Dear Virginia NMA Member,
There has never been an opportunity like this before! We actually have a chance to ban red light cameras in Virginia.
As of right now, the use of red light cameras (RLCs) faces a time limit of July 2005. If no new legislation is passed to allow cameras to be used beyond that date, they will be taken down.
Delegate Robert Tata recently introduced legislation to keep the cameras up. If you want to eliminate RLCs from Virginia, now is the time to act!
TataÔÇÖs proposal, HB 1558, has been sent to the Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety. Please take the time to contact your Delegate and the Delegates on this committee, and ask them to oppose this bill.
For the contact information of your legislator, please visit <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://legis.state.va.us/">http://legis.state.va.us/</a><!-- m -->.
For the contact information of the members of the Committee on Militia, Police, and Public Safety, please visit <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://tinyurl.com/5cdte">http://tinyurl.com/5cdte</a><!-- m -->.
Why should RLCs be opposed? Here are just a few reasons:
Studies show that cameras actually increase the number of crashes at the intersection. This isnÔÇÖt limited to only rear-end collisions, but all types.
RLCs have no proven safety benefit.
Proven engineering techniques (such as longer yellow light times, larger and brighter lights, larger sun-blockers, and better lane division) are ignored in favor of the cameras. The reasoning is that engineering costs money, while cameras make millions in ticket fines.
More information on the problems with RLCs as well as suggested solutions for the problem of red light violations, please visit <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/index.html">www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/index.html</a><!-- w -->.
If you have any questions regarding this issue or specifically HB 1558, donÔÇÖt hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your help.
Eric Skrum
Communications Director
Celebrating 20 years of protecting your rights!
National Motorists Association 608/849-6000
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:nma@motorists.org">nma@motorists.org</a><!-- e --> <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org">www.motorists.org</a><!-- w -->
Advocating, Protecting, and Representing the Rights of North American Motorists
While we're at it lets remove surveillance devices from supermarket stores...they are probably the cause of more theft.
-T
MIHS - hot cause we fly you ain't so you not
2004 Subaru WRX STi
1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass
KPWSerpiente Wrote:While we're at it lets remove surveillance devices from supermarket stores...they are probably the cause of more theft.
-T
When was the last time a private survellance cameara at a grocery store stick something in your pocket so it looked like your stealing something? Because thats essentially what they are doing when they install red light cameras and decrease yellow light duration to make it so people run a red light that shouldnt be red yet.
""Fairfax County records show that 'events,' red light violations, captured by the camera fell from an average daily rate of 52.1 per day before the yellow time increase to just 2 per day afterwards, a reduction of 94 percent.
"Fairfax County records also show that citations being issued dropped to just 0.82 citations a day on average during the 67 days after the yellow time was increased.
"This camera was activated February 8, 2001 by Lockheed Martin under an agreement with Fairfax County. The Virginia Department of Transportation is responsible for operating these signals. The decision to install a red light camera at this intersection confirms that this intersection was considered a location of serious violations with increased potential for accidents.
"This experience should prove to any skeptic that sound engineering practices, not only work, but are preferable to exploiting motorists through the use of ticket cameras and related automated enforcement devices," Skrum concluded."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/australia.html">http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/australia.html</a><!-- m --> study showing that "RLCs are not an effective countermeasure and that they may increase the number of rear end crashes."
Politicians, the media, and others are missing the point when it comes to the issue of red light cameras. They point out privacy concerns or due process failures. True, these are legitimate complaints, but they distract from the heart of the issue.
Obeying intersection traffic signals is one law that is universally agreed upon. The majority of drivers obey traffic lights and expect others to do the same. They view signals as inviolate. The vast majority of red light violations are not the product of willing or casual non-compliance. Therefore, they can not be addressed or corrected by enforcement measures.
