Ask the Car People.SM


Photo Radar

1879 messages,  Last post on Feb 01, 2013 at 9:27 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

What is this discussion about? Safe Driving

Messages Page 184 of 188

#1830 of 1879 Re: Take note [berri] by euphonium

May 03, 2010 (7:23 pm)

Replying to: berri (May 03, 2010 2:18 pm)
From a member of the Santa Clarita Planning Commission:
 
Having gone through the process of implementing a red-light photo enforcement program in Santa Clarita, Calif., as a member of that city's Planning Commission, I thought I would share a report on the status of this program today. Some will be surprised, some will not. But facts are facts.
The city's photo red-light enforcement program has been very successful in reducing red-light violations, reducing broadside accidents and enhancing traffic safety at the eight high-risk intersections where the equipment is deployed.
Accident data collected prior to and after implementation of the program showed that collisions involving red-light violations decreased by 58 percent, broadside collisions decreased 44 percent and injury collisions decreased 6 percent. Rear-end collisions did increase shortly after implementation of the program, but have recently returned to pre-program levels.
For those who sincerely believe that these cameras produce a huge revenue stream for the city, Santa Clarita receives 30 percent of the overall violation fine. The remaining amount of 40 percent goes to the state and 30 percent to the county. From the city's share, about 60 percent goes to the vendor to pay for the citation processing.
With that being said, the city still receives enough revenue from the program to cover the entire cost of the program. The city needs to make certain that the program pays for itself and does not create a new cost to the city. One thing to note is while the number of citations issued is high in the first few months, the number steadily declines after that. This is due to behavioral changes in drivers who become more cautious, which is the purpose of the program to begin with.

#1831 of 1879 Re: Take note [euphonium] by kernick

May 04, 2010 (3:48 am)

Replying to: euphonium (May 03, 2010 7:23 pm)
There are many things that government can do to increase safety. Do I want them - in 1 word - NO! Examples:
 
Why not just make the maximum speed-limit in the country 30mph? That surely would lead to less accidents right?
 
Why not ban smoking?
 
The government is not here to try and make our lives "the safest" they can be. The government is here to protect our liberties and allow people to have an enjoyable life, as they define it; not as the government or the majority defines it.

#1832 of 1879 Slowly but surely....... by vcheng

May 05, 2010 (4:37 am)

...the scam WILL be stopped.
 
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3130.asp
 
Maryland: Town Residents Vote To Ban Speed Cameras
Sykesville, Maryland becomes the tenth jurisdiction to ban speed cameras by referendum.
 
Sykesville, Maryland yesterday became the tenth jurisdiction to reject the use of photo enforcement by referendum. The town was to be the first in Carroll County to operate automated ticketing machines after leaders approved an ordinance designating three speed camera zones on February 22. These plans fell through after a group of residents collected more than enough signatures within the thirty-day deadline to put an ordinance repeal on the ballot. Sixty-one percent of Sykesville voters insisted on repealing the use of speed cameras.
 
The results are directly contrary to polling data released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. In a 2008 report on the nearby Montgomery County speed camera program, the insurance company-backed group claimed sixty-two percent of residents supported the use of automated ticketing machines. The institute has a significant financial interest in the issue as states like Arizona, California and Illinois apply license points to certain types of photo tickets. A similar incentive drove town officials to spend taxpayer money in an attempt to convince voters to keep the cameras.
 
"We have received a number of emails and phone calls from residents who have expressed concern about outside special interest groups that have knocked on your door gathering signatures on a petition to oppose the adopted ordinance," Mayor Michael P. Miller wrote in a taxpayer-funded letter to all residents before the vote. "Some of you have indicated that they were spreading misinformation about several issues including the town's rationale and intent for adopting the ordinance to allow photo enforcement."
 
The petitions, in fact, were circulated by a group of Sykesville residents led by Chris Martin. Similar citizen-led efforts have succeeded in every test at the ballot box. Last year, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras; 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.

#1833 of 1879 Re: Slowly but surely....... [vcheng] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

May 05, 2010 (9:32 am)

Replying to: vcheng (May 05, 2010 4:37 am)
Ok, referendums can be good for a few things.

#1834 of 1879 Re: Slowly but surely....... [steve_] by berri

May 05, 2010 (5:36 pm)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (May 05, 2010 9:32 am)
Municipalities also need to randomly spot check and audit the contracted out cameras as well to assure they are being maintained properly and aren't rigged. I think people would trust them more if this was done and the results released to the media.

#1835 of 1879 Re: Slowly but surely....... [steve_] by vcheng

May 06, 2010 (4:39 am)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (May 05, 2010 9:32 am)
Like I said, the scam WILL unravel.
 
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3131.asp
 
Arizona Drops Redflex Freeway Speed Camera Contract
Arizona governor orders strategic withdrawal of statewide photo radar contract.
 
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's administration has officially canceled the state contract that authorized Redflex Traffic Systems to issue automated freeway speeding tickets. The program, started in 2008 by Brewer's Democratic predecessor Janet Napolitano, will be terminated according to statement issued earlier today to Australian Securities Exchange investors.
 
"Redflex has now received formal notification from the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that the contract will not be renewed," Redflex stated.
 
Although the official contract expiration date is July 1, inside sources expect speed vans to be pulled off the highways much sooner. As a result of the lost revenue stream, Redflex said it would take a $5 million loss on top of a previously announced $4.9 million loss arising from residents realizing that tickets sent in the mail can be safely ignored. A 1992 appeals court ruling declared void any attempt to impose a fine without personal service (read opinion).
 
Intense public pressure against photo enforcement in general spurred the decision to end the contract. While the loss of the statewide ticketing program is significant in terms of revenue to the state and other interested parties, the industry hopes to relieve the pressure that has been building to outlaw the far more lucrative red light camera and speed camera programs in local jurisdictions.
 
"Even if the program does continue in early FY2011, a number of groups opposed to photo enforcement are trying to have a referendum put to voters in November 2011 to effectively end photo enforcement in the state of Arizona," a Redflex statement issued last month explained. "Whether this referendum occurs, and the likely outcome, are difficult to predict at this stage."
 
Referendum organizers insist that they will press forward with their effort because there are no guarantees that the freeway cameras will not make a comeback after the elections. Municipal cameras, moreover, issue just as many tickets as the statewide cameras and raise all of the same constitutional and safety issues.
 
"Arizonans know that these cameras increase accidents (view studies)," Arizona Citizens Against Photo Radar representative Shawn Dow told TheNewspaper. "Now it is time for the red light cameras to come down."
 
On top of the contract difficulties, a lawsuit by competitor American Traffic Solutions has brought the Redflex legal bill for the year to $6.2 million. The company reported a pre-tax profit of $13.4 million last year. In April, Redflex reduced the expectation to $7 million. The latest announcement dropped the figure to just $2 million.
 
The jury trial in the case ATS v. Redflex will commence at 9am on May 11 before US District Court Judge Frederick J. Martone. The trial is expected to last six days.

#1836 of 1879 Re: Slowly but surely....... [vcheng] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

May 06, 2010 (8:50 am)

Replying to: vcheng (May 06, 2010 4:39 am)
No big deal. Redflex can just start taking snapshots of people on the street so the cops can go check their papers.

#1837 of 1879 Re: Slowly but surely....... [steve_] by euphonium

May 06, 2010 (9:22 am)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (May 06, 2010 8:50 am)
I must show ID when:
     1. Pulled over by the police
 
2. Making purchases on my master card or VISA credit card. Every dang time.
 
3. When I show up for a doctor's appointment.
 
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
 
5. When applying for/renewing a driver's license or passport.
 
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
 
7. When filling out college applications.
 
8. When donating blood.
 
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
 
10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I'm out of state.
 
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.
 
I'm sure there are more instances but the point is, we citizens are required to prove who we are nearly every day.
 
Why should people illegally in this country be exempt?
Why should they be calling us racists or bigots???
 
           GO AZ !!!!!

#1838 of 1879 Re: Slowly but surely....... [euphonium] by vcheng

May 06, 2010 (9:45 am)

Replying to: euphonium (May 06, 2010 9:22 am)
Actually, #2 is, or at least should be, wrong. Merchants are contractually prohibited from demanding ID from credit card users, as well as imposing any minimums or maximums for purchases. Real life is of course different, but all major credit card companies have the same contractual obligations in this regard.

#1839 of 1879 Re: Slowly but surely....... [vcheng] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

May 06, 2010 (11:24 am)

Replying to: vcheng (May 06, 2010 9:45 am)
Yeah, I drive my wife crazy with that one. I actually have a letter from VISA saying that merchants can't ask for ID as part of doing a transaction. It's bad enough I give a clerk my credit card - I'm sure not going to gild it with my name, address and driver's license number. Every time I get a request like that I say no and if I get any flack I ask for the manager (it really helps if the line starts stacking up behind me). Then I ask for their bank information so I can file a complaint.
 
If I was a merchant, I'm sure I'd hate MC/Visa and the transaction fees they charge. But thems the breaks.
 
I go months without showing ID (I'm on a first name basis with everyone in my doc's office and my Rx's come in the mail).

Messages Page 184 of 188

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement