Fighting the red-light cameras (Memphis, Knoxville: Home Depot, safe, license)

[mbmouse]

Originally Posted by jabogitlu

Not me. In my case, the light turned yellow, the person slammed on their brakes way before the light. And so I had to slam mine on, too. The transfer behind me more or less barreled on ahead in the emergency lane.

It was 5:30, traffic was heavy in both lanes. It doesn't help that people here either drive like they're a 100 year old grandma or they're on the NASCAR track in Bristol.

Originally Posted by mattbward

Ok, so it's ok for native Tennesseans to be critical of Tennessee drivers? Just not us recovering yankees?

As you can see above, Jab was discussing that adding camera's to the typical driving habits of people here was causing accidents. I don't see anywhere in his discussion that he was referring to either native or transplant driving habits, so I am a bit confused. I was joking with you about you comments because I thought it was funny you mentioned "go back where you came from" and he IS where he came from. Just ironic. Who said anything about where drivers are from?
Personally, it doesn't matter where these cameras are, in what state. If people are running red lights and causing accidents at intersections, post an officer or put up a camera there to stop it and give those running the lights tickets. However when these companies are sending tickets to those who don't wait a full 5 seconds before turning right on red, their car is not 100% through the intersection when it changes from yellow to red and so forth, it is just a revenue generator for the town/city and seem to be causing more rear end accidents. And that is just not right. These should be calibrated to only catch those who go through AFTER the light has turned red for 1 or 2 seconds or something, then people might not be so afraid of yellow lights too!

[Barking Spider]

Good article about the red light cameras in the news Sentinel today. Kind of throws out a lot of the comments already made here.
I have not heard the 5 second rule for right turns. The comments I have heard is they look for the "bump" (in the video) to show someone came to a stop.

Personally, I feel my tax dollars are better spent by having cameras take care of these violations rather than have a live officer sitting at intersections waiting for someone to run a red light.

It's really VERY simple. DON'T RUN RED LIGHTS, and if you are going to turn right on a red light, COME TO A COMPLETE STOP!! No tickets? No money generated. Problem solved.

[airwair]

I have a problem with the "stop for a full 4 or 5 second" thing. When I tested for my license, I was not aware that you had to stop for a designated amount of time, so long as you came to a full and complete stop. If there is no traffic, why would anyone sit there for five seconds? Come to your stop, and if there are no cars coming, GO!

My husband was issued one of these violations and we checked the video... he DID stop, but he only stopped for 2 seconds because there was no traffic and it was safe for him to proceed. When we called to ask them about it they told us that you had to stop for a minimum of 4 seconds and if we wanted to fight it it would cost an extra $68. I said screw it and paid the $50, but I feel cheated.

[weisgarber1]

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

Personally, I feel my tax dollars are better spent by having cameras take care of these violations rather than have a live officer sitting at intersections waiting for someone to run a red light.

In reality though, there wouldn't even be a "live officer" sitting at intersections waiting for someone to run a red light (in most cases). Just a revenue generator.

[Barking Spider]

I guess we have a different view of the Police. I don't view them as "revenue generators".

[weisgarber1]

Originally Posted by Barking Spider

I guess we have a different view of the Police. I don't view them as "revenue generators".

Not the police as r.g., rather the cameras.

[treyver]

Originally Posted by William Sold

Best of luck with the dispute. Quick heads up, TN did pass a new law, Code Section 55-8-198, that does constitutionally provide legality for all traffic cameras to be in use in TN. I would tell a lawyers' office to research this law and cases before spending any court costs. A lot of people have fought this since it was passed in 2008 and lost. Interestingly enough, they made it retroactive as well, so disputes or cases still pending from '06 and '07 still were forced to adhere to the law.

(Read it, it looks like if you know you're gonna run the light with a camera, turn on your emergency flashers real quick, it states any car with flashers on will be exempt from a ticket! interesting....)

Tennessee Appeals Court Embraces Red Light Cameras
12/2/2008 - State Attorney General Upholds Legality Of Traffic Cameras - Breaking News - Chattanoogan.com
http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0962.pdf

p.s. - I'm not a fan of cameras, as I feel they do a great job at increasing revenue, NOT improving safety, which is the guise they use to pass it...

I agree, they do increase revenue - but not to the populace...only from the red-light violators. I hope all those red-light violators are a minority in Knoxville...

[anothertntony]

Here is more fuel for the red-light camera fire:

2/5/2010 - Cleveland Taking Down Red Light Cameras - Breaking News - Chattanoogan.com

Cleveland city officials said red light cameras in the city seem to be effective, but the company furnishing the cameras has asked that the cameras come down.

Accordingly, they will be removed at the end of March.

The firm that supplied the cameras said both it and the city have been losing money on the operation.

The article claims that the cameras reduced accidents (using laughably unscientific data analysis), but they are going to remove them anyway. That's a new spin on it. Usually cities claim that they install cameras for safety purposes and that the generated revenue is just a side benefit. This time, they claim that the cameras increase safety, but are not profitable enough.

[hiknapster]

Originally Posted by anothertntony

Here is more fuel for the red-light camera fire:

2/5/2010 - Cleveland Taking Down Red Light Cameras - Breaking News - Chattanoogan.com



The article claims that the cameras reduced accidents (using laughably unscientific data analysis), but they are going to remove them anyway. That's a new spin on it. Usually cities claim that they install cameras for safety purposes and that the generated revenue is just a side benefit. This time, they claim that the cameras increase safety, but are not profitable enough.

Wow. That's hilarious. Should we give them points for honesty?

[treyver]

The proverbial 'Business 101' teaches that a private company purpose is to generate revenue and profit.

Obviously, a private company such as Traffixpax, Inc. wants to remove the camera systems because they are loosing money.

Obviously, we (the public) don't know what kind of contract exists between the city of Cleveland, TN and Traffixpax. If their contract is similar to other TN cities that have these camera systems, then the city did not spend anything to install and maintain these cameras. The revenue and profit generated by these camera systems are only derived by a red-light violator - who pays for the cost of the installation and maintenance of Traffixpax camera systems, then anything beyond that is profit...

AND, if the number of red-light violators are substantially decreasing in Cleveland, TN, then that particular revenue-and-profit stream is decreasing (loosing money).

I imagine, Cleveland, TN would not mind if those camera remained operational until the red-light violator revenue-profit stream decreased (loosing money) to ZERO!!!

Wow, what a novelty! No more red-light violators!

I don't care where you're from... that's hilarious! No more red-light violators!