VA killed red light cameras bill

[mcs328]

http://wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=687648

Va. Subcommittee Kills 'Photo Red' Bills
Feb 2nd - 11:59am

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A General Assembly subcommittee Thursday killed bills allowing localities to use cameras to catch red-light runners.

Six northern Virginia localities and Virginia Beach operated so-called "photo red" pilot projects until the General Assembly allowed the programs to expire last summer. Two legislators sponsored bills to reinstate the projects in those localities, and one proposed taking the program statewide.

Supporters of the bill argued that photo red enforcement saves lives by reducing crashes. Opponents argued that the project violates due process rights by assuming that the owner of the car is the one who ran the red light.

The subcommittee of the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee voted 3-1 to kill all three bills. House rules were changed this year to allow subcommittees to kill legislation outright rather than make that recommendation to the full committee.

On another matter, the subcommittee recommended approval of a bill allowing motorcyclists 21 and older to ride without a helmet.

[MrGreg]

Sounds like population control to me. (the helmet thing)

[Cheesypuff]

I say put a fake camera to help stop people from running red lights.

[psycho-]

Sounds like population control to me. (the helmet thing)

Both are population control. One law allows people to weed themselves out of society. The other one unfortunately allows people to weed others out of society.

[Mike_N_Ike]

This is good to hear. Maybe CA will follow one of these days.

[mcs328]

The Dulles Toll Road has fake cameras. The lights and buzzer goes off but the cameras don't work. I found this out a few weeks ago from the local radio station. They decidied it was too expensive to implement and yet they estimate they lose about $4 million a year in fines.

[bachviet]

This is good to hear. Maybe CA will follow one of these days.
:stupid:

[psycho-]

:stupid:


After almost being killed by a red light runner a few years ago, i can't agree with you guys.

Read the facts:
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/rlr.html

[Jeffbx]

They decidied it was too expensive to implement and yet they estimate they lose about $4 million a year in fines.

This is one thing that never fails to make me go crazy - traffic fines should be a deterrent to encourage safer drivers - NOT A SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR THE POLICE!

I say any & all local traffic fines should go to the state's education fund or something - why encourage the local communities to give out more & more tickets to generate revenue for themselves? At that point it's not about safety at all - it's about writing enough tickets so they can employ enough officers to write the tickets!

:mad2:

[mcs328]

I like the red light cameras myself for safety reasons. Speed cameras however I can't support. They are putting some up and they ticket you if you go over by 10mph over the posted limit.

[Grimm]

After almost being killed by a red light runner a few years ago, i can't agree with you guys.

Read the facts:
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/rlr.html
Those "facts" were blown out of the water when San Diego was ruled against for altering the lights to generate revinue. Furthermore they also found that the cameras were placed to generate the highest revinue, not deter the most accidents. The most dangerous intersections were ignored in favor of the intersections most likely to catch a red light runner.

I was "caught" by one of these cameras after they tampered with the lights. The light turned yellow and I continued through, because I did not have sufficent stopping distance. That's why we have yellow lights. But the yellow light had been shortened. It had been 4 seconds and was now 2 seconds. THe law required it be at least 3 seconds. However, I knew that they did didn't throw out any photo tickets, so I paid the fine and went to traffic school. Only to have the entire system thrown out later. They weren't trying to catch people breaking the law. They were breaking the law to catch people and steal from them.


The system is operated by a private company with a vested interest in issuing tickets. They are not interested in reducing infractions. They want as many as possible.

If the system was actualy designed to effectively reduce accidents I would have a different attitude about it, but it's not. It generates revinue.

The "myths" listed on that site says that the cameras aren't capable of playing Big Brother. That must be outdated. THe cameras now have video and are not just still camera. They are on 24/7 they don't just turn on to catch people. The system is more invasive than people think.

They are testing a system now that can identify the plate and read the number. They are also experimenting with facial recognition that will compare to a database of driver's photos. Pretty soon they will be able to track a vehical all day long and issue tickets based on how long it took them to get from one camera to the next.

[psycho-]

a) Big Brother or not, A public space is a public space.
b) Driving is a privilege.
c) Just because nobody sees it doesn't mean running a redlight is not illegal.

True, SD has to work out its issues on RL camera implementation, but the benefits still outweigh the costs.


They are testing a system now that can identify the plate and read the number. They are also experimenting with facial recognition that will compare to a database of driver's photos. Pretty soon they will be able to track a vehical all day long and issue tickets based on how long it took them to get from one camera to the next.

Illegal behaviour is still illegal.

[Grimm]

a) Big Brother or not, A public space is a public space.
b) Driving is a privilege.
c) Just because nobody sees it doesn't mean running a redlight is not illegal.

True, SD has to work out its issues on RL camera implementation, but the benefits still outweigh the costs.



Illegal behaviour is still illegal.
A public space is not the property of the government, it is the property of the people.
The government does not have a right to spy on the people except in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion.

Driving is a privilege... but is a requirement for functioning in most areas of our society (a few cities have enough of a public transportation to get by, but those are few and far between).

Most traffic violations are infractions. Infractions aren't a serious crime. It is understood that even law abiding citizens are going to commit infractions. They are laws that are usualy broken by accident and therefore without intent. Even you infract the law, probably every day. The police overlook most infractions of the law. It's not a serious enough issue to be willing to allow our government the additional power of constant survalence and tracking of the citizenry.

Red light cameras do not stop red light running. They only record the event. They don't make it safer, just more expensive to drive.

[psycho-]

Most traffic violations are infractions. Infractions aren't a serious crime. It is understood that even law abiding citizens are going to commit infractions. They are laws that are usualy broken by accident and therefore without intent. Even you infract the law, probably every day. The police overlook most infractions of the law. It's not a serious enough issue to be willing to allow our government the additional power of constant survalence and tracking of the citizenry.

Infractions large or small, caused by carelessness or not; are still infractions. Now constant survaillence would be reviled if it was done without proper disclosure to citizens. But in this case, but there are big signs that say "RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT" at these intersections. if that's proper disclosure, I don't know what is.


Red light cameras do not stop red light running. They only record the event. They don't make it safer, just more expensive to drive.

Yes they do. intersections w/ prominent warnings for Red light enforcement tend to have lower accidents of all types. It's an economic incentive to not be caught by the camera.


Bottom line:

Running a red light is still illegal; just like littering, not using your seatbelt, etc.

The difference is some get caught, some don't.

Before you bitch about it, I have to say that I've also been caught by one of the shortened lights, but i still support a proper implementation of it because there is compelling evidence that proves it lowers intersection accidents and fatalities.

[Houdini]

I don't like the idea of ambush cameras in general, and until independent and well-controlled studies show that they reduce morbidity/mortality, I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon. I've been in many situations where running the red was safer than stopping or staying there. I've been known to speed a little from time to time. I've blown more than a few stop signs in the middle of the night here in NOLA where they've been put up in lieu of broken lights or seemingnly arbitrary places. More big brother = bad to me until proven otherwise.