http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/100959
locations
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/images/photos/2007/11/01/najzcapd.jpg


Tempe adds 20 new speed cameras

Garin Groff, Tribune
Drivers will find 10 new places to get photo-enforcement tickets in Tempe starting today. The city is launching a massive expansion of its photo-enforcement effort by boosting permanent cameras from two to 20.

GRAPHIC: See the location of the new cameras

Just two intersections had the equipment for a decade, with one camera at each place. But the city now has a pair of cameras in each of the 10 locations, snapping photos of drivers in two directions.

The new digital equipment replaces film-based technology that was a decade old. The quality was so bad that only 24 percent of violations resulted in a photo good enough to issue a citation.

“It was not accomplishing what it needed to,” Tempe police Sgt. Mike Horn said.

Cities typically break even on the cost of photo enforcement, but the poor quality resulted in an annual loss of $285,000 in Tempe.

Tempe hasn’t calculated how much revenue the new equipment will generate, but Horn said the city’s goal is to implement a program that’s revenue-neutral while trying to slow down drivers and reduce traffic crashes.

Drivers will get warnings for the first 30 days while operators fine-tune the technology. After that, drivers will get citations in the mail.

The equipment allows Tempe to do two new things.

First, the city can now issue citations to drivers who speed through green signals at intersections. And second, the city has midblock locations to detect speeders.

Police chose the locations after reviewing collision data, talking with city traffic engineers and working with Redflex, a Scottsdale-based company that will administer the service.

Each location will be marked with a sign warning drivers, but Horn said some already have spotted the pole-mounted cameras.

“We’ve received some calls from several people who have noticed them going up,” Horn said. “It’s clearly not anything that should be a surprise to most.”

The city abandoned two intersections that had the old equipment: McClintock Drive and Southern Avenue, and Rural and Broadway roads.

Tempe will continue to use two radar-equipped vans around the city that cite speeders, though the vehicles were recently replaced. The vans have issued only warnings recently but will issue citations beginning today.



Discuss .....

1.I predict photo-obscuring license plate cover sales to go up 1000%.
2. It is probably a good thing for bicyclists.
3. Too bad they can't ticket red-light running bicyclists with this system.

1.I predict photo-obscuring license plate cover sales to go up 1000%.
2. It is probably a good thing for bicyclists.
3. Too bad they can't ticket red-light running bicyclists with this system.

On Mythbusters they showed that the photo-obscuring plates don't work. At best a letter or number may be blurred, but it was still visible enough to cite.

When I cycle on the 35mph school zones* when mobile photo enforcement is in effect the slower more subdued traffic is readily apparent.

Today riding south on Rural in south Tempe (45mph zone) there was a mobile photo enforcement. In the period I passed it I saw it flash three different times.

One disappointment with photo enforcement is that it will only ticket for 11mph and above. So 55mph in a 45mph zone will not ticket, 56mph will. That has been widely publicized and sets the 'default' speed that everyone travels without concern of enforcement at 10mph over. I've recently read letters to the editor that say that anyone traveling less than 11mph over the SL is impeding traffic if they are not in the far right lane.

A few co-workers were discussing photo speed enforcement at lunch a few days ago. They felt that it was very unfair to put both a red light camera and a speed camera at an intersection as they all said they and most people speed up to avoid running red lights. Now this 'forces' them with the choice to get a red light ticket or a speed ticket which is unfair - a 'trap' in their words. I guess they didn't consider traveling at the SL and stopping for red. I do that and have never once had a situation where I could not easily stop on red. They looked at me like I was crazy for suggesting going the SL.

(*wheel, this has been observed on Guadelupe and Southern thru the two 35mph zones)

Sigh... I suppose going less than the speed limit is really out of the question... it is amazing that people feel so "entitled" to speed.

In the recent Reader's Digest, there is a story in a feature column called "That's Outrageous" about a woman speeding 57 in a 35MPH zone... under new Virginia law, she is fined $1050, and the magazine finds that the "outrageous offense," not the speeding. :rolleyes:

Speed cameras are a bad idea.

They represent another incremental loss of personal, individual rights.

They encourage the encroachment of surveillance society.

I do not like the idea of a precedent for automatic law enforcement without an officer present and making value judgements.

I did not read about any kind of citizen oversight or accountability in this program which could examine revenue generated by the cameras against cost to validate that it is only self-funding and not an additional source of revenue/tax collection.

Also, citizen review of police caught speeding/blowing red lights by these cameras. You can bet that if the cameras were being used to enforce laws against cops, there is no way the union would have allowed them.

Speed cameras are a bad idea.

They represent another incremental loss of personal, individual rights.



With rights come responsibilities... when motorists start responsibly driving below the LIMIT, then they have no problem with "loss of rights."

Funny too that the same motorists who find issue with 'privacy' due to speed cameras, welcome the cameras set up along Arizona freeways as part of the FMS (http://www.az511.com/home.php)which then reports to them where the slow traffic is at any given time.

Al

Speed cameras are a bad idea.

They represent another incremental loss of personal, individual rights.
.


1. You have no right to drive a car
2. You have no right to break the speed limit

Speed cameras are a bad idea.



I did not read about any kind of citizen oversight or accountability in this program which could examine revenue generated by the cameras against cost to validate that it is only self-funding and not an additional source of revenue/tax collection.
.
read a little closer it states that program lost money and they don't care it is about enforcement.

I like the program taking on the speeders who speed through a light to make it which also tackles our red light running problem.
I too have problems with 11 miles over. it should be the speed limit like duh or maybe one or two over.
*NB yea I saw the one on Southern been there for a couple weeks.
Just passed Guadlupe didn't see that one.
Scottsdale also has vans out and about not sure the speed barrier on them.

Best thing since sliced bread. I LOVE those things as they keep the 10 idiots from still going after it's turned red.

read a little closer it states that program lost money and they don't care it is about enforcement.

I like the program taking on the speeders who speed through a light to make it which also tackles our red light running problem.
I too have problems with 11 miles over. it should be the speed limit like duh or maybe one or two over.
*NB yea I saw the one on Southern been there for a couple weeks.
Just passed Guadlupe didn't see that one.
Scottsdale also has vans out and about not sure the speed barrier on them.

I don't understand how they could lose money, with fixed cost. I remember they did a test run of van/camera at school zones in my area and they increased traffic fines by 400% using 5mph over.... they estimated it would be positive revenue generator, since the cost was paid by the company and the city split the money 50/50 with the company running the program.

I don't have a problem with it per se, if they eliminate head count in the police department... it's clearly marked so it's not a trap etc...

I remember it was shot down locally because too many people were getting ticketed in school zones, they all complained to their city council and several lawyers who got ticked filed lawsuits. :)

It is interesting that adults can discourse sincerely on the legitimacy of violating and enforcing the law. Absent often from the chatter is the word responsibility.

It is interesting that adults can discourse sincerely on the legitimacy of violating and enforcing the law. Absent often from the chatter is the word responsibility.

Back up there in post 7, I used the word... just after someone flew the "violates my rights" flag...

These things don't really do anything other than generate revenue for the city, and some of them seem to be unfairly placed, as the speed limit may not be clearly posted near them. And on principle, I don't like them because private companies shouldn't be part of law enforcement in this manner.

Two speeding tickets should equal a permanent loss of of your DL.

Speed cameras are a bad idea.

They represent another incremental loss of personal, individual rights.

They encourage the encroachment of surveillance society.

I do not like the idea of a precedent for automatic law enforcement without an officer present and making value judgements.

I did not read about any kind of citizen oversight or accountability in this program which could examine revenue generated by the cameras against cost to validate that it is only self-funding and not an additional source of revenue/tax collection.

Also, citizen review of police caught speeding/blowing red lights by these cameras. You can bet that if the cameras were being used to enforce laws against cops, there is no way the union would have allowed them.

They're used on public roads to catch law breakers... what personal right is being lost?

Please, oh PLEASE bring these to Florida !!! :cry:
I'll help pay for the shipping on as many as you can bring !!!!!! :eek:

:D

Arizona law requires all speed camera enforcement points to be clearly signed at two places prior to the enforcement zone:
"1. At least two signs shall be placed in a location before a photo enforcement system. One sign shall be in a location that is approximately three hundred feet before the photo enforcement system. Placement of additional signs shall be more than three hundred feet before a photo enforcement system to provide reasonable notice to a person that a photo enforcement system is present and operational.
2. Signs indicating a photo enforcement system shall be removed or covered when the photo enforcement system is no longer present or not operating."

