Posted 6/27/2010 05:15:00 PM by Douglas

Yet another example of how red light cameras are about revenue, not safety.

This month marked the second anniversary of red-light cameras in the city. When they were brought online in 2008, city officials said any revenue the cameras produced would be the byproduct of a program they promised would make intersections safer. City data show the cameras have raked in more than $1 million, but in some cases, the monitored intersections are more dangerous.

Check out the numbers. Some accidents have increased. Why? Because people stop at lights now, but don't try to explain that to a [no doubt Texas A&M] traffic engineer:

Amarillo Traffic Engineer Taylor W_____ said he was "puzzled" that the number of rear-end collisions had increased.

Is it that hard to figure out? $1 Million for the city, or more accidents. That's a no brainer.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 5/27/2009 05:38:00 PM by Douglas

Looks like Texas might step up and be Texas when it comes to red light cameras.

The statewide banning of red-light cameras is now more possible than ever.

Reps. Carl Isett, Gary Elkins and other lawmakers believe the cameras are not just a way for cities to make extra money, but deny motorists the right to face their accuser in court.

"I feel good about our chances" Isett, R-Lubbock, said Tuesday. "I think it will advance."

The legislation to ban red-light cameras is moving despite strong opposition from local governments.

Yeah, well, no shit. Any city will think a red light camera is a the goose shitting golden eggs (or however that goes) as is evident by how fast every city in Texas is throwing them up.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 2/14/2009 02:14:00 PM by Douglas

The spread of red light cameras continue unabated.

League City council members gave the green light Tuesday to red light cameras at five intersections throughout the city.

Motorists caught running red lights will be issued a $75 ticket that will not count against their driving record, Jez said.

“I think we’re at a point where we have no other choice in this city but to use every tool in our arsenal to address traffic congestion,” he said.

No Other Choice. Wow, I had no idea how horrible it is. But it's about safety, not revenue, is it?

The cameras could also boost revenues collected from fines by $500,000, Jez said, quoting data from the company, Redflex Traffic Systems.

Jez said he is pushing the cameras as a public safety tool and he “could care less about the revenues.”

What errant bullshit. If it's about safety and not revenue, then why don't the tickets count on your driving record? Why is it only a fine that makes the city half a million dollars? Oh yeah, it is all about money.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 1/18/2009 12:47:00 PM by Douglas

This sounds too good to be true. The state refunding money just because it was taken illegally? Who'd a thunk it.

More than 14,000 recipients of red light camera citations in Minneapolis, Minnesota will soon receive a refund. The city this week began mailing notices informing those ticketed that they will be sent a refund check unless they choose to opt out of a class action settlement. US District Court Judge Michael J. Davis has set a February 27 date for a hearing to approve the final repayment details.

The problems for Minneapolis began in 2005 when the city decided to issue red light camera tickets without the sanction of state lawmakers. By April 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled that the use of automating ticketing machines violated state law and deprived motorists of due process. The city was forced to end its program for good, but it had no intention of returning the $2.6 million collected from the program.

I'm sure they'll figure out they need to do so the cameras can come back. It's not like a state to turn away a cash cow of this magnitude, no matter how specious it's "safety" argument is.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 12/30/2008 05:54:00 PM by Douglas

Don't show us the data if it doesn't support your own bullshit theory that red light cameras decrease crashes. They don't

The number of crashes at Houston intersections with red-light cameras doubled in the first year after their installation, according to a city-financed study released Monday.

But Mayor Bill White argued that the cameras' presence prevented even more collisions and that the study proves the monitoring program is keeping drivers safe.

And you're basing this on what exactly? Collisions went up, along with city revenue, to the tune of about $20 million dollars.

Since September 2006, the cameras have led to at least 387,000 citations and generated more than $20 million in revenue.

Don't kid yourself. It's about raising money, not safety. And I hope the rest of Texas keeps this in mind when this professional liar runs for the senate.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 12/02/2008 05:01:00 PM by Douglas

Crash prevention or cash production?

Red-light cameras apparently reduced overall collisions at dozens of monitored intersections across Texas, according to a state transportation study.

The report, released today by the Texas Department of Transportation, concludes that crashes declined overall by 30 percent at a sampling intersections, many of them in Houston.

"While these results cannot conclusively determine that red light cameras are responsible for the overall reduction in crashes," the report reads, "the presence of the treatment provided some effect on the frequency of crashes at the selected intersections for the limited time period of this analysis."

The study examined crashes from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 at select intersections at 12 cities required to report crashes under a new state law.

The data show that right-angle collisions reduced by 43 percent, while rear-end collisions increased by 5 percent, mirroring some other studies across the nation.

Not that I'm ranting, but it's not about money. Obviously.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 4/30/2007 07:18:00 PM by Douglas

As I've stated before, red light cameras are about money, not safety. So what if they have proof.

After one year, the set of fifteen red light cameras installed in Providence, Rhode Island have failed to produce any measurable safety benefits -- contrary to the promises made when the devices were installed. Although the number of accidents at intersections has not declined, Providence intends to add even more cameras to city streets for safety reasons.

