Sheriff Cameron says he will do Red Light Cameras

[glhs837]

That was a lot to read! Lol .. So cameras are placed at red lights and EZ Pass lanes. Both programs are contracted out and both programs are profitable. Both programs identify those that don't comply with posted laws. Not seeing a distinction with a difference here. Busy intersections are inherently dangerous, so are toll plazas for that matter (except I'd bet there's many less fatalities within 25 feet of a toll collector because the speed limit is much lower ... speed kills) so should we .....

remove cameras at EZ pass locations? Replace them with $110K cops? Scouts honor that you paid? Pinky promises? Help me out here.

Distinction is that the EZ Pass camera does not also cause an increase in rear end crashes leading to injuries that might not happened absent the cameras. The EZ Pass cameras are not stated to increase safety. The EZ Pass people cannot engage in activity to change the number of violators (yellow timing and/or considering right on red and failure to stop on stop line) and increase profits. Although I would not put asking for cash lanes to be closed causing backups leading folks to say screw it.

So, in short, while there are common points, they are not the points that matter.

 

[tblwdc]

I wonder what the public wants? I for one want the red light cameras. I don't hear very many people complaining. It seems the same three or four people and most of them complain about anything the government does.

 

[glhs837]

I wonder what the public wants? I for one want the red light cameras. I don't hear very many people complaining. It seems the same three or four people and most of them complain about anything the government does.

Maybe my goal is to show people why maybe they don't want these devices. Why do you want them? What benefit do you think the citizens of the county gain from these? Usually when people answer these questions, they learn that that the things they think they are getting are not really what these devices bring to the table. I think last time you and I talked about them, you ended up saying "Screw it, I don't care if they don't make anyone safer, I want the money".

 

[stgislander]

I wonder what the public wants? I for one want the red light cameras. I don't hear very many people complaining. It seems the same three or four people and most of them complain about anything the government does.

Count me

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Maybe my goal is to show people why maybe they don't want these devices. Why do you want them? What benefit do you think the citizens of the county gain from these? Usually when people answer these questions, they learn that that the things they think they are getting are not really what these devices bring to the table. I think last time you and I talked about them, you ended up saying "Screw it, I don't care if they don't make anyone safer, I want the money".

Let me help:

"Because I don't break the law. The law is the law, and if you don't break it you have nothing to hind and should want red light cameras. They save lives".

 

[tblwdc]

Maybe my goal is to show people why maybe they don't want these devices. Why do you want them? What benefit do you think the citizens of the county gain from these? Usually when people answer these questions, they learn that that the things they think they are getting are not really what these devices bring to the table. I think last time you and I talked about them, you ended up saying "Screw it, I don't care if they don't make anyone safer, I want the money".

I don't care if they make money. I don't care if you say they don't make things safer. I know that when I travel on 301, or Route five, I slow down and make sure I stop at the light.

 

[Restitution]

They save lives".

So do police officers/sheriffs that patrol the streets and roadways. Difference is, one of them is already paid for. The other isn't

I'm sorry that patrolling some roadways is "dangerous" for them but, what is next? Chasing bank robbers is dangerous, finding murderers is dangerous, responding to domestic disputes is dangerous.... do they just get to write those off too?

 

[glhs837]

I don't care if they make money. I don't care if you say they don't make things safer. I know that when I travel on 301, or Route five, I slow down and make sure I stop at the light.

Its not me saying they don't make things safer, its science. Actual research from reputable (Not automated enforcement industry funded) organizations. And I can produce analyses of the industry studies showing benefits that show how they are flawed. Also saying that are a lot of state and local governments who have decided studied it themselves and decided not to keep systems installed because their own research shown they did not bring the safety they claim to. I'm glad you stop for lights, so do I. Not sure what bearing that has on it.

 

[glhs837]

So do police officers/sheriffs that patrol the streets and roadways. Difference is, one of them is already paid for. The other isn't

I'm sorry that patrolling some roadways is "dangerous" for them but, what is next? Chasing bank robbers is dangerous, finding murderers is dangerous, responding to domestic disputes is dangerous.... do they just get to write those off too?