In several metro-Phx cities, such as Chandler (adjacent to Tempe) the city has installed speed reader boards prior to all speed enforcement zones that warm drivers that they are above trigger speed 300ft before the enforcement zone. The sign reads your speed and flashes to warn the driver if you are 11mph or over.
See this article about them: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/92924

"most recently, the City Council voted to spend nearly $300,000 on 66 speed-reader signs that tell drivers how fast they’re going. About one-third of the speed-reader signs are already up and working.
“I wanted to make sure people have ample warning,” City Councilman Jeff Weninger said of the speed-reader signs. “If people slow down and don’t get a ticket, that’s a good thing no matter what prompted them to do it.”
Many of the speed-reader signs, which are not precise enough to be used for speed enforcement, are being installed near 11 intersections that will soon have cameras snapping speeders and red-light runners."
http://optionnz.com/users/afs/070628-PM.3551speed0000b.jpg

Again don't forget these systems allow 11mph over before a ticket is issued. As explained by AZ law enforcement:
"Why are speeders allowed an 11 mph buffer?

The 10 MPH margin is intended to address language in the Arizona Revised Statutes related to speed offenses that defines, "...reasonable and prudent..." speed. It also provides a reasonable margin of error/grace for inaccurate vehicle speedometers and short-term lapses of attention by otherwise law-abiding and generally cautious drivers.

Our primary focus is on intentional, aggressive and negligent drivers. Statistics tell us that at 10 MPH over the posted speed limit, the probability of being involved in a crash doubles. However, at 20 MPH over, the probability increases to 11 times greater. We are trying to change the driving behavior of those persons who are most likely to cause crashes."

Also note that in Arizona red light running at high speed is a more significant problem vs. the rest of the US. At 7.1 fatalities/100k Arizona has nearly 2x the number of red light collisions and fatalities relative to the next worst state (3.9/10k). Phoenix has a rate of 10.8/100k the highest in the US. 3 of the four top worst intersection fatality rates are in Arizona cities.

Al

I love those things.

My best so far is 31mph on flat road, windless day. Most often however my attempts gets ruined by a faster larger vehicle approaching from behind.

One thing I've noted is they are accurate, match my perfectly calibrated speedometer and am impressed how well they do at picking up even a bicycle from a decent distance.

I wonder if teenagers in motor vehicles try see what happens if they go over 99.

Al

Another thing about the revenue generator complaint. Several AZ cities have made it a requirement that any money that is generated by automated systems must go into a fund that can only be used to hire additional law enforcement officers beyond the current staffing levels. So far no AZ city has made any money though.

Al

Which makes the "Many of the speed-reader signs, which are not precise enough to be used for speed enforcement," bit curious.
I think that was said to quell any fears from the public that the reader signs would be someday turned into enforcement units.

Al

I've come close to being hit by a red light running truck when driving. So deterring red light runners is good. But some cities install the red light cameras on short duration yellow lights and issue tickets within the first quarter second of turning red. Story here. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2049.asp).

Changing the yellow to 4 seconds from 3 seconds reduced red light citations.

Discuss .....
This one traffic signal has a sign, "signal will turn red at speeds over 25 mph" (or something like that, you get the idea.) And it does what it says it will do.

I always slow down, it's faster than stopping. But I'm not sure everyone is as smart as I am. :D

I've come close to being hit by a red light running truck when driving. So deterring red light runners is good. But some cities install the red light cameras on short duration yellow lights and issue tickets within the first quarter second of turning red. Story here. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2049.asp).

Changing the yellow to 4 seconds from 3 seconds reduced red light citations.

Wow... don't run lights in San Diego.

It is interesting that Confidential San Diego documents obtained in a 2001 court trial prove that the city and its vendor, now ACS, only installed red light cameras at intersections with high volumes and an "Amber (yellow) phase less than 4 seconds." The short yellow and short grace periods have the same effect on revenue.

So much for the "safety aspects" for those lights here... The report indicated there was no change in accidents...

San Diego has long history with local politicians making sweetheart deals... the current ongoing scam that has drained the coffers concerns a retirement program that is quite lucrative for retired politicians... no doubt the city needed revenue to continue such things as "run the police department."

Slow down or pay the man... :mad:

Wow... don't run lights in San Diego.

It is interesting that

So much for the "safety aspects" for those lights here... The report indicated there was no change in accidents...

