METHUEN — Police hope to install red-light cameras at busy city intersections to enhance traffic safety and generate an estimated $3 million in annual revenue. The cameras are used to record video and photos of vehicles running red lights or making illegal right-on-red turns. Violators are then mailed $100 citations. The city must receive state approval before any cameras are installed. Police Chief Joseph Solomon said the traffic cameras represent a law enforcement trend that's gaining traction across the country. http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x474414341/Chief-Traffic-cameras-to-generate-3-million-a-year
At least he's honest that the cameras are for revenue not "safety" Can't wait till the number of rear end collisions spike! Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
I thought there was a ruling against traffic camera some place not to long ago. It may have been in Florida. What a nightmare that will be when they try to --x a ticket for someone.
Traffic cameras don't bother me because I follow the rules of the road. Except yesterday when I got pulled over for driving an unregistered vehicle. Pulled over, hands at ten and two, yes Sir, here's my license and ltc( which he seemed to appreciate) full admission of guilt and guess what..." Get it fixed ASAP" . He could have given me a 100$ ticket and towed my vehicle but I guess my Father was right about R E S P E C T.
The cameras don't bother me too much, although while it may be an unpopular opinion, I do find it a bit harsh that people have to pay a fee to assert their innocence in cases of CMVI's. A fee might make sense in the event someone receives a second or subsequent citation in a year or something, but Joe Blow working guy who was a bit quick heading to work and catches that gig, maybe no fee on the first appeal. Anyway...back to the red light camera debate.
How about $100.00 fine for the first red light ticket from a camera but no surcharge or loss of good drivers points on your insurance. Challenge the ticket and lose pay the fine, surcharge and lose your good drivers points.
IF they didn't have surcharges, I bet most people would happily pay their citations. No one is going ot waste a day in court over a seatbelt citation, yet people do becaues the insurace companies hit them no matter the citation, moving violation or not. Its crazy.
Until there are robots who can chase down the cars, confront the offender and write the cite, I say, NO to cameras. And no to robots, damn scabs! Well, unless it's ROBOCOP, he was cool.
If they doubled the fines and got rid of the surcharge tomorrow I'd write far more money tix. I didn't take this job to make money for private industry.
Cameras are for revenue, as clearly touted in the title of the article. Uniformed police officers effect changes in driving behavior on the spot, not a citation in the mail to the registered owner. According to the NHTSA, traffic enforcement should be for crash reduction and criminal enforcement ONLY, not revenue. A while back an article here showed some small town in SC with a few miles of I-95 running through it. The town is a poor, low income rural area, and the company that makes the speeding cameras gets a percentage of the revenue. Traffic enforcement? I don't think so. Bullocks.
I realize the newspaper boob could have fucked this up, either that or the Chief did, but right on red is NOT a $100 gig. It's $35, let's have a little accuracy here. It's not even the same section as a red light violation.
Right on Red violations in FL are a $258.00 fine and these cameras are making cities some serious money. I don't like camera enforcement due to the fact it removes the human element and discretion, both of which play a major role in law enforcement.
In FL, there are officers assigned to review the video and authorize the citations which are to be issued. I believe they are also responsible for testifying in court.
We've had red light cameras in southern California for about 10 years now. I've found they work very well to get people to slow down for the red light instead of speed up to get through it. A few intersections near where I live have them. Before they went in there were accidents all the time. Since they've gone in I haven't seen one in years. The photos of the people inside the car are very good. The driver is easily identified so it's pretty hard to get out of the ticket if you're the driver. The red light fine out here is $485.
And I felt bad when our fine went from $50 to $100! Now I hand out gigs left and right, and I check driver's histories for subsequent offenses to fine appropriately for that as well.
Respect goes a long way, but no way in hell will I allow someone to drive away from a traffic stop with an unregistered vehicle. They can be textbook respectful, but if they drive away and then run a red light and kill a family of 4, guess who is going to be named in the bazillion dollar lawsuit? If someone is respectful, I'll reward that with a ride home if they're local, but unless they have a laptop with a printer handy to register their vehicle and print out the receipt, their vehicle is leaving on the back of a tow truck.
I was fully expecting that and I wouldnt have been upset at anyone but ME..I caught a break. My only point to the post was not all cops Fuck people evry chance they can like some think.
Had a Worcester to New York livery van stopped full of passengers and unregistered. We had the driver call the company and the secretary did it over the internet in about ten minutes; live data input = verified active, no tow. How would it be fucking somebody if the officer follows the law: "shall not be permitted to operate on a public way"? IMO those days of "Get it fixed ASAP" verbal warnings are over. Once the query is entered into CJIS and you stop it...you catch it-you clean it-you fry it-you eat it. To echo Delta's sentiment, my mortgage is a lot more than your $100 fine and tow fees.