So why do intersections with high numbers of red light violations exist if the majority of drivers agree that these signals should be obeyed? Take a close look at those high-incident intersections and the answer will be found. The majority of these violations can be traced back to a flaw in the installation of the signal light, improper maintenance of the signal light, and/or operation of the signal light. None of these failings can be corrected by adding a ticket camera. This point is repeatedly proven by intersections where violations continue in large numbers, even after ticket cameras are installed. It is also repeatedly proven at intersections where red light violations literally disappear after a simple change in yellow light duration. One further proof is that the same driving population that is punished for violating the red light at one intersection shows 100 percent compliance at other similar intersections. It's the same drivers; the only real variable is the intersection, most likely the traffic lights!
This is not an enforcement issue. Ticket cameras greatest detriment is not that they infringe on our privacy. Their greatest practical harm is that they reward and perpetuate improper installation, maintenance and operation of traffic lights. Motorists should not be penalized and cities rewarded because the city has failed its responsibility to ensure intersections that are properly engineered. Ticket cameras do not eliminate intersection flaws and they cannot correct traffic signal flaws.
Ticket cameras may be an affront to many peoples' sense of privacy, but they are even a greater affront to the safety, integrity and convenience of American motorists.
CCVT VP 05-06
1991 Sentra SE-R w/ SR20VE
1994 Yamaha Seca II
"At the time of my outing, Lockheed is responsible for maintaining the equipment, processing the data, and sending out the citations--which entitles them to $32.50 out of every $75 red-light-camera ticket and $29 of every photo-radar ticket"
Now you tell me how thats not a conflict of interest. Lets pay a company to give out tickets which they get a cut of. Imagine if a judge got money for finding you guilty, or if a cop got money for writing you a ticket.
CCVT VP 05-06
1991 Sentra SE-R w/ SR20VE
1994 Yamaha Seca II
I WISH we had traffic cameras around here! I have a hard time beleiving that a camera is going to cause more rear end collisions. And I really don't think most red light runners do it accidentally. Now if, with the installation of the camera, they muck with the light timing to increase revenue? Well then that's f'd up. I certainly can believe that just causes problems. The people who made the system work that way should be strung up. Maybe the people should focus their outrage of the implementation of the cameras. Because the actual camera, if setup properly, seems like a good idea.
BLINGMW Wrote:I WISH we had traffic cameras around here! I have a hard time beleiving that a camera is going to cause more rear end collisions. And I really don't think most red light runners do it accidentally.
See for yourself.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/95aussie.pdf">http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/95aussie.pdf</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/Burkey_Obeng_Updated_Report_2004.pdf">http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce ... t_2004.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Well the reason it causes more accidents is because people slam on the brakes to avoid the ticket thus causing rear-end accidents.
Furthermore, as Mike said, how can you pay a company 50% comission and NOT expect them to do what they can to increase the number of tickets. I've seen the RLC before and they do shorten the yellow lights.
What I don't agree with is the fact that there are plenty of ways to actually increase safety at traffic lights but instead the powers that be choose the more dangerous way because it creates ticket revenue.
2018 Ducati Panigale V4
Past: 2018 Honda Civic Type-R, 2015 Yamaha R1, 2009 BMW M3, 2013 Aprilia RSV4R, 2006 Honda Ridgeline, 2006 Porsche Cayman S, 2012 Ducati 1199, 2009 Subaru WRX, 2008 CBR1000RR, 2009 Kawasaki ZX-6R, 2000 Toyota Tundra, 2005 Honda CBR600RR, 1996 Acura Integra GS-R, 1996 Acura Integra GS-R, 1997 Honda Civic EX
http://www.aclr8.com
G.Irish Wrote:Well the reason it causes more accidents is because people slam on the brakes to avoid the ticket thus causing rear-end accidents.
Furthermore, as Mike said, how can you pay a company 50% comission and NOT expect them to do what they can to increase the number of tickets. I've seen the RLC before and they do shorten the yellow lights.
What I don't agree with is the fact that there are plenty of ways to actually increase safety at traffic lights but instead the powers that be choose the more dangerous way because it creates ticket revenue.
Yup. The NMA actually has a challenge...