San Diego has long history with local politicians making sweetheart deals... the current ongoing scam that has drained the coffers concerns a retirement program that is quite lucrative for retired politicians... no doubt the city needed revenue to continue such things as "run the police department."

Slow down or pay the man... :mad:

That's one reason why it's a bad idea giving our government more tools of power without oversight and accountability. At least tempe will be generating positive revenue with Redflex.

"Between 1999 and 2003, before cameras were installed, there were an average of 14 fatal collisions each year in Stockton. After cameras were activated, fatalities climbed 47 percent to 20.7 per year between 2004 and 2006.

The city, nonetheless, has declared the program a success with the city auditor suggestion a boost in the number of cameras from twelve to twenty. Since the program began July 14, 2004, Redflex has issued 21,202 tickets worth $7 million. For its services, Redflex, the Australian company in charge of red light camera ticketing, kept $1,926,672. After various state and local jurisdictions take their share, Stockton pockets $183,078 in profit each year.

The audit notes that only five of the camera intersections had a "high incidence" of traffic collisions when installed. The city also ignored the Federal Highway Administration recommendation that engineering alternatives be implemented before resorting to the use of enforcement."

Speed/red light trap is a BAD idea... and it's a trap if you can't stop going the speed limit.

"3. Records indicate that numerous intersections were rejected for computer–enforcement because the yellow light was deemed "too long," resulting in low violation volume. Other reasons given for rejecting potential intersections for computer–enforcement were that the "timing of lights clears out traffic" and that there was "no traffic on yellow" thereby reducing the potential for alleged violations. Another reason given for rejection of potential intersections was "low traffic volume" (See, Attachment "6" and "7").

4. After the red light program began in San Diego, at least two intersections had their yellow light phases shortened by a full second before the computer–enforcement devices were installed. The intersections were: (1) Grand Avenue and Mission Bay Drive; and (2) Mira Mesa and Scranton Road.

5. Red light cameras were placed at 15 intersections with yellow light times that were less than 4.0 seconds long, even though approach speeds were in excess of 40 miles an hour at more than half of the intersections.

6. Red light cameras were placed at 11 intersections where the yellow light was only 3.0 seconds long. Approach speeds at those intersections ranged between 35 and 50 miles an hour, which would require considerably more than 3.0 seconds of yellow light time. "

Re-read Orwells "1984" . . . yes, Big Brother is watching you!

Driving is a privilege, and in Texas we are more than happy to revoke your license should you accumulate to many tickets in a set period of time, are arrested for DUI/DWI and fail a sobriety test and/or refuse to take one...it is like an automatic 90 days if you refuse to take it. It seems that in Texas we punish people by taking their license away.

The red light cameras have made their way to Houston and the surrounding cities, but one thing I did notice is how much longer the yellow light is, and how much longer the intersection stays red compared to below. I guess they learned from Stockton that shorter yellow lights isn't a good idea. They also finally synced all the lights in one direction so this has minimized the "desire" to run the red (you only gain one more intersection).

Recently they have reported a decrease in traffic accidents. However, they make it very clear with the large signs before the intersections that your on camera.

I'm glad to see Houston Police Department free up man power to tend to more important tasks (investigating Katrina related crimes, gang crimes, murders, etc...) and have a positive effect on traffic. However, cameras are nothing new to Houston. Our TranStar program has cameras all over the place to help with traffic monitoring, so just about every major intersection and freeway has cameras on it.

I do feel bad for whoever has to sit there and review all of those pictures...what a boring job.

-Nate

We have these cameras in my neighborhood, and it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when I see that flash of light at the intersection. Most of my family (brothers and father) are strongly against these cameras. Of course they all drive like maniacs and run more reds than they stop at; and have the tickets and insurance to prove it. On the other side of the family my inlaws all drive far below the speed limit and stop for yellows; they don't seem to have a problem with the cameras.

The conclusion, based on this horribly small sample, is that those who are going to get hit by this enforcement will come up with a "moral" excuse of why it is wrong, which has nothing to do with the real (financial I think) reason. While those of us who don't have a feeling that there is a "right to speed" don't have a problem with the increased enforcement, or like me embrace it.

My wife was injured by a red light runner only a few months after we got married which basically gives me zero sympathy for them when they get caught in some Orwellian net. My feeling is it serves their *****hole selves right, and the fine should be heavy, something like the value of the vehicle or maybe the value of the vehicle times the number of axles.


I too have problems with 11 miles over. it should be the speed limit like duh or maybe one or two over.


I think either at the speed limit or perhaps a random number over the limit.

That's one reason why it's a bad idea giving our government more tools of power without oversight and accountability. At least tempe will be generating positive revenue with Redflex.



While the issues of government abuse abound... the reality is that if you don't speed, nor attempt to run even yellow lights... then you will have no "issues."

I'm with bike2math on this. Don't do the crime and no pictures are taken and you have nothing to worry about. It really is that simple.

If the end objective is to make our roads safer, red light cameras fail miserably. If the end objective is to increase taxes, then they are a wild success.

It might have been posted before, but several studies exist that say increasing yellow light duration does far more to make an intersection safe than red light cameras. If the end goal is safety, I don't see why the kneejerk reaction is always to throw up cameras when there are more elegant, and cheaper options out there. Well, I know why they throw them up, but they should just be up front about it and state it's all about the money, not safety.

My main problem is it isn't necessarily catching the person who is breaking the law, it's catching the car that breaks the law. Loan the car to your kid who runs a red light? You get a ticket, not the person who actually broke the law.

If the end objective is to make our roads safer, red light cameras fail miserably. If the end objective is to increase taxes, then they are a wild success.

It might have been posted before, but several studies exist that say increasing yellow light duration does far more to make an intersection safe than red light cameras. If the end goal is safety, I don't see why the kneejerk reaction is always to throw up cameras when there are more elegant, and cheaper options out there. Well, I know why they throw them up, but they should just be up front about it and state it's all about the money, not safety.

My main problem is it isn't necessarily catching the person who is breaking the law, it's catching the car that breaks the law. Loan the car to your kid who runs a red light? You get a ticket, not the person who actually broke the law.

Red light cameras locally reduced accident severity rates.
This paper answers much of your questions (or really I should say addresses your statements):
http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ550.pdf

In my observation, drivers, especially commuters, learn the yellow time and (ab)use what is given to them.

The system sends the ticket to the addresses of who the car is registered to, but the ticket is only applicable if it matches the photo of the driver of the vehicle.

Al

It might have been posted before, but several studies exist that say increasing yellow light duration does far more to make an intersection safe than red light cameras. If the end goal is safety, I don't see why the kneejerk reaction is always to throw up cameras when there are more elegant, and cheaper options out there. Well, I know why they throw them up, but they should just be up front about it and state it's all about the money, not safety.

You've completely missed the point of the cameras. Red light cameras are there to prevent people from running red lights who have no regard for traffic laws. Setting traffic lights to have a longer yellow isn't going to stop those who don't care from running red lights. What is going to impact these people is hurting them in the pocketbook. While you won't stop them all, every one you do stop is one less red light runner. Trust me, politicians care about safety. If you can say that you reduced accidents by x amount, then you can easily tote that along with election time comes.

I have no problem with a city making money off of traffic violations. As a city employee, I can tell you that often budget time is very stressful as everyone struggles to find a way to pay for existing programs, keep up with growth, and introduce new programs. Would you rather pay more in taxes, or have those who violate the law pay more? I'd rather those who violate laws pay more, drive smart, and keep some of that cash in my pocket. :)

My main problem is it isn't necessarily catching the person who is breaking the law, it's catching the car that breaks the law. Loan the car to your kid who runs a red light? You get a ticket, not the person who actually broke the law.

Your responsible for your vehicle, if your child is running red lights, then maybe you should educate your child on the dangers of such behavior.

I have no problem with a city making money off of traffic violations. As a city employee, I can tell you that often budget time is very stressful as everyone struggles to find a way to pay for existing programs, keep up with growth, and introduce new programs. Would you rather pay more in taxes, or have those who violate the law pay more? I'd rather those who violate laws pay more, drive smart, and keep some of that cash in my pocket. :)


Thats the problem with our civil servants, instead of doing greater public good all they care about is getting their piece of the pie and making the pie bigger with more taxes. Obviously this is all about MONEY in the guise of safety.

Whatever happened to the Texas Bill 1119... obviously the speed traps pissed off enough people that they want warning signs etc...

"Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) on Friday signed a series of four bills that place significant limitations on the way in which photo enforcement operates in the state. The new laws take effect on September 1, except for HB 922 which takes effect immediately.

