More on Red Light Cameras - more questions than answers
Yet another article in the D&C. This one echoes some of the debate points we had in our previous post. Via that D&C article:
Looks like Mayor Duffy is backing away from the revenue generation aspect.
Duffy has cited estimates that the cameras will generate as much as $3.5 million annually for the city but said Friday that he would be “shocked” if revenues were that much. Those estimates were based on higher anticipated fines, which the state now has set at $50 with a possible $25 default penalty. The mayor said he only learned last week that the state likely would allow Rochester to install cameras, and therefore has not planned on the revenue when figuring out how to close a $32 million budget gap in 2009-10.
“I have never jumped on the revenue bandwagon with this,” Duffy said, “but I have wanted the system. I think they do work. … But if we were just using an enforcement tool to fill a budget gap, we could assign a large number of police officers to writing tickets. That is not what we are about.”
Oh, let a friend borrow your car, they run a red light? You pay the fine - have fun with that.
Violations would be assessed against the owner, regardless of who was driving the vehicle.
But your insurance (or theirs) won’t go up at least that part is unclear if a ticket you through your (or their actions) receive actually goes against your insurance.
Jeffrey Eichner, municipal attorney for the city, said the citations — or notice of liability — would not count against the person’s driving record or insurance. The city is just beginning to study the matter and has not yet evaluated legal aspects or available technology, nor have officials determined where to place the cameras.
More questions than answers at this point.
Related posts:
I wouldn’t let a friend borrow my car who I didn’t trust to stop at red lights or pay the fine if he/she got a violation. If they won’t pay the fine, you need to take a look at who you are calling a friend.
That said, I’m against the tool as a revenue stream, but I’m not against using it to help stop people from running lights.
So what would BB do to the violators?
Give them a stern talking to?
No, we need more cameras watching everything we do. Why we could have cameras in our garbage cans making sure we don’t toss recyclalbes, or inside our cars to make sure we stay off the phone and don’t run red lights, or in restaurants to make sure we don’t pocket an extra packet of sugar, or in our bathrooms to make sure we don’t, well you know…
“Violations would be assessed against the owner, regardless of who was driving the vehicle.”
That is how it will be assessed, but it won’t hold up in court if you can show that you were not driving.
And how much is the system going to cost?
Which taxpayers pocket is it going to come out of?
The problem is that going to court costs most people significantly more than paying the $50 fine. The law effectively violates due process by effectively removing the ability to face your accuser. Buffalo has already approved the red light cameras which will be added to the numerous spy cams already mounted around the city.
“The problem is that going to court costs most people significantly more than paying the $50 fine.”
That’s why it is an effective revenue stream.
More cameras?!?!?! It’s not the so call high crime rate, the lack of jobs, or the people that causes me to take my a$$ out of rochester, it’s the political BS. -Maggie not caring, KIDS on the street being harass by cops, ineffective, lazy city council, and the idiot running our schools, oh and cameras cameras and cameras - no thank you. I’ll miss rochester a lot, but i can’t be around this much BS w/o going crazy…
I would be happier if there were more enforcement by actual officers at intersections–I can’t imagine that that wouldn’t generate revenue: red-light running is practically epidemic. Just today, another person I know was hit going through a green light by a red-light runner. Intersections like Monroe/Howell, Culver/Atlantic seem particularly bad.
I walk Elmwood in Brighton every day and there isn’t a day that passes when someone doesn’t speed through a red at 12 Corners.
When we were in Alberta two summers ago, the Calgary area is LOADED with camera enforcement, not only for lights but also for speed radar hidden in parked cars with cameras attached. The resulting fines are a substantial revenue source for all concerned.
From what I could see, most people there adapted to the lights with cameras (there is warning signage) and the practice of speeding through yellows wasn’t really present there. I think what we’ll encounter is an adjustment phase where people unlearn their zip through lights attitude, at the expense of many rear enders. Then, that issue will diminish. My personal objection to these things is the private company ownership and control. There is an incentive for return that inevitably games the system towards camera snapping on yellow lights, etc.
IMHO, we have bigger priorities that installing speed enforcement cameras. Just put police priority on ticketing in the problem intersections and give them a “bad rep” for would-be aggressive drivers.
Being a motorcyclist for years one of the first things you learn is that when the light turns green, look to see if there is anyone not stopped, and only then proceed through the intersection.
Who are all these people getting hit going through green lights? Are they like so many drivers today, zoned out in their phone conversations, drinking their lattes and listening to rock music that they forget what it means to pay attention and drive defensively.
Or is there some mysterious preordained fatalism in being a friend of “beth”.
So what would BB do to the violators?
Give them a stern talking to?
No, we need more cameras watching everything we do. Why we could have cameras in our garbage cans making sure we don’t toss recyclalbes, or inside our cars to make sure we stay off the phone and don’t run red lights, or in restaurants to make sure we don’t pocket an extra packet of sugar, or in our bathrooms to make sure we don’t, well you know…
[...] originally passed a resolution that got the ball rolling - Even though Mayor Duffy backed away from revenue claims - once they are installed it will be interesting to see (interesting like when [...]
[...] originally passed a resolution that got the ball rolling - Even though Mayor Duffy backed away from revenue claims - once they are installed it will be interesting to see (interesting like when [...]