Red Light Cameras
Posted 10 November 2007 - 05:36 PM
I read somewhere that many cities were not getting as much revenue as they were predicting from these, does anyone know if FtW is contracted out these units or what they plan on doing w/ the revenue? Hopefully fix some streets.
Posted 10 November 2007 - 07:17 PM
Posted 10 November 2007 - 11:08 PM
Posted 11 November 2007 - 08:07 AM
The maximum fine was set at $75 and cities have to split the money with the state. Supposedly they were trying to cut into the massive profit potential of the cameras.
Also, any city that didn't have a contract with a red light camera company by September 1, 2007 couldn't install any cameras after that date. Out where I live Westlake and Southlake signed up before Sept 1 but haven't installed any cameras yet, they still have the option. Keller didn't sign a contract so you won't ever see any cameras here.
The fines are for the vehicle, not the driver. There also were some limits put on use of collection agencies to collect the fines. I believe the worst that can happen is you can't get your vehicle or drivers license renewed if you don't pay.
In California red light cameras ticket the driver and the fines are between $300-400 for a violation. They match the picture of the driver to the drivers license of the registered owner. Most of the time that is sufficent to ID the driver. I have heard they send teaser tickets to registered owners when they can't match the drivers photo to any ID. It looks like a real ticket and they lead you to believe you will have to pay unless you tell the ticket company who the driver is. It isn't a real ticket and you don't have to respond but it works pretty good.
I can only speculate why the lesislature left open the door to changing their vote next session...$$$.
Can you spell Lobbyist?
Here is a Federal study on the benefits of Red Light Cameras. http://www.tfhrc.gov...ety/pubs/05049/
Here is another point of view. http://www.thenewspa...7/road-eyes.asp
This one is short and to the point. http://www.thenewspa...ews/20/2024.asp
Posted 11 November 2007 - 09:25 AM
If they have to a contract w/ a company as Keller Pirate suggests, then I assume FtW does too. I like the idea to deter red light runners, but hope the city is not banking on the revenue.
Posted 11 November 2007 - 10:26 AM
Posted 11 November 2007 - 11:06 AM
Posted 11 November 2007 - 01:59 PM
They should have it were these camera posts send a "PING" to a satellite which tracks the vehicle and driver , and then records the driver leaving the vehicle (hopefully) with a much clearer understanding of who is driving.
With today's economic woes and who knows what the immediate future holds, I can see this as a necesary tool for this particular violation. I am sure that the practice of numerous drivers for one vehicle families/groups will be even more common.
We have the TECHNOLOGY (surveillance) to make this stick, but then the $300-$500/vioaltion ticket can be "justified" greatly.
The whole pay when you renew a license, annual or title doesn't stick. You can always argue that your LATE relative/friend would ALWAYS borrow the car when needed. And then we would just be WASTING money in the courts system. Potentially.
Posted 11 November 2007 - 05:56 PM
Posted 12 November 2007 - 07:48 AM
It is interesting that a town with no city property tax is so concerned with the safety of others passing along the fringe of their town.
Posted 12 November 2007 - 10:58 AM
In many if not most cases the camera is installed, operated, and maintained by a private firm. That company also monitors the violation, and issues citations on city ticket stock. The municipal judges are in some cases severely handicapped in their ability to provide exceptional remedies for questionable infractions.
In essence, one might say that one aspect of an essential municipal function, ie, law enforcement, has been "outsourced". This would appeal to many libertarians and extreme economic conservatives as a good thing. Of course, once this door is open, why not go the next step further; why not just outsource the police department? Or the Fire Department? The emergency ambulance service is already handled this way.
Posted 12 November 2007 - 12:24 PM
Take a look at Blackwater (private contractor) in IRAQ. A Dept. within the State Dept./Dept. of Justice provided immediate partial immunity once IT hit the fan.
Just a BIG MESS can ensue with this ideaolgy.
I'd rather have people who will take an oath provide this service. Then there is accountability from the top down.
Posted 12 November 2007 - 06:24 PM
Posted 20 November 2007 - 11:56 PM
Red-light cameras going up across Fort Worth
ALEX BRANCH Star-Telegram staff writer
FORT WORTH — Red-light cameras are being installed at seven intersections in Fort Worth and will become active Nov. 26, according to the city. Owners of cars that are photographed running red lights will receive mailed warnings through December. On Jan.1, the city will begin mailing real citations, city spokeswoman Janice Thompson-Burgess said.
"That will give us time to work through any bugs in the system," she said.
The fine is $75; late payment will cost an additional $25.
The City Council authorized the cameras in August. The intersections were selected from 30 analyzed for frequency of red-light violations. Two additional intersections on East Lancaster Avenue, which is also a state highway, will get cameras when the city gets approval from the Texas Department of Transportation, Thompson-Burgess said.
Red-light camera locations (above)
1. One camera, Eastchase Parkway and Meadowbrook Drive
2. Two cameras, East Long Avenue and Deen Road
3. One camera, South Hulen Street and Bellaire Drive South
4. Two cameras, McCart Avenue and Westcreek Drive
5. Two cameras, Bryant Irvin Road and West Vickery Boulevard
6. Two cameras, Eighth Avenue and Elizabeth Boulevard
7. Three cameras, North Beach Street and Western Center Boulevard
8. One camera, East Lancaster Avenue and Riverside Drive*
9. One camera, East Lancaster Avenue and Sandy Lane*
*Pending state approval
Posted 21 November 2007 - 08:49 AM
The Eight Ave location is great because you can't see past the stone entrance of Ryan Place and cars blow through that light all the time.
Posted 21 November 2007 - 08:51 AM
Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:31 AM
Posted 21 November 2007 - 03:21 PM
Posted 21 November 2007 - 04:06 PM
Since Sandy Ln. doesn't cross E. Lancaster, I wonder how many collisions occur there. Seems like more of a revenue location than safety. Also, isn't Eashchase and Meadowbrook a stop sign for Meadowbrook traffic, not a stop light?
I think it would be for the intersection where the Wendy's and what I believe is a Big Daddy's liquor store,is at.Drive out of the Target and Ross shopping center and drive across Eastchase,that begins as Meadowbrook.
Posted 21 November 2007 - 06:52 PM
I see a lot of legal holes and they already are marketing a clear coating that can be bought over the internet and sprayed on the plates that makes the numbers invisible to the camera.
Here is an article about one of many manufactures that have been selling this stuff for years-------------
I am sure this is mostly a revenue tactic as what is really needed is public education on the importance of defensive driving. I never cross any intersection without clearing to the left then the right, in that order and always wait a second after the light turns green while doing the same - then take off like a bat out of hell to make up for the lost time.
Posted 21 November 2007 - 08:44 PM
But who really plans to run a red light, if you run so many that you have to cloak your plates then I’d say you have some larger issues to deal with than a few tickets, perhaps insurance, hospital bills or law suits. I believe there are studies that have proven a few red light cameras in an area drastically cuts down on red light running at non camera intersections thereby reducing wrecks, injuries and fatalities.
As revenue generation goes I’m all for it, it’s not like pulling over a single car in the middle of an interstate of cars for speeding when every other car around the soon to be ticketed commuter was going just as fast or faster. At red lights you stop, period, if you don’t, you pay, simple as that.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
Posted 22 November 2007 - 01:30 PM
It was nearly a year ago that at this exact intersection -Bellaire/Hulen, that a couple was returning to their home from an evening of looking at Christmas decorations when a drunk ran a red light and tragically ended their lives.
Those cameras wouldn't have prevented this even if this offender had received numerous "camera citations" in the past.
I don"t know that much about the spray on, I was just pointing out that there will always be technology to counteract technology.
I don't think people plan to run red lights, instead, they are more concerned about a third party judging them as to where and how they reacted to an amber light.
Posted 31 March 2017 - 07:00 AM
I'm hoping the Texas House will be on board with this this time around (FWBP article below that Texas Senate has approved a measure banning red light cameras). I've never been a fan of red light cameras, both for traffic safety and legal/constitutional reasons. I think the installation of clocking of traffic signal lights now in use in Fort Worth (and elsewhere, I guess) is a better way to regulate traffic at intersections.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users