HB 922 (read bill) prohibits municipalities from using speed cameras. Its overwhelming passage in May forced the cities of Marble Falls and Rhome to drop their photo radar programs. Despite the clear intent of the legislature to put an end to this form of ticketing, however, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is proceeding on a plan to set up its own highway speed cameras. TxDOT waited until the legislature adjourned to discuss its plans publicly. Senate Transportation Committee Chairman John Carona (R-Dallas), sponsor of one of the new camera limitation laws, accused TxDOT Chairman Ric Williamson of having an "arrogant" attitude toward lawmakers in a February hearing. (view hearing video)

Another new law, HB 1052 (read bill), simply requires municipalities to use warning signs at least 100 feet before any intersection that uses a ticket camera. Thanks to SB 1119 (read summary), those cameras must be removed on September 1, 2009 -- unless the Governor and a majority of the state House of Representatives and Senate agree that red light cameras are useful. More than 100 members would have to change their mind for this to happen. In a recent session, 113 state representatives went on record voting to ban the devices while only 23 voted to support them. The margin is closer in the state Senate where 16 voted against the devices and 14 in support.

Other aspects of this new law include a prohibition on the use of credit agencies to compel payment of citations. Instead, "the Texas Department of Transportation may refuse to register a motor vehicle alleged to have been involved in the violation." Those with out-of-state vehicles could not be compelled to pay. By September, citizens of Texas will also have the right to demand a trial by a jury of their peers to contest a ticket if a city-paid "administrative officer" determines guilt.

The cost of a ticket will be limited to $75, thanks to Senator Carona's HB 1623 (read bill). Those who wait until the vehicle registration renewal date to pay would only be subject to a $25 penalty for each ticket. This law also requires that cities send half of their ticket profit to a state trauma fund and prohibits them from using the remaining share for anything other than public safety programs.

The text of the enacted version of SB 1119 is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Senate Bill 1119 (Texas Senate, 5/29/2007)"

Thats the problem with our civil servants, instead of doing greater public good all they care about is getting their piece of the pie and making the pie bigger with more taxes. Obviously this is all about MONEY in the guise of safety.

Wow, you so missed my point. BTW; please don't say our civil servants, not all all of us are greedy. There are a few bad apples in every industry, most of us civil servants aren't greedy and actually do care about doing the greater public good.

-Nate

Thats the problem with our civil servants, instead of doing greater public good all they care about is getting their piece of the pie and making the pie bigger with more taxes. Obviously this is all about MONEY in the guise of safety.


The thing about getting fined for traffic violations is that it's a voluntary tax, you don't actually have to pay it! (so long as you don't violate the law) isn't that the best form of tax?

There's only two problems with red light cameras. 1) They're not on every single intersection as they should be, and 2)The fines aren't stiff enough. They should be well into the thousands, that way beligerant drivers won't be able to afford their recklessness for too long.


Bottom line - abide by all the rules all the time, or don't get behind the wheel.

On Mythbusters they showed that the photo-obscuring plates don't work. At best a letter or number may be blurred, but it was still visible enough to cite.
Ever since the original scientific adviser for the Mythbusters quit their show has been complete bollocks.

As for camera lights, I kind of like them... of course people are always running the lights they aren't at, and putting them at every light isn't practical. Also too many people lock their wheels as soon as a light turns yellow, willing to slide through an intersection... usually stopping in it.

However, they provide videos for accidents, thats awesome.

Speed traps, those get a little more weird, at 11mph over, at least they got leeway, though 11 seems like much, and legally they have to put up signs, but yeah... it is starting to replace a police force with machines... wasn't our police force suppose to be one of those irreplaceable sections?


Of course I don't never speed, thats absurd, people speed on their bicycles for crying out loud... but I generally keep it away from traffic and people. Where these things would be placed, and intersections period.



Also, it would be interesting if red light cameras caught bicyclists running lights/stop signs... I wonder how quickly some people's opinion of them would change here. ;)

As for camera lights, I kind of like them... of course people are always running the lights they aren't at, and putting them at every light isn't practical. Also too many people lock their wheels as soon as a light turns yellow, willing to slide through an intersection... usually stopping in it.


In my experience this is only an issue if you are speeding. Not speeding, I can saftely say I've never locked up my brakes at a yellow. I fail to see the problem.


Also, it would be interesting if red light cameras caught bicyclists running lights/stop signs... I wonder how quickly some people's opinion of them would change here. ;)

This is a good point, and I'm all for it. I have a coworker who is developing algorithms for facial recognition etc. So I'm sure the cameras could have this capability someday.

In my experience this is only an issue if you are speeding. Not speeding, I can saftely say I've never locked up my brakes at a yellow. I fail to see the problem.
No it's a mental thing, as soon as it flashes yellow, they'll try to stop before the light, even if it's right to roll on through it. Mainly people not paying attention or thinking... a wonderful mix :)

This is a good point, and I'm all for it. I have a coworker who is developing algorithms for facial recognition etc. So I'm sure the cameras could have this capability someday.
Would probably save a lot of bicyclist's lives, but oh so many will get tickets for riding wrong-way I hope. :p

I like speed traps, red light cams, all of that stuff. It seems right and proper to keep the words (and ideas) "car driving" and "rights" separated as thoroughly as possible.

Alls ya'lls who like the red light cameras, would you also support mandatory registration and licensing for bicycle riders who chose to travel public roads? Part of my opposition to red light cameras is simply to keep more government out of my life. Once you accept red light cameras, what next? How many other ways will you allow the government to impose itself in your life? Certainly, as road users assigned the same responsibilities for utilizing publicly funded streets, you should surely support bicycle registration and licensing, yes? Including mandatory annual registration fees? How 'bout pedestrian licensing? Or jaywalk cameras? Or why not cameras covering every inch of public space, just in case someone does something bad? On a day to day basis I don't run red lights, in a car or on a bike, so the thought of cameras that catch people who do does not really impact me all that much. But on a larger level, I do see a danger in the precedent set by these things and oppose them.

A few co-workers were discussing photo speed enforcement at lunch a few days ago. They felt that it was very unfair to put both a red light camera and a speed camera at an intersection as they all said they and most people speed up to avoid running red lights. Now this 'forces' them with the choice to get a red light ticket or a speed ticket which is unfair - a 'trap' in their words. I guess they didn't consider traveling at the SL and stopping for red. I do that and have never once had a situation where I could not easily stop on red. They looked at me like I was crazy for suggesting going the SL.

I've never seen the obvious solution of synchronizing the traffic signals to allow a safe and reasonable flow of traffic that uses less gasoline. It's just the opposite, the lights are timed to prevent this, providing another source of revenue for the government. And then the government wonders why more people don't like and respect them.

If the end objective is to make our roads safer, red light cameras fail miserably. If the end objective is to increase taxes, then they are a wild success.

It might have been posted before, but several studies exist that say increasing yellow light duration does far more to make an intersection safe than red light cameras. If the end goal is safety, I don't see why the kneejerk reaction is always to throw up cameras when there are more elegant, and cheaper options out there. Well, I know why they throw them up, but they should just be up front about it and state it's all about the money, not safety.

My main problem is it isn't necessarily catching the person who is breaking the law, it's catching the car that breaks the law. Loan the car to your kid who runs a red light? You get a ticket, not the person who actually broke the law.

+1, follow the money. White collar crime causes much more damage to society, but doesn't get the attention it deserves.

I've come close to being hit by a red light running truck when driving. So deterring red light runners is good. But some cities install the red light cameras on short duration yellow lights and issue tickets within the first quarter second of turning red. Story here. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2049.asp).

Changing the yellow to 4 seconds from 3 seconds reduced red light citations.

From what I've read, there seem to be 2 motivations to the red light cameras:

1) Make money from light-runners
2) Deter light runners and make intersections safer

If 1) is the primary motivation, then the locality may not have an interest in a reasonable yellow duration. There were some areas that saw accidents increase after the installation of the cameras - generally from cars getting rear-ended as they jammed on the brakes when seeing a yellow light, fearing the yellow was too short. This actually caused a significant rise in rear-end collisions near DC.

I'm not against cameras, but the intersection absolutely must not be engineered specifically in order to trap drivers with short yellow lights. I've always believed that roads should have a thick yellow line that marks the point that a car, driving at the marked speed limit, should brake instead of continuing through the light when the yellow appears. In many areas, yellow light duration seems to be a guessing game.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html?page=2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety_camera

I've never seen the obvious solution of synchronizing the traffic signals to allow a safe and reasonable flow of traffic that uses less gasoline. It's just the opposite, the lights are timed to prevent this, providing another source of revenue for the government. And then the government wonders why more people don't like and respect them.
Many roads here have lights timed so if one drives the speed limit one rarely encounters a red light. That saves gas with a very reasonable flow of traffic. Unfortunately many drivers ignore this convenience and race from light to light.
The government here is focused on reducing red light fatalities as the state and it's metro cities are #1 in the US for red light fatalities and red light collisions. Red light camera enforcement has reduced this in the past several years.

Al

+1, follow the money. White collar crime causes much more damage to society, but doesn't get the attention it deserves.
If this is about money then why are municipalities spending lots of it putting up speed reader signs well before camera enforcement zones to let drivers know how fast they are going and to give them the opportunity to slow down. Why has no AZ city or government many any money with these systems?
Also I agree about WCC, but it is laughable to call red light camera enforcement such. The crime here is drivers speeding, running red light and killing other drivers.

Al

read a little closer it states that program lost money and they don't care it is about enforcement.

I like the program taking on the speeders who speed through a light to make it which also tackles our red light running problem.
I too have problems with 11 miles over. it should be the speed limit like duh or maybe one or two over.
*NB yea I saw the one on Southern been there for a couple weeks.
Just passed Guadlupe didn't see that one.
Scottsdale also has vans out and about not sure the speed barrier on them.

Many states have rules that when using radar 10mph has to be deducted from the radar read speed, many tickets are written with the read speed, and the 'ticket' speed (66mph would come up as 56mph) or the officer will drop 10mph from the ticket 'to be nice'
This results in placing the officer in the awkward position of writing someone up for doing -less- than posted speed.
If your state does NOT have the law, your lawyer will be able to produce many studies that will demonstrate the possible error in radar, and will get it dropped down by 10mph anyway.

as for the way I read the original post, the camera's have a detector at the center of the block, then another to trip the camera at the light? If so, I can see where there is plenty of room for error in that system, someone racing along trips the first sensor then when nearly entering the 'camera' zone, notices grampa's buick in front of him and locks up the brakes in time for grandpa to go through the camera, at or below posted speed, but in the right time frame for the speeder, grandpa gets a ticket, and speeder gets nothing, not even a wake up call.

Also, on the 1-2 mph over posted speed, drive down the highway and ask a passenger to read speedometers on other cars, odds are they'll all read differently, even if you're driving right along beside them. (how many friends have bicycle speedos that don't read the same as yours?) Many new cars have inconsistant speedometers, and as small as 3-4psi difference in the tires, (not noticeable by the average driver) coupled with tread wear is enough to change what the speedo reads by a mile or two per hour, so there HAS to be some allowance for error, unless people are willing to spend money on annual speedo checks, the margin for error HAS to be allowed for, or there'll be thousands of people every day in court.

Great for the city/county bottom line, but you can imagine the overhead in terms of lost productivity if cops started writing everyone up for 1mph over the limit?

Ken.

Many roads here have lights timed so if one drives the speed limit one rarely encounters a red light. That saves gas with a very reasonable flow of traffic. Unfortunately many drivers ignore this convenience and race from light to light.
The government here is focused on reducing red light fatalities as the state and it's metro cities are #1 in the US for red light fatalities and red light collisions. Red light camera enforcement has reduced this in the past several years.

Al

That's not the case around here in Chicagoland. Many times your reward for going to speed limit is to stop for the next light, using extra fuel to resume the whole process again for the next light. Ad nauseum. The differences in speed this creates during the process just aggravates the problem.

If this is about money then why are municipalities spending lots of it putting up speed reader signs well before camera enforcement zones to let drivers know how fast they are going and to give them the opportunity to slow down. Why has no AZ city or government many any money with these systems?
Also I agree about WCC, but it is laughable to call red light camera enforcement such. The crime here is drivers speeding, running red light and killing other drivers.

Al
Taking the cynical view, it looks like they are getting the public used to the idea that big brother is watching their speed to make it easier to install the cameras that issue tickets later. But they do have a benefit - I learned that the speedometer on my motorcycle reads 5 mph to low, and that I could legally ride faster than I had been before. :D

...The system sends the ticket to the addresses of who the car is registered to, but the ticket is only applicable if it matches the photo of the driver of the vehicle.

AlYou should read about some of the tactics the police use when the photos do not match up. check out fake/snitch ticket section about police sending out fake tickets and the arm twisting they do in both CA and AZ.
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

CA tickets are now $380