Richardson green lights red lights for 10 years
The Texas legislature is debating a bill to outlaw red light cameras, but may grandfather existing contracts cities have with red light camera manufacturers and operators. That's led to a rush of cities to extend their current contracts, stretching out the time they can operate these safety devices in case the legislature goes through with the ban.
Ian McCann, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, reports that Richardson joined other cities in extending its contract by ten years. McCann offered no editorial position on the decision, but others did.
McCann reports that "Former City Council candidate Tom Bache-Wiig called on the council to let the current contract expire, citing privacy concerns and a 'slippery slope' that using the cameras puts the city on." Thankfully, Bache-Wiig was speaking from the public microphone, not from a seat on the city council. The city's voters exercised good judgment when Bache-Wiig came in third in a three candidate race for a seat on city council.
One commenter gives a more common argument against red light cameras: "This is ALL ABOUT GREED and has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety." Another commenter supplies anecdotal evidence, saying he was rear-ended once when he stopped at a red light.
In fact, revenue from red light camera programs are hardly a windfall for city coffers. Over time, as drivers quit running red lights with impunity, revenue drops off, in some cases forcing cities to either halt the programs or subsidize them with revenues from other sources.
As for safety, studies are mixed, but a majority show red light camera programs are correlated with a reduction in serious injuries and deaths. Some studies show a temporary increase in rear-end accidents, which are less likely to be fatal. Other studies don't show even this undesired consequence.
Richardson is doing the right thing in trying to preserve this safety tool, but it really ought to be more proactive in getting the facts out regarding the costs and revenues of Richardson's program and the resulting improvement in safety in Richardson's intersections. There's too much misinformation being disseminated on this topic by people who let their suspicion of government, all government, cloud their better judgment.
19 comments:
My main problem with the cameras is that the ticket is not treated in the same manner as a normal traffic ticket. Appeals do not follow the same route (judge, etc).
Andy, thanks for the feedback, IANAL, but I believe that the different treatment is necessary because of the different circumstances. One kind of ticket is used for drivers who run red lights. The other is given to owners of cars caught on camera running red lights. Just like parking tickets are handled differently than speeding tickets, and not just the size of the fine.
Ah, but they are both moving violations. Parking tickets are different because they are non-moving violations.
Apples..... oranges.
Andy, yes, camera violations are different from parking tickets in that one is for a moving violation, the other isn't. But camera violations are different from speeding tickets in that one is given to the owner, the other to the driver. It seems there are apples and oranges everywhere.
Camera violations are a civil, not a criminal, offense. Which is also why the tickets don't go on your driving record. (Getting a ticket from a police officer for running a red light, however, is still a criminal offense and carries a steeper fine.)
I often find it amusing when someone uses the JUSTIFICATION that there are less incidents of a particular event that never happened in the first place. How does someone ever know what they do not know? Is there a crystal ball out there? If so, I have some stock trades I want to check out. Hmmmm. It is a revenue issue for someone out there or it would not exist!
"Anonymous" at 6/06/2009 1:54 PM, I don't understand. What "incidents of a particular event that never happened in the first place" are you referring to?
Companies selling the systems are doing it for the money, but cities are doing it for safety. Garland reported that their cameras were just breaking even and if revenue kept dropping the cameras wouldn't even pay for themselves.
My intention is to point out that you cannot save someone from a future event that may or may not happen. People always make decisions based on the information (whether visually, auditorally or kinestetically) available to them at any given moment in time. It is a decision based on thoughts, values, beliefs and senses of that moment. Is it a right or wrong decision? The only person able to determine that is the one who made the decision at that particular moment until it involves someone else. And then there are only two who can have an opinion. So now the variable of what is right and what is wrong comes into play. What may be the right answer for you may be the wrong one for me, so the only value is the intention. What outcome do you want? Henry Ford said it best "What ever you believe to be true is only true for YOU". Human existence is all cause and effect. Now, how much fear calibrates your intentions in a whole other dicussion.
With regard to redlight cameras, a judgement is being made based on a small perspective of a very broad situation. There are too many outcome possibilities from avoiding another vehicle to following accompanying traffic to hurrying through the intersection for another destination to uncalibrated camera equipment. Someone just made a decision whether conscious or unconscious at that split second in time. And to receive a ticket 2-3-4-5 months later when no one remembers the whats/whys/hows of a specific time when nothing happened is absurd. What safety was violated? The person came through the intersection without bodily injury and no damamge to property. I see it more as a behaviour control issue than a safety issue, but hey I have a belly button to go along with that opinion. :-)
Any revenue generating entity, whether private or public business or local/state/federal government is in it for the money or to make the issue about money. So the issue is lost behind the money. If you want behaviour control, then lets discuss the possibilities.
With regard to the statement of "the city is doing it for safety", then what is your definition of safety from municipal governments' prospective?
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 11:55 AM, even though one cannot prevent any individual driver from having an accident, one can reduce the number of accidents in aggregate by taking safety measures. Traffic lights, speed limits, roadway design, etc., all serve this purpose.
Just because traffic laws (like practically all laws on the books) carry the possibility of fines for violation, that doesn't mean that government is "in it for the money." We'll never know for certain what people's motivations are, so I prefer to concentrate on goals and methods. I have a goal to reduce death and injury from traffic accidents and find red light cameras to be an effective method to achieve that goal.
Ed, hate to tell you this death is inevitable! And you cannot prevent it for anyone. Delay it by self direction, not prevent it.
Ask Mr Keffler how they spent the revenue earned from red light cameras. It has been a while since David Morgan brought up to the council this wonderful windfall of money ($80,000+/- at that time) and how they wanted to spend it. It was an amusing display!!
Oh and you can check out the budget for the monies if you can find it in the mountain of deceptive reporting!
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 10:45 PM, you're right that death is inevitable, but if I can delay it a few years because some red light camera or other deterred some driver from running a red light, I consider that a good thing, even if I'll never know for sure which trip through an intersection was the one that would have gotten me.
I'd like to see an update on the costs and revenues of the system to judge whether your characterization of it as a "windfall" is accurate. From what I've read elsewhere, I don't think it is.
Didn't government just bankrupt the state of California? Actually I think that the voters did because they blindly approved their own destruction! Justice is no longer blind!
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 11:01 PM, I'm afraid you've got me. If government runs a safety program that pays for itself, it's a "windfall." If it doesn't pay for itself, government is "bankrupting" the state. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Windfall is the presentation description from David Morgan's enthusiasm at the prospect of other projects to spend the money on at the work session a year ago or better. It has only been of late that the discussion has moved toward the fact they are losing monies on this effort. So how much more will it cost over the next decade? That will be an interesting budget discussion.
Seems California's government lacked fiscal responsibility to the citizens. The local and state officials did not wake up one day and say oops....I think we have a little cashflow problem here. Anymore than Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac needed a $5T bailout one day all of a sudden.
I believe that the lack of fiscal responsibility and the sheer level of disrespect to it's citizenry by not addressing the problem lead to the huge economic issues faced on a federal/state and local level.
So what does that have to do with red light cameras in Richardson? Nothing and everything!! Other than the fact that it sets another precedence of hopeful desire to save lives in one area and destroy it in another.
Guess it is ok to live through an intersection and be broke supporting anothers' governemtal defined benefit plan! Governemnt is just too darn big and operates outside of it's original intention of those who created it.
Remember the movie "The Little Shop of Horros" Feed me Seymour, feed me!! We sure are feeding it at the demise of the middle class. Obama has now committed to $12.T! That is almost 1/3 of GDP. Excuse me, am I the only one who finds this absurd! Printing presses must be running 24/7!
What ever happened to government being the balancer of enterprise!
How about developing people over systems and policies. People who know better, do better.
"Anonymous" at 6/07/2009 11:30 PM, the libertarian argument, the less gov't the better, is one argument against red light cameras. It doesn't persuade me, but it does others.
You ask, "How about developing people over systems and policies. People who know better, do better." I'm all for "developing people" as you say. Traditionally in America, that's done through the gov't run public school system. And so it goes.
Traditionally in America, the drop out rate for our public school system is in the neighborhood of 50%. Half win and half lose. There are much better education systems developed in other parts of the world that have been evaluated. And I wish we would investigate more thoroughly.
If I had to do over again I would seek other alternatives for our kids than the public school system. There is a growing number of home schooled kids in this region and private schools for a reason. I might have questioned home schooling til I watched a number of kids I know grow and mature over the last several years. Teachers have an interesting perspective too!
Home schooling and private schools are fine, but they don't replace the public school system for society at large. And because I've forgotten what that has to do with red light cameras, I'll leave it at that.
Post a Comment