Protecting the public vs revenue generation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
7,496
Location
Arlington, Washington
My daughter got a ticket for running a red light in Beaverton, OR. She was taking a right turn at an intersection while the turn lane to her right was turning in the direction she was coming from.


The fine is $380 ouch. I could see if she ran through a red light straight through. Her friend ran straight through a red light and it was $400. Seems excessive for a right turn violation. I just read an article in the front page of the paper that has the police chief in Lynnwood, WA admitting they count on the revenue from red light cameras, not for safety, but for revenue. He said they would have to lay off cops if the money did not continue.

Opinions?
 
Either follow the laws or pay the fines, but I do believe people are entitled to a break every now and then when it comes to silly traffic violations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red-Light Cameras
Rolling Right Turns

Rolling right turn violations have been proven to have very little effect on driver safety. In fact, a review of US Department of Transportation statistics shows that an average motorist could drive a billion miles — the distance from Earth to Jupiter and back — before being involved in an accident that resulted from a motorist making a right-turn-on-red. Even these few crashes involved failure to yield the right-of-way; previously stopping, or not stopping, were not the primary cause of these accidents.

Cities with ticket cameras sell the cameras to the public by explaining that they’ll help prevent right-angle crashes. However, the majority of tickets given out inevitably end up being for minor rolling-right-turn violations.

According to the LA Times, Los Angeles officials estimated that 80% of their red-light camera tickets are for rolling right turns. And according to the Chicago Daily Herald, rolling-right-turn violations have accounted for 90% of the tickets generated in several Illinois communities. These tickets are often given to drivers who actually stopped safely but were inches over the line.

Drivers have long interpreted the “Right Turn On Red” law to mean that they must yield to other traffic and to pedestrians before executing a right turn when they confront a red signal at an intersection. As noted above, this interpretation has worked out extremely well from a safety and traffic movement perspective. Strict enforcement of provisions that require the driver to come to a complete stop, at a specific spot, did not occur until the advent of red-light ticket cameras.

Consequently, while almost all motorists observe the “yield the right-of-way” requirement, they do not always come to a complete stop before executing a right turn on red. National accident data clearly indicate that coming to a complete stop is not necessary, and possibly undesirable, if it causes rear-end collisions.

The NMA believes that the best course of action is to change the law so it is in sync with the way motorists successfully comply with the concept of “Right Turn On Red.” That means removing the requirement mandating coming to a complete stop and replacing it with language that further emphasizes a right turn on red can only be executed after yielding the right of way to all other vehicles and pedestrians. All states, not just those that permit the use of ticket cameras, should make this change in their Right Turn On Red law.
 
Originally Posted By: dparm
motorists.org

Nice one--I particularly like the link on the site about the speedtraps.
 
I am all for safety and the protection of the public, but the cold hard facts are in this day and age of budget reductions to state and city governments, many of these municipalities have turned to writing tickets as a form of revenue generation.

For the most part, I am talking about speeding tickets and obviously, if people were not speeding there would not be speeding tickets issued. However, there are many places that post speed limit signs very close together or in the middle of curves and are situated in such a way the unknowing driver does not have time to slow down and the police are sitting in an opportune spot to snipe them with a radar gun.

Such locations rarely serve to protect the public, but instead serve to fill the city or counties coffers.

Just my $0.02...
 
Originally Posted By: oilboy123
Opinions?


Hopefully this will teach her to actually stop at a red light, before making a right turn on red.

Each motorist has an obligation to follow the rules of the road, and failure to do so puts those of us who do at risk. If the local police department uses the voluntary tax to which the scofflaws subject themselves as a means of revenue generation, then that reduces the amount of tax that those of us who choose to pay attention and drive responsibly have to pay.

I find it rather refreshing that those who skirt or outright flaunt their disregard for the motoring public are volunteering to pay a higher tax rate for their lack of responsible behavior.
 
I don't mind so much when it is a legitimate offense. Fine does seem a bit excessive but them's the breaks. Do the crime, do the time.

The alarming thing is the dishonesty being employed in order to take more of our money. There are documented stories of red light cameras being run by private companies (with the municipality getting its cut) where the yellow lights have been shortened to make sure the violation rates go up.

This is nothing new. 6 years ago, before the economy went sour, I was pulled over on a local road less than a mile from my house. I was genuinely surprised as I was definitely not speeding and everything about the vehicle was in order. I got a ticket for allegedly doing 41 in a 25. Not only was this completely false, but the cop claimed he had me on radar. My Valentine 1 which picks up every Wal-Mart door I go past never made a peep. I asked to see the radar display and was flat out refused. The gun never came out of the holster, but it was an armed robbery to be sure.

Anyone who thinks that the majority of traffic tickets written are intended primarily to increase safety is naive. At best, safety is a secondary motive.
 
I hope she has to pay this fine ONCE. Some lessons are expensive. If she learns from this, it will be a cheap lesson. There's a law enforcement officer potentially at every stop sign and out of sight.

I hope she keeps this in mind.
 
