Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1787 messages, Last post on Nov 06, 2009 at 9:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Here is the complete article that makes for some interesting reading. What about due process? All she got was an apology with NO consequences for the camera operator or the police, and then only when she had to undertake the effort to prove her innocence! So where is the incentive? To improve safety or to increase revenue? And there are thousands upon thousands more like her, accused by an inherently faulty system that cannot work as we are always told it works. Trust this? BAH! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164824/Teenager-gets-speeding-ticket--c- - - - - - ar-parked-outside-house-asleep-bed.html Teenager gets speeding ticket... while her car was parked outside her house and she was asleep in bed By Fay Schlesinger Last updated at 4:13 PM on 25th March 2009 When Emily Davies parked her car outside her house and went to bed at 10pm as usual, she had no reason to believe Merseyside Police would be on her case. But by the following morning they had given her a £60 speeding fine - even though her car had not moved an inch. The 'model' driver, 19, was apparently flashed by a speed camera travelling seven miles over the speed limit in a 30mph zone. But her R-reg Fiat Punto was parked in a bay while Miss Davies was fast asleep in bed, she says. The teenager was allegedly clocked speeding outside her home in Old Swan, Liverpool, on March 10. She received a speeding ticket in the post from Merseyside Police Camera Partnership last week. The police only realised their blunder after she went to the local police station to dispute the charge. The registration plate on Miss Davies's stationary car is believed have appeared in the frame with a speeding vehicle which triggered the camera. An over-zealous operator noted the number and a fine was duly sent out to the innocent motorist. She had been held up as a model driver when she passed her driving test first time with just one minor error two years ago. Her RAC instructor described her as his 'star pupil'. Miss Davies, a clinical receptionist at Fazakerley Hospital, in Liverpool, said: 'I looked at the letter and began to question myself. I was shocked because I'm such a careful driver and I never speed. 'I knew there was no way I'd be out at 10.22pm on a week night. I realised they'd made a mistake. When I first disputed the claim, I was told that mistakes are never made. That's just not true. If this has happened to me, it must be happening to other people. It's a waste of time and money and things should be changed.' A spokesman for Merseyside Road Safety Camera Partnership said: 'All I can say is Merseyside Police make a sincere apology. There was a failure on the operator's side. 'She will be getting a letter of apology and the matter will be cancelled.' Captain Gatso, the self-styled campaigns director for Motorists Against Detection, said: 'This is yet another example of the unfairness of speed cameras. Inordinate sums of money and swathes of technology are invested in policing by camera. 'Mistakes happen again and again. As is demonstrated by a motorist 'speeding' while in fact parked and doing 0mph, cameras offer absolutely no discretion or common sense.' The AA has revealed that thousands of motorists have been wrongly accused of speeding because of glitches in the controversial speed camera system. Mistakes range from registration numbers being misread to the dates and times of the alleged offence being wrong. Drivers have been accused of breaking the speed limit when they were miles away in another county. Others received fixed penalty notices for speeding even though they were abroad on holiday when the offence was said to have been committed. Nationally, around two million motorists a year receive a £60 fine from 8,000 speed cameras. |
|
|
Here is a nice article by a judge no less: http://www.thefoothillsfocus.com/032509-NewPicture.asp New picture develops on photo radar issue Judge Gerald A. Williams North Valley Justice of the Peace March 25, 2009 It is no exaggeration to avow that highway photo enforcement tickets have hit my court with such a significant volume that our regular business operations are almost in danger of slowing to the pace of a federal government bureaucracy. Some basic questions deserve an answer. Who is getting theses tickets? Who is getting the money from the fines? Will the law be “fixed” in the current legislative session? Most of the Impact is on Four Courts: For reasons that are not completely clear, while some justice courts have a relatively few number of photo enforcement tickets, four courts received an avalanche. Those justice courts and the number of photo enforcement tickets they received in February 2009 alone are: Arcadia Biltmore (10,880), North Valley (9,062), Downtown (8,104) and South Mountain (6,791). At North Valley, part of the problem was due to highway signs, or the lack thereof. For a significant period of time, people received tickets for going 66 or 67 in a 55 mph zone. The problem was that the temporary 55 mph sign was often after the camera. As such, we have had hundreds of hearing requests. Thus far, drivers in this category have almost always been found not responsible at their hearing. Where Does the Money Go? It is worth repeating that former Governor Janet Napolitano’s budget materials, dated Jan. 18, 2008, listed highway photo radar as creating $90 million in “Non-Tax Increase Revenue Generation.” It has brought in nowhere near that amount; but the money is still substantial, perhaps around $20 million in the first six months. Each ticket has a base fine of $165 and a surcharge for Clean Elections of $16.50. Money from each photo enforcement ticket breaks down as follows: $16.50 to statewide public campaign financing, $13.48 to the Department of Public Safety, $25.17 to the Supreme Court of Arizona’s Administrative Office of the Courts, $29.70 to Red-Flex (the private photo enforcement company) and $96.65 to the State of Arizona’s general fund. Please note that neither the justice courts nor Maricopa County get anything from these tickets, other than perhaps a headache. Will Someone Please Change This Law? The simplest and easiest fix would be to repeal sections B, C and D of A.R.S. § 41-1722. Doing so would essentially require highway photo enforcement tickets to be treated just like any other civil traffic ticket. Many of our problems result from the obvious unfairness of having substantially different penalties for otherwise identical speeding violations. A close second would be to repeal the highway photo enforcement law completely. The bottom line is that using photo enforcement tickets as a way to generate revenue has proven to be an extraordinarily bad idea. If you are pulled over by a DPS officer, for going five miles over the posted speed limit, the presumed fine is $155; but, if found responsible, you also get two points recorded against your license and your vehicle insurance will likely increase as a result. If you receive a highway photo enforcement ticket, and you are found responsible, the fine is $181.50, whether you were going 76 mph or 106 mph, and nothing is reported to MVD. Hopefully, the state legislature will adopt a better system. I, for one, hope they do so soon. Judge Williams is the presiding justice of the peace for the Northwest Regional Court Center. His column appears monthly in The Foothills Focus. |
|
|
Replying to: andres3 (Mar 26, 2009 4:48 pm) I don't think we need to spend any time on that. I don't know where you people get off thinking speed does not kill? That's just crazy talk. Speed CAN be a direct cause of collisions. It has happened thousands of times. People going too fast for the conditions or the traffic flow have less time to react to a problem. Their SPEED being too fast is what allows them to NOT be able to steer out of a problem or stop in time to avoid a problem. Going too fast has been the cause of many, many deaths and will continue to do so. Just because you LIKE to speed does not mean you have to ignore the dangers of that action.
|
|
|
Another town may see the light. Isn't it amazing how quickly elected officials reverse themselves once profits are taken out of the picture? from: http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cameras_976863___article.html/mayor_red.html Red Light Cameras Coming Down March 26, 2009 - 5:01 PM John Pless The city of Dalton is making a move that will make a lot of drivers very happy - city leaders want to get rid of those red light cameras. Mayor David Pennington says they don't make his city any safer, and now they are costing more money than what they bring in to the city with tickets. The camera's that catch drivers not completely stopping at red lights in Dalton have made a lot of drivers see red when they get the $75 ticket in the mail. The camera operated systems have been promoted as making streets safer and reducing crashes. But in Dalton, we've discovered the numbers don't show it. Mayor David Pennington said, "Does it really enhance the public safety in a community? We see no evidence that it does." Mayor Pennington says at one intersection, Waugh Street and Thornton Avenue, the number of crashes increased after the red light cameras were installed. "Because of rear-enders, and maybe some of it is some people when they see the sign and suddenly thought hey, there's a traffic camera here and they slam on their brakes and then somebody rear-ends them," he said. Besides having no safety benefits the city is now losing money on the camera systems, before taking into account the number of man hours it takes to process the pictures and mail out tickets. The equipment is not cheap. The city of Dalton pays Laser Craft, the company that installed these cameras, about $25,000 a month under the terms of the lease. The number of tickets issued has been declining. In February last year 586 tickets brought in just under $44,000. This February the number of tickets fell to 125, bringing in just under $9,400, nowhere near the $25,000 the mayor says he pays Laser Craft. Same for January, where 397 tickets in 2008 shrank to 203 tickets this year bringing in just over $15,000... about $10,000 less than the cost of the machines. So now the mayor wants to get rid of the red light cameras, which makes most drivers very happy. "Sometimes when you're in the middle of a yellow light you know, that's when they take their picture and stuff. Yeah, Id like to get rid of 'em, save a little money for us you know," one driver said. Tickets for rolling stops far outnumber the number of hard stops at the downtown cameras. That's where a driver approaches, slows down to a near stop, then proceeds if traffic is clear. Mayor Pennington said, "Instead of paying the money that it costs to have cameras at the intersections, are we not better off with a policeman that patrols a high-crime area?" Money better spent the mayor says, since red light cameras do not improve safety. The mayor will recommend the Dalton City Council take action to get rid of the red light cameras in the coming weeks. Other cities in suburban Atlanta have already taken their cameras down. |
