Red Light Cameras Ticketing Drivers Who Stop at Lights

by The Newspaper

Published: January 12th, 2012

red light cameras ticketing drivers who stop at lights

Cities around the country have begun dropping the use of red light cameras,which were once touted as the best way to stop drivers from “blowing through” red lights. Disappointed municipal officials invariably point to the systems’ failure to generate the promised amount of revenue as the reason for the change. To keep from losing more clients, the red light camera industry’s latest move has been to ticket drivers who stop at red lights to boost the number of potential violations.

Several years ago the industry significantly increased its yield by transitioning away from ticketing vehicles for running red lights. Instead, camera focused on right-hand turn lanes so they could mail citations to the owners of vehicles that make slow, rolling right turns on red. In some jurisdictions, right-turn tickets account for 90 percent of all tickets issued — even though national and local data suggest the maneuver is not dangerous. In some cases, however, right-turn tickets failed to be profitable when the public refused to pay citations — as happened in Los Angeles, California — or because of legislative restrictions on right-turn citations — as happened in Florida.

Last April, the city of Denver became the first jurisdiction in Colorado to allow a private company, Affiliated Computer Services, to issue red light camera tickets to stationary vehicles. Issuing tickets to stopped drivers only required a simple software change, but it boosted the city’s profit fourfold.

Newark, California is one of the cities where ninety percent of the $480 tickets issued by Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia go to the owners of vehicles photographed turning right on red. Through December 2011, the change has contributed significantly to the grand total of 41,575 tickets Redflex has been issued, worth $19,956,000.

One of those ticket recipients, who asked not to be identified, drove his Toyota Prius on August 27 at the intersection of Newark Boulevard and Jarvis Avenue. He pulled up to the intersection at a speed of 16 MPH with his turn signal activated. He came to a full stop and waited for several seconds for traffic to clear before proceeding. His front tire crossed the first line of the crosswalk, which Newark and Redflex contend is a serious violation of the law. At 9:42pm, there were no pedestrians visible anywhere near the intersection. Though the Prius driver was outraged at receiving the ticket, he decided to plead guilty before a judge known for reducing turning tickets to $110 rather than risk losing the full $480.

Story courtesy of The Newspaper

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 29 comments

Redmondjp on Jan 12, 2012

And this, my dear friends, is exactly why I am against these cameras! I have this exact same setup about a mile from my house (fortunately coming down next month since our city council wisely decided not to renew the 1-year trial period contract with ATS, after voluminous public outcry). Many of my neighbors got $124 tickets (all of them right turn violations), and they were none too happy about it. And the problem is, if you actually do come to a complete stop behind the "stop line" (which is a couple of feet back from the crosswalk), in 99% of the cases, you can't see past the drivers stopped to the left of you, so you have to pull forward . . . and stop again? Or will rolling forward trigger the camera? Who knows? That's the problem - it's not clear what constitutes an infraction to the automated system at this point. In my city, ATS REQUIRED the city to install the right-turn violation-catching equipment in their contract, as they KNOW that without it, the intersection won't produce enough revenue to provide any profits for them. Monthly violation breakdown data that was presented to the city council over the past year has backed this up (something like 90% of the violations were for rolling right turns). I really don't have any issue with the straight-through red light cameras, with the caveat being that there are still going to be a few cases (such as icy roads, or large semis esp. the ones with a second trailer, or large trucks/semis on icy roads that can't stop in time) where being in the intersection on red cannot be avoided and shouldn't be ticketed.

Like Reply
- Golden2husky on Jan 12, 2012
  
  Where I live the right on red take is 29%. You know, if these damn things were used to nail those who blow through red lights at full road speed I could see their worth. But that would never generate enough revenue. So the bastards at ATS and Redflex have gamed the system to their benefit and all of us stupid sheep pay up, myself included...
  
  Like
Les on Jan 12, 2012

"His front tire crossed the first line of the crosswalk, which Newark and Redflex contend is a serious violation of the law." Oh FFS!!!! People! The alternative to Rule of Law is not Anarchy, the alternative is Rule of Some Bastard With Power and the Desire to Use Said Power to Abuse You and Yours for Fun and Profit. So... I guess we've already crossed the 'we don't have rule of law anymore' threshold.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?