My small city just started installing light-enforcing cameras, and there is one at the intersection that leads to our subdivision.
There was an article in the papers that explains that the camera will only take your picture if you enter the intersection after the light has turned red. Also, if you are making a right turn on the red light, it knows if you stopped first or not. I’m not sure how it does that though. My wife is completely paranoid that it will get her for running a yellow or making a right on red.
There is a red light camera a few blocks from my house, for an intersection I got through all the time, so I’m up on this.
A contractor does it, and someone looks at all recorded violations before a ticket is issued. If you get a ticket (I haven’t, but a houseguest did driving our car) they send you a link to a video of you going through the light, so you can see the evidence.
It is a revenue source, but for the next town over the amount they got didn’t even meet the budget. My town did.
As for effectiveness, the number of cars blowing through a red light at my intersection is way down. Red light accidents are down also. In California, there is no problem if the light turns red while you are in the intersection, so the only tine you’d stop short is if you were ignoring a light that had turned yellow long before you hit the intersection.
Since a red light runner nearly killed my wife, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those who get tickets.
My dad got a red light ticket here in town, but when he got the notice, he realized it was issued not by the police department or the DMV, but by some third party company out of Arizona. He called an attorney who told him he had no obligation to respond to the notice and that this is something they’ve been doing more recently: third party company sends an official sounding notice, fishing for people to pay the “fine,” then the local government and the third party company split the profits.
So, you never receive an actual ticket. You never get a court date. You have no way of contesting the letter. You just pay it, thinking it’s a ticket, when it’s not.
My impression in the Chicago metro area is that those camaras generate the vast majority of their income from catching people not making a complete stop behind the white line before making a turn on red. I think they’ve got their priority completely backward. No one actually drives like that unless they are taking a driving test, or trying to avoid getting a camara ticket. What is the point of making a complete stop behind the line, when in reality the line is usually set so far back behind the intersection that your view is almost always obstructed back there? Someone pulling forward towards the intersection at only a few MPH so that they can actually see the crossing traffic is hardly dangerous at all.
I have read that this “white line” type of enforcement varies from intersection to intersection/community to community. In more than one instance a community determined - as you observe - that it serves little purpose to ticket someone who stops past the line, and cameras/ticketing practices have changed accordingly. But the bottomline is, when you see those signs, you have no idea how they are enforced at that location.
I have read more than once of large numbers of people who simply refuse to turn right on red at all, simply to avoid any risk of a ticket. Yeah, you might think such people stupid or overcautious, but you know that describes a huge percentage of the folk we share the roads with - and even possibly ourselves at least at times.
I also oppose them on principle. Not going to try to flush it out here, but I’m bothered by this type of increase in automated code enforcers. I’m a pretty big proponent of personal privacy and protections against unwarranted searches and seizures. Yeah, slippery slope and all, but it is a very short hop to using toll transponders to hand out speeding tickets. And from there we could have transponders in all new cars, track cell phones, or any number of other measures which might result in some “safety” benefit, but which I would nevertheless considered undesireable.
On the far NW edge of Chicago, I and the car in front of me were both snapped while making legal left turns on a left turn arrow. I never got a ticket, though, so I assume we were not the only ones and the city acted unusually rationally in realizing there was a problem.
I live on the SW side of Chicago, Lockport to be precise. They just installed red light cameras at two intersections in Lockport. The guidelines are here.
From what I’ve personally seen is people are getting pictured when they don’t come to a complete stop behind the white line before making a right hand turn. Now this seems a little silly. These intersections have right turn lanes (“RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT”), so the closest lanes to any cars turning right are going to be empty since those cars had to turn right.
I’ve heard (through second hand sources, so I can’t be sure of its validity) that the police are telling offenders that they need to stop behind the white line for 7 seconds before creeping up to get a better look at what traffic is coming their way. Everything I saw on that page and the Illinois Rules of the Road says to come to a complete stop before crossing the white line, but it all fails to define what exactly constitutes a complete stop. I’ve always gone by the forward, backward, then forward rocking motion of the car to tell me that I’ve made a complete stop.
The website does say that there are 3 pictures and an 8 to 10 second video taken of the violation that is reviewed by a city police officer. Supposedly, once the citation is issued, you can go online and see for yourself.
I got nailed in Lynnwood, WA. I was sent a notice, with a link to login to to see the video. They ticketed me for taking a right turn that I stopped over the stop line at (partially in the crosswalk) and then turned right on red. Bastiges :mad:
From the video I also found that the yellow light at that intersection was timed 1 second shorter than the recommended length for the speed limit. Other lights in Lynwood with cameras are also suspiciously using yellow lights of 1 second shorter durations. :dubious:
Millbrae, CA (just south of San Francisco) has a collection of notorious red-light cameras right near the BART/Caltrain station. The cameras go off if you approach the intersection too quickly – even if you stop behind the limit line, the flash goes off. The cameras also go off at random times for no apparent reason at all. It’s so nerve-wracking I gave up going to that station altogether.
Around here, there are plenty of intersections that, at certain times of the day, if you don’t dare to turn left on yellow, you will never turn at all. Unless you’re happy to sit there for 50-75-however many light cycles till rush hour’s over. But I wouldn’t bet the folks behind you will be.
I’ve seen this claim in countless whiny Letters to the Editor, but have yet to see any statistics backing it up. Even if it’s strictly true, though, there’s the matter of degree: How many low-speed fender-benders are worth one 50-mph T-bone collision?
How in the world are these different? They are both accomplished by not running the red light.
Hmm, I’ve seen it in news articles in the Chicago Trib and local papers. In one instance I can recall, it was reason enough to remove the cash machine from the intersection.
On edit - this was the first friggin google result. I’m not going to look any further to clear up your ignorance.
You and I apparently drive quite differently, and on quite different roads.
As for the latter statement, people slamming on their brakes at the first sign of a yellow light is a great way to cause an accident, without running a red.
The Chicago Tribune studied the first cameras to be put up in the suburbs, and results were mixed, as accidents increased at half of those intersections. At one particular camera location in Oak Park, there had been only one broadside crash in the year prior to installation, but afterwards, within about a year’s time, there had been five of those crashes there.
They compared the results to the places where numerous cameras were already mounted in Chicago, and crashes went up or held steady at 60% of those intersections, according to Illinois DOT results. However, the city of Chicago (which is where that revenue goes, it’s worth noting) reports decreased crashes and couldn’t explain why the numbers were different.
Meanwhile, Schaumburg removed its red-light cameras due to concerns about their installation being simply for making money. Tickets were overwhelmingly for rolling-right-on-red (similar to other Chicago Tribune findings for other cameras) “even though traffic-safety experts say such infractions rarely lead to serious damage or injuries.” When they stopped processing right-on-red violations, they found that the cost of the system was outrageous for things like only 12 left-on-red violations in a month.
I pass a number of of photo-enforced intersections on my way to and from work, and I’m just not seeing this. Camera or no camera, most people approaching a green light choose a “point of no return” of sorts, after which they’ll continue through in case the light changes to yellow. Since the camera is only activated on red, there’s no problem there.
Which makes me glad, if you’re routinely going through red lights in the name of “safety.”
I have the same experience. I see absolutely no difference in how people stop at intersections with and without cameras.
In California there is a move to reduce the fines for right turn on red without stopping. That seems reasonable. Despite claims that people never turn right on red without stopping when it isn’t safe, people turn in front of me all the time, requiring me to brake. People do it at yields also, but there is nothing to do about that.
Based on letters to Mr. Roadshow, red light cameras throughout the Bay Area flash at random times. The intersections I go through are so crowded that it doesn’t bother me - I don’t think it has anything to do with me.
Only the first guy gets to go. When three or four go, they are just bullying the cross traffic, and preventing them from taking advantage of their green light; there isn’t much time left in a yellow after you have waited for the opposing traffic to stop.
I do wonder if the cameras will give you a ticket if you stop while the light is amber, then turn right shortly after it turns red.
Yeah, well, I nearly did it this weekend, and fortunately both I and the guy behind me were both able to brake for the light change when doing 40 mph. Maybe living in/around the city of the most red-light cameras in the US (as of the last article I read, at least) does that to some people after a while.
Many intersections that have red light cameras have the yellow light timed to be shorter than is generally recommended for the posted speed. This was also mentioned upthread, and yes, by definition it can make “running a red light” (i.e. clearing the start of the intersection a couple tenths of a second after the light turns red) safer than stopping for one.
This does apply, though, only to those intersections. Intersections that haven’t been monkeyed with in this fashion have a yellow light length that is adequate to safely stop a car that can’t fully enter the intersection before the light turns red. I have no idea what the proportions of each are.
My opinion (and nothing more) is that the cameras introduce a distraction. Instead of simply focussing on what is safe, you add to the equation “will this possibly cost me $100?” And I do not believe this type of distraction necessarily results in safer driving.
FH observed that Schaumburg removed some (all?) of their cameras following protests. The most offensive was on a major road bearing traffic exiting a huge mall (Woodfield), turning right to merge onto an expressway. I doubt if more than 10 pedestrians cross at that intersection daily - probably fewer. Views of oncoming traffic was extremely clear, all roads involved were multi-lane. I won’t describe it in more detail, other than to say that to get the number of vehicles present through that intersection without huge back-ups, rolling right-on-reds were generally PREFERABLE.
So, after handing out and collecting on thousands of tickets, the village decidedto take down the camera. Do you think they refunded any of the drivers’ money?
Similarly, the camera nearest my home on Roosevelt was taken down after it showed no reduction in accidents. (I do not know whether there was any increase.) But if you got a ticket, you are out $100.
Final thought - in many situations where there are such cameras, I believe they could be turned off during non-peak hours. Couple of weeks ago I was driving home at 1 a.m. Came up behind the ONLY other car which was driving in the left lane 5 mph below the 35 speed limit. I was stone sober, but hesitant to pass him on the right, which might be noticeable to a cop. I admit I was probably closer to him (2-3 lengths) than I would have been if he had been going faster or in the right lane. Within a block or two we came to a camera intersection and the light turned yellow just as I was about to enter the intersection (literally, as I passed over the crosswalk), and red before I cleared. I did not get a ticket, but worried about whether I would for the next week or so. I’m not really sure that there is a clear answer of what I ought to have done that would have been safer/more appropriate in that situation, and I resent the government creating a situation that made me so uncomfortable.