In inclement weather, or other situations in which the speed limit is too high to drive safely, then it's the drivers responsibility to low down to safe speeds. If the driver couldn't react (for whatever reason) and stop for a red light, then they were going too fast under the circumstances. The Green->Yellow->Red timings are not arbitrary, and are based on good weather conditions and acceptable reaction time expectations.

The point of a lot of these camera articles is that the timings are not (as you said) arbitrary, and are instead purposefully shortened to create revenue. Decades of driving experience have taught people that 20mph in a 30mph zone while it's raining is okay, but a shortened amber time is like having a pedestrian jump out in front of you from the side of the road, not safely using the crosswalk. The only way to protect against that is to drive 5mph everywhere at all times.

Re:no-harm no-foul

[garyebickford]

You remind me of an incident that I watched some years ago at an intersection between two major six-lane boulevards. A guy driving a very new Porsche noted the light change and quickly stopped. The guy in the 20 box truck behind him ... didn't. There was no way the truck was going to stop that fast. He pushed the Porsche all the way into the middle of the intersection. The guy in the Porsche jumped out of his car, and - the only time I've ever seen this - was jumping up and down and screaming in the middle of the intersection, literally "hopping mad". I doubt there was a printable word from his mouth in several minutes. I was amused. :) I'm bad. :(