|
Democracy at work here too folks, slowly but surely  from: http://www.kbmt12.com/news/local/41785612.html Beaumont Puts Brakes on Red Light Cameras News KBMT Story Created: Mar 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM CDT Story Updated: Mar 25, 2009 at 10:58 AM CDT The City of Beaumont has put the brakes on red light cameras. Council members Tuesday voted on a measure calling for the abandonment of a red light camera ordinance. This past year, the city has discussed the issue and held a public meeting to get input from Beaumont residents. According to city documents, Beaumont City Manager Kyle Hayes recommended today's vote to abandon the idea, saying he's seen conflicting studies on the effectiveness of the cameras. Councilman Alan Coleman was the only council member to vote in favor of red light cameras. |
|
|
It would be just as incorrect to say that red light cameras ALWAYS make intersections safer as if would be to say that they ALWAYS make intersections more dangerous. This is a good study which provides real data: Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras—Executive Summary This analysis, which was based on an aggregation of rear end and right-angle crash costs for various severity levels, showed that RLC systems do indeed provide a modest aggregate crash-cost benefit. |
|
|
And from IIHS What safety benefits do red light cameras provide? Cameras have been shown to substantially reduce red light violations. Institute evaluations in Fairfax, Virginia, and Oxnard, California, showed that camera enforcement reduced red light running violations by about 40 percent.3,7 In addition to reducing red light running at camera-equipped sites, violation reductions in both communities carried over to signalized intersections not equipped with red light cameras, indicating community-wide changes in driver behavior. An Institute evaluation of red light cameras in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that after red light violations were reduced by 36 percent following increased yellow signal timing, the addition of red light cameras further reduced red light violations by 96 percent.8 In addition to reducing red light violations, cameras have been shown to reduce intersection crashes. In Oxnard, California, significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent.9 Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. An Institute review of international red light camera studies concluded that cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent.10 Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research has shown there is a positive aggregate benefit. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities.11 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million over 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site year. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.12 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a 16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes. The review did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end crashes. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Mar 27, 2009 6:22 am) Either way, dead is dead, and it is the actions of the driver that does the killing. When will everyone wake up and rethink their stupid feelings of entittlement and need for control over others actions and realize that each person is responsible for their own actions and the consequences of them, and punish them accordingly? The general population should not suffer or be teathered to someone elses way of thinking because of the reckless actions of a few.
|
|
|
Replying to: joepeterson56 (Mar 27, 2009 9:14 am) can you explain further on how I might die in another car by being hit by a car going 3 miles per hour? "Speed does not kill" is merely a mythical rallying cry for people who want to speed. It's not based in reality at all. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Mar 26, 2009 1:30 pm) When a person sees a policeman speeding, they do not know for a fact if that officer is on a call of a nature that requires a fast emergency response, that calls for no lights or sirens unless absolutely necessary or unavoidable. If you cut your finger and it got gangerene, would you just cut off the finger to save the hand and arm, or would you cut off the hand or arm completely? Same type of thinking as those kinds of statements. Get real.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