Well of course they are. Why admit they're wrong when there's so much money to be had?

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 2/28/2007 05:05:00 PM by Douglas

Red light cameras. Once again, it ain't about safety, it's about money. This time, in Lubbock:

On Thursday, the Lubbock, Texas city council voted to delay installation of red light cameras after a local television station exposed the city's short timing of yellow lights at eight of the twelve intersections where the devices were to be installed.

"Many folks believe this is a money grab and then we found out through KCBD Television there's a discrepancy in timing," Councilman Gary Boren said, as quoted by KCBD.

Earlier this month, the station cited the rule-of-thumb that Lubbock City Engineer Jere Hart asserted as the basis for timing lights at city intersections. At most of the proposed camera intersections, Hart did not follow his own rule.

At 82nd and University, the 50 MPH speed limit suggests the need for a 5 second yellow, but it currently set at just 4.3 seconds. At 82nd and Frankford, the speed of traffic requires 4.5 seconds of yellow, but the public is only given 4.0. Milwaukee and 19th, a 55 MPH intersection, has a 4.4 second yellow when it should be 5.5. Parkway and Zenith has a 2.9 second yellow which is illegal under federal regulations mandating yellow times of no less than 3.0 seconds. Hart admitted the light should be 3.5 seconds.

Last year, before the news investigation, Hart assured city council members that he would not increase yellow times.

"Jere said, if [the red light camera program is] implemented, the public would prefer to have an increased amber cycle, but stated the program will not adjust the amber/yellow time," the city council's traffic commission minutes of September 19, 2006 read. "Jere stated enforcement would generate revenue, more so in the initial phase, then most likely receding in subsequent years."

The equation is clear: Longer yellow, safer intersection. Shorter yellow, more money for the money-grubbing whore of the state that doesn’t give two shits about your safety as long as their coffers are filled.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 9/21/2006 05:51:00 PM by Douglas

Yet another example why the red-light cameras are about money, and not about safety.

Hundreds of drivers who ran red lights while making turns at intersections newly monitored by cameras have not been issued tickets because of a loophole in the photo-enforcement ordinance.

"The way the current city ordinance is written, turns are excluded, even if they are illegal turns," said Houston police Sgt. Michael Muench.

I realize that the city will fix this loophole before the ink's dry on tomorrow's paper, but why the exclusion? It's obviously harder to make a case for someone 'rolling through' a right-turn on red situation, but the left turn? If you run that light, isn't that much more dangerous than running a red light? Why was that excluded? It can't be about the fines, can it?

Where is the public outcry for this surveillance? Are the sheeple of Houston really this fat, dumb and complacent? I'm afraid I already know the answer to that one.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 9/18/2006 05:00:00 PM by Douglas

I saw this guy's story on the news a few weeks ago and I've been looking for the outcome ever since. I like the way it turned out.

A critic of the city's red-light camera system Sunday intentionally ran a downtown red light to get caught on camera so he could challenge the new system in court — only to be ticketed by a Houston police officer instead.

That means he will face a criminal misdemeanor with a maximum $200 fine instead of the civil citation and $75 fine issued to violators caught on tape.

Well, good for him. Don't send a camera to do a man's job.

But seriously, I have a lot of respect for someone that's going to put their ass on the line to challenge stupid laws that affect us all. If this guy didn't already have adequate counsel, I'd throw him a few bucks for his legal fees.

But you gotta let the camera catch you first.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 9/07/2006 05:27:00 PM by Douglas

Not me.

The intersection of Bay Area Boulevard and El Camino Real in Clear Lake has recorded more red-light violations than any other location the city has monitored by camera for the past week, police said Thursday

Something I thought was needless to say previously, I'm not advocating running red lights. I'm simply saying that it's not the government's job to make money. And that's all this is about.

Labels: red light cameras

Posted 9/06/2006 05:52:00 PM by Douglas

Remember, all you fucking idiots, it's not about money, it's about safety.

Houston's new red-light camera system could bring in far more revenue than the city projects.

Police estimate about a quarter of violators who are issued tickets will pay the $75 civil fine. But in several other cities that use the same camera system, fine collection is as high as 90 percent.

While the city's revenue estimate for the program once it's in full swing is about $6.7 million a year, a collection rate of 90 percent would bring in more than triple that amount — about $24 million.

Catch that? How many lives is this going to save? How many accidents is this going to prevent? Hmm, a statistic that's greedily absent from this story. Why is that? Mayor White, how 'bout some pandering?

Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold Hurtt have touted the system as a way to make streets safer by reducing the number of crashes at intersections as drivers change their behavior in response to the cameras.

Here we go. Safer, fewer crashes, blah blah blah $24 Million dollars of pure profit for the city. That's a hard sell, even for a lying politician. Now for the part that really pisses me off:

The system is designed to pay for itself; the city has agreed to pay the contractor about $2.5 million annually.

I think the Hurtt Prize should be extended to include Mayor White.

Labels: red light cameras