"Show us any red light ticket camera intersection that still has high numbers of red light violations (there are plenty to choose from) and we will guarantee a MINIMUM of a 50 percent reduction in red light violations through the application of engineering solutions.
If our recommendations fail to meet our minimum goal of a 50 percent reduction in red light violations, we will pay the community $10,000 to be used on any traffic safety program or project it chooses. But, if we prove the validity of our contentions, the community will employ our engineering based recommendations at other troublesome intersections, and scrap its ticket camera program. "
If the moneypinching politicians in the state didnt shorten the yellow lights to create revenue, I would be a big supporter of red light cameras.
Running red lights is outrageously dangerous. I know people who have died from red-light-runners, and I see people plow through blatant red lights every day at a disgusting level.
Outlawing the cameras alltogether is not the solution. When used properly they decrease accident injuries greatly. Those articles posted do not differentiate life threatening head on and t-bone collisons from fender bender rear-enders. I know which one I would rather be in.
Here is a novel idea- since the "shortening of yellow lights" is one of the main arguments that the red-light-runners use (for good reason), why not just mandate a standard minimum yellow light duration (according to speed limit of course) into law for any and all states implementing the cameras. Simple, cheap, and safe.
I think the system could also use an overhaul, the conflict of interest should be eliminated, and checks/balances installed, but that is relatively easily solved. (similar methods are already installed in government contracts in other arenas)
its a good idea, and a good system. the implementation just needs a good bit of tweaking.
There are other issues as well
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce/nma_photo_radar_position.html">http://www.motorists.org/issues/enforce ... ition.html</a><!-- m -->
NMA opposes the use of photographic devices (video, motion picture or still), including the citing of vehicle owners with moving violations that may or may not have been committed by the vehicle's owner. With properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for camera-based traffic law enforcement devices. Taking a reckless driver's picture does not stop that incident of reckless driving.
NMA OBJECTIONS TO PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SCHEMES
Inadequate notification of defendants
Most governments using photo enforcement notify defendants via first class mail. There is no reasonable guarantee that the person to whom the letter is addressed will actually get the letter, understand the letter nor know how to properly respond. However, the government makes the assumption that proper notification was achieved and the defendant is willingly ignoring the order to appear or pay. The result can be a warrant issued for the arrest of the person named on the ticket.
Failure to positively identify the driver of the vehicle
Frequently, the photo does not adequately identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even though the owner was not driving the vehicle and in some instances may not know who was driving the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is forced to prove his/her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
Failure to promptly notify defendant
Defendants may not receive citations until several days, sometimes weeks, after the alleged violation. This makes it extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances involved in the supposed violation. There may be circumstances that justified exceeding the speed limit or being in a controlled intersection under a red light. There may have been confounding factors that led to a photo being taken in error. Having traversed a given intersection or roadway dozens of times over a short time frame makes it almost impossible to recall the specific events of a two-week-old trip.
No certifiable witness to the violation
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those instances where a photo enforcement operation is being overseen by a law enforcement officer, it is highly unlikely the officer would have any personal recollection of the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for the defendant to confront, a Constitutional Right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation. Because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
System designed to inconvenience motorist
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor handling defendant notification may withhold send a copy of the photo of the alleged violation to the vehicle owner. (Many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver, or the driver is not the vehicle owner.) The Vehicle owner is forced to travel to the courthouse to see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience to discourage ticket challenges.
No safety benefit
Despite the claims of photo enforcement equipment marketing departments and press releases about tens of thousands of extra tickets being issued, there is not any independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce accidents or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of the companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is on a par with accepting the claims of any commercial interest that wants to improve its profitability. Claims are frequently made that it is only the U.S. where photo enforcement is opposed. It should be noted that the U.S. has a lower fatality rate than most of the countries that regularly employ photo enforcement devices.
Unable to apprehend or stop dangerous drivers
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless and otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
CCVT VP 05-06
1991 Sentra SE-R w/ SR20VE
1994 Yamaha Seca II
Evan Wrote:Here is a novel idea- since the "shortening of yellow lights" is one of the main arguments that the red-light-runners use (for good reason), why not just mandate a standard minimum yellow light duration (according to speed limit of course) into law for any and all states implementing the cameras. Simple, cheap, and safe.
I think the system could also use an overhaul, the conflict of interest should be eliminated, and checks/balances installed, but that is relatively easily solved. (similar methods are already installed in government contracts in other arenas)
its a good idea, and a good system. the implementation just needs a good bit of tweaking.
Here is how the NMA would set up a law if there are going to be cameras.
Although the National Motorists Association opposes the use of ticket cameras for the enforcement of traffic laws, we realize that many units of government have adopted this technology and others are likely to follow suit. In the interest of protecting the safety of all road users, including motorists, pedestrians, and others, the NMA believes there must be strict adherence to the proper location, installation, maintenance, and operation of traffic control devices. Ticket cameras should only be permitted at intersections where traffic signals meet the following standards, and when basic due process protections are firmly in place and properly respected.
Required Components of Standard Red Light Camera Law
The minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less.
The yellow light interval shall be increased › second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.
All signals at Red Light Camera-equipped intersections shall meet all warrants and recommended ("should") standards described in the Manual on Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD).
Payments to subcontractors, if any, shall be based on the reductions in violations and reductions in accidents and specifically not on the number of citations issued.
The baseline for determining Red Light Camera effect shall be determined after all design and operational requirements have been met and before cameras are installed.
Any citation based on a Red Light Camera being operated at an intersection that is not in compliance with the installation, maintenance and operational requirements specified herein shall be dismissed and all fines, surcharges, and related assessments collected during the period of non-compliance shall be refunded to all defendants, regardless of plea.
All citations issued from the operation of a Red Light Camera shall be postmarked no later than 48 hours from the time of the alleged violation. Notification shall be by certified mail or personal service.
The driver of the vehicle, not the owner, shall be responsible for the violation. There shall be no enforcement exceptions for operators of government owned vehicles unless said drivers are engaged in the pursuit of formal emergency duties.
For a valid conviction, the photo(s) must clearly depict the driver, the vehicle registration number, the state of registration, the vehicle entering the intersection on a red light, and the time and date of the violation.
The registered owner of the vehicle photographed violating a red light traffic signal has no legal obligation to identify the driver of his or her vehicle and the dismissal of charges shall not be made contingent on identifying the driver of the photographed vehicle.
I'm really not interested enough in the subject to read everything you're writing Mike. Suffice to say that removing traffic cameras is not the answer...if the shortening of the interval of time the yellow lights are displayed is the problem, then legislation supporting longer yellow light intervals should be supported. Duh.
-T
MIHS - hot cause we fly you ain't so you not
2004 Subaru WRX STi
1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass
too much to read, but i will say that i was almost killed by a driver in a ford expedition when i slammed the brakes to avoid a red light camera. luckily, nobody was in the lane next to me and the expedition swerved in to it and still ended a few feet ahead of my car.
"whatever."
I Am Mike
4 wheels: '01 RAV4 (Formerly '93 Civic CX, '01 S2000, '10 GTI, '09 A4 Avant)
2 wheels: '12 Surly Cross-Check Custom | '14 Trek Madone 2.1 105 | '17 Norco Threshold SL Force 1 | '17 Norco Revolver 9.2 FS | '18 BMC Roadmachine 02 Two | '19 Norco Search XR Steel (Formerly '97 Honda VFR750F, '05 Giant TCR 2, '15 WeThePeople Atlas 24, '10 Scott Scale 29er XT, '11 Cervelo R3 Rival, '12 Ridley X-Fire Red)
No longer onyachin.
From what I have seen the cameras could be too sensitive and give out false tickets. The only example I have is in DC though, the nose of my car came a little too far out into the intersection and the cameras snapped a couple pics of my bumper (no front plate though  ). They already have police officers monitering the major roadways non-stop, i don't think they need cameras. If anything VA should be getting ready to loose income from traffic violations, since pretty soon cars will be driving themselves :bow:
|