Chris was being sarcastic.

 

[Restitution]

Chris was being sarcastic.

I got that. I was amplifying the point about paying for something that is completely not needed.

 

[glhs837]

I got that. I was amplifying the point about paying for something that is completely not needed.

But the point is that we are going into this with the expectation that we wont be paying for them. If fact, the expectation is that we make money.

 

[Restitution]

But the point is that we are going into this with the expectation that we wont be paying for them. If fact, the expectation is that we make money.

#1 I am sure someone is paying for it.

#2 Please define "we." I know I won't be seeing a dime of any revenue. My guess is that any and all revenue that comes from it will vanish into a political black hole.

 

[glhs837]

1. Well, the upfront cost is covered by the vendor, who from what the Sheriff says, will keep 100% of the revenue (not sure if this means installation, or if he means purchasing the equipment also) and once that is paid off the mentioned a something in the area of a 50/50 split with the vendor. Standard practice is that the vendor owns, "operates" and maintains the equipment to include calibration logs and scheduled annual certification of any sensors thereof, so if that is the case, you are talking about a few thousand each just to set it up. This is the same sort of deal he mentioned having with the vendor who does our school bus stop light cameras. I'll note in passing that not a lot of press about that system as far as effectiveness.

2. Meaning the county collectively. Revenues are supposed to be received by the political entity who installed the system. Usually, even though the citation is labeled from the county or town, the address is the contractor facility who receives the check, cashes it, siphons off their cut, and remits the rest to the govt. The more workload given to the vendor, the fewer highly paid govt folks touch it and cut into the profit. So the setup usually minimizes govt touch to review and court appearances. Oh, and the newly required "System Ombudsman". Which, if you know about Ombudsmen, is supposed to be a system user advocate, usually from outside the system in question, to act as a go between. What really happens is that counties and towns appoint the police officer in charge of the system to that post. Making it a useless thing. Like most of the much ballyhooed "Reform" bill that passed last year, it was gutted of any real reform by MACO.

 

[vince77]

Distinction is that the EZ Pass camera does not also cause an increase in rear end crashes leading to injuries that might not happened absent the cameras. The EZ Pass cameras are not stated to increase safety. The EZ Pass people cannot engage in activity to change the number of violators (yellow timing and/or considering right on red and failure to stop on stop line) and increase profits. Although I would not put asking for cash lanes to be closed causing backups leading folks to say screw it.

So, in short, while there are common points, they are not the points that matter.

They don't matter to you...lol. Red light cameras are used in countries all over the world. The very law that authorizes red light cameras was passed into law as a safety Act. Red light cameras are designed for safety. The safety of those crossing against other traffic at intersections. There are less people getting t-boned at intersections because of these cameras. Those type of accidents tend to be more serious.

Do distracted drivers or those recklessly following too close rear end people on occasion, sure. They're a menace to others on the highway anywhere they drive. I guess I'm lucky, the cameras don't bother me, I don't drive more than 12 mph over the speed limit and I try to allow enough time and distance to stop at traffic signals. It's so much more enjoyable behind the wheel

 

[glhs837]

They don't matter to you...lol. Red light cameras are used in countries all over the world. The very law that authorizes red light cameras was passed into law as a safety Act. Red light cameras are designed for safety. The safety of those crossing against other traffic at intersections. There are less people getting t-boned at intersections because of these cameras. Those type of accidents tend to be more serious.

Do distracted drivers or those recklessly following too close rear end people on occasion, sure. They're a menace to others on the highway anywhere they drive. I guess I'm lucky, the cameras don't bother me, I don't drive more than 12 mph over the speed limit and I try to allow enough time and distance to stop at traffic signals. It's so much more enjoyable behind the wheel

1. Red light cameras are used all over the world. Yep, not sure what bearing that has on it. People all over the world lack our civil rights. Popularity of a thing has no bearing on it's goodness or quality.

2 Yep, and the Affordable Care Act has Affordable right in the title, was passed to supposedly make Care Affordable. I submit that these things are alike. The name of a law has no bearing on the real effect of that law.

3. Red Light Cameras are designed to make money, like any product. Some products make safey while making money. Seat belts. Airbags. RLCs? I'm open to proof beyond "Well, the Sheriff said so."

4. About those crossing the intersection, our lights right now have a full second all red overlap, we have very few t-bones. How many rear ends collisions make up for dropping that number by one? I can say the study results are mixed at best. Ranging from a slight benefit to a slight loss. Measured financially, of course.

Now, I can back up every single assertion I make with scientific studies from non-biased sources, and not only that, I'm willing to bet I can find scientific analysis of any study you post that shreds it like tissue paper.

 

[glhs837]

And I want to give out a shout to Mr Joseph Langford for his concise and accurate letter to the Enterprise. Short, sweeet and to the point. Well done, Sir.

 

[thakidistight]

Yeah, deciding unilaterally just pushed him over the edge in my mind. And I've always liked the job he and his have done. Sounds like the vendor has sold him a bill of goods and he's bought it hook line and sinker. And now the citizens of the county have to pay for that. Here's some snapshots of the moral quality of the vendor mentioned in the article. American Traffic Solutions, or ATS.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3989.asp - Issue 10.2 million in illegal tickets in New Jersey, talk that down to 4.2 million, pocket 6 million in illegal profit.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/38/3849.asp - ATS Vice President fakes local residency and works under the table to shut down citizen efforts to put cameras on a referendum ballot in Mulkiteo, WA. Gets caught in 2011, ATS says he's fired for those shenanigans. Oddly enough, in 2012, he surfaces again in CA trying ton convince the Mayor there that citizens should have no say in enforcement efforts, and he can show the city how to stop such.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp ATS works through a wholly owned and operated front group, the National Coalition For Safer Roads set up for them by a PR firm to lobby for laws favorable to them. Claims to be a non-profit organization, but it's board of directors is three ATS executives.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3253.asp ATS plays the race card in a lawsuit to block a referendum in Houston while spending 1.7 million to save program from voter led referendum there. Says that the camera referendum was bait to lure conservative voters to the polls



So, are these the folks you want running a traffic safety program of any kind?

.

Thats just crazy. You guys really want this company running things in your town? And theres nothing you can do about it? Have fun with that.

 

[vince77]

1. Red light cameras are used all over the world. Yep, not sure what bearing that has on it. People all over the world lack our civil rights. Popularity of a thing has no bearing on it's goodness or quality.

2 Yep, and the Affordable Care Act has Affordable right in the title, was passed to supposedly make Care Affordable. I submit that these things are alike. The name of a law has no bearing on the real effect of that law.

3. Red Light Cameras are designed to make money, like any product. Some products make safey while making money. Seat belts. Airbags. RLCs? I'm open to proof beyond "Well, the Sheriff said so."

4. About those crossing the intersection, our lights right now have a full second all red overlap, we have very few t-bones. How many rear ends collisions make up for dropping that number by one? I can say the study results are mixed at best. Ranging from a slight benefit to a slight loss. Measured financially, of course.

Now, I can back up every single assertion I make with scientific studies from non-biased sources, and not only that, I'm willing to bet I can find scientific analysis of any study you post that shreds it like tissue paper.

lmao...these "studies" you're referring to don't even use the same protocols and methodologies. In fact, the interpretation for red light violation changes among the various studies and jurisdictions. They are useless, thats why there are so many of them with different conclusions. They're fodder for advocacy groups on either side, don't get sucked into the matrix my friend. Print them on tissue paper put them on a roll, and I'll find a use for them. Safe travels.

 

[glhs837]

So, if all the studies are crap on both sides, then how would you propose to judge the effectiveness of these things. Or do you propose flipping a coin?

 

[vince77]

So, if all the studies are crap on both sides, then how would you propose to judge the effectiveness of these things. Or do you propose flipping a coin?

IMO...I think the most important criteria is identifying those intersections where cross traffic accidents occur most frequently. Even then, there are so many more variables i.e., condition of the road, weather. I don't disagree there are intersections with difficult sight lines where they could contribute to rear end collisions. Not sure the sheriff is the guy to be determining that.