Lots of cash strapped cities are using their law enforcement to bring in revenue since soooo many people have stopped paying their property taxes.

I used to go riding with my brother's friend that was a cop in south FL and his Dept had a ticket quota or lets just say 'enforcement goal' that all officers had to meet. You would not be considered for promotion if you did not meet it. My brother's friend hated it but refused to go after people 5 miles over the speed limit and only targeted drunk drivers.

Catching drunk drivers in this city was very easy and all were arrested and taken directly to jail. He lead the Dept in DUI arrests for 3 straight years until he left for a better paying job with another city.
 
My 81 year old father got a $100 ticket for a right turn on red because he came to a complete stop for 2.6 seconds as calculated by the camera sensor. The local law states a complete stop must be for 3 seconds.
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
I am all for safety and the protection of the public, but the cold hard facts are in this day and age of budget reductions to state and city governments, many of these municipalities have turned to writing tickets as a form of revenue generation.

For the most part, I am talking about speeding tickets and obviously, if people were not speeding there would not be speeding tickets issued. However, there are many places that post speed limit signs very close together or in the middle of curves and are situated in such a way the unknowing driver does not have time to slow down and the police are sitting in an opportune spot to snipe them with a radar gun.

Such locations rarely serve to protect the public, but instead serve to fill the city or counties coffers.

Just my $0.02...

I've seen far too many of those, especially in smaller towns. My favorites are the ones that are at the bottom of a hill. For example, in the city I used to live in the main road through town had a section that changed to 45mph at the start of a long town hill broadly curving slope. As you went down the long moderate grade right at the bottom the speed limit changed to 35mph... in the middle of a bridge. No reason for the change since there is no cross/turning traffic. The cops would frequently set at the other side of the bridge about once per month and nail out of town drivers left and right... we're talking gaggle of 20+ cars setting off the side in an abandoned gas station parking lot waiting for their tickets.

Originally Posted By: pottymouth

Anyone who thinks that the majority of traffic tickets written are intended primarily to increase safety is naive. At best, safety is a secondary motive.

Agreed.

I also routinely turn left at intersections when I've got a red arrow. When its 11pm or later at night there is absolutely no reason for me to set there at a 4 way light on an empty road with a speed limit of 25mph waiting for 5 minutes for the lights to cycle completely back through for a green arrow for me. The lights for travel in the direction I'm facing are green and I treat it just like I would a green light for a left turn lane: yield to oncoming traffic, proceed when clear.

The intersection is no different than one that doesn't use red left turn arrows and in fact didn't have one up until about 6 months ago. Don't ask me why it was installed since it wasn't for safety reasons as there has been 2 accidents at that intersection in the 5 years I've lived down the street from it.
 
$400 is a bargain (a lot of ridiculous fees are added here because of gov revenue cut), and unless you can change the law just get around it by not doing a rolling right turn in the future. Sometimes life isn't fair and it is easier to avoid than to fix a situation.

Try to use traffic school to avoid insurance record if possible, they aren't getting cheaper.
 
Originally Posted By: LAGA
My 81 year old father got a $100 ticket for a right turn on red because he came to a complete stop for 2.6 seconds as calculated by the camera sensor. The local law states a complete stop must be for 3 seconds.



15.gif
 
in kansas if you exit the intersection before it turns red you didnt run a red light. that is just rule of thumb. a friend driving a semi-truck. he talked police out of ticket, cause of the size of the truck. and cause of a line in the law that put burden of safety on the driver.
 
Is there a frontal shot from these cameras? KC's don't have a frontal shot. With no frontal shot I don't see how they enforce these tickets and should be easy to fight. I got one in the mail from someone else driving my car and had to go up with my timecard and got it dismissed. I keep forgetting that "Innocent till proven guilty" is now "Guilty till if your lucky can prove that your innocent".
 
Originally Posted By: oilboy123


Drivers have long interpreted the “Right Turn On Red” law to mean that they must yield to other traffic and to pedestrians before executing a right turn when they confront a red signal at an intersection. As noted above, this interpretation has worked out extremely well from a safety and traffic movement perspective. Strict enforcement of provisions that require the driver to come to a complete stop, at a specific spot, did not occur until the advent of red-light ticket cameras.

This is definitely NOT the case in California - at least Southern Ca. Most people here think they have a "God given right" to make a right hand turn on red REGARDLESS of other traffic, pedestrians, etc and many of them barely slow down.

After all these decades of driving I'm convinced that either people don't KNOW the laws or could care less! My guess is that in most cases is the latter.
 
I saw on TV that a motorcycle cop waived a bunch of cars in a funeral procession through a red light and they all got tickets due to the traffic camera. The family called a local TV station and their consumer advocate / lawyer known as 'Help Me Howard' contacted the city and got all their tickets dismissed.

http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/helpmehoward/MI92368/

Howard Finkelstein: "This shows that the red light cameras are truly just a cash cow for the state and government agencies, because obviously, they are not even reviewing some videos to see if the person is innocent or guilty. If you think there is any doubt about your ticket, fight it."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom