![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (41)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
 This type of automated camera could be keeping an eye on Shelbyville traffic in an effort to reduce accidents. (Image from redflex.com) [Click to enlarge] [Order this photo] |
Shelbyville's city council will be examining the concept of an automated red light violation monitoring system that it is hoped will make the streets safer.
City officials say the best thing about the system is that it can be installed with no cost to the city.
Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia will give city council members a chance to tentatively see how the system works on Nov. 24, according to city manager Ed Craig, who said the idea is just in a "pre-proposal" mode at this point.
Members of Shelbyville Police Department, along with Mayor Wallace Cartwright and Craig, have already seen a demonstration of the system, which was met with approval, Craig said.
"The point of the program is to save lives, to change behavior," Craig noted.
Craig explained that Redflex would bear all of the operating and capital costs and recover funds through a portion of the ticket proceeds.
"In the beginning, they would get a large portion of the ticket," Craig said. "After it reaches a certain level ... the city would be sharing the tickets 50/50 with the company."
Twenty states now have Redflex cameras and five Tennessee cities -- Jonesborough, Kingsport, Mount Carmel, Oak Ridge and Selmer -- are using the company's system. Redflex has been installing the systems since 1986, Craig said.
Redflex installs the camera detection units at a number of locations and records anyone who either runs a red light or speeds through an intersection. The person committing the offense would get a ticket in the mail for $50, Craig said. The ticket would not go on someone's driving record, he added.
If approved and installed, a high amount of publicity would take place to get local motorists to change their driving behavior, Craig said. The city would have to adopt an ordinance that would allow the system to operate, he added.
However, a government watchdog organization, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, recently called the argument that red light cameras increases safety "preposterous."
"The only thing that increases is the amount of money going from the pockets of drivers into the pockets of the cities and the red light camera companies," said Justin Owen, director of legal policy at the center and co-author of the report on the cameras.
Murfreesboro has cameras at six intersections, and has been issuing $50 citations since July 5. Murfreesboro has contracted with Maryland-based Traffipax to install and maintain the camera equipment, and to issue citations and collect payments.
Like the proposal from Redflex, Traffipax owns the cameras, and Murfreesboro pays the company $31,882 per month for the use of the cameras, plus $11 out of each $50 fine paid.
Any money left over would go into the city's general fund, but so far, the city's in the red. Murfreesboro received 510 payments in August, for a total of $25,500. Subtract the $11 per payment that goes to Traffipax, and the total is $19,890, a shortfall of nearly $12,000 for the first month.
Craig said Redflex has demonstrated that towns that use the system have seen the number of traffic accidents "nosedive." He added that the city needs to look at other companies that provide the same system as well.
"It was very impressive to sit and watch the video and watch these cars run through red lights," Craig said. "It was scary."
-- Editor John Philleo contributed to this report.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please ![[Order this photo]](http://t-g.mycapture.com/mycapture/remoteimage.asp?backtext=Return%20to%20site&backurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t-g.com%2Fstory%2F1477403.html&thumbpath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t-g.com%2Fphotos%2F11%2F81%2F29%2F1181291-S.jpg&previewpath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t-g.com%2Fphotos%2F11%2F81%2F29%2F1181291-L.jpg&pricingsheetid=1482){kind=link}
However, a government watchdog organization, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, recently called the argument that red light cameras increases safety "preposterous."
"The only thing that increases is the amount of money going from the pockets of drivers into the pockets of the cities and the red light camera companies," said Justin Owen, director of legal policy at the center and co-author of the report on the cameras
__________________________________________
AMEN AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem with this is it's purpose is to milk hard earned money from innocent citizens more than making the streets safer. The light in front of Calsonic will randomly turn red for the thru traffic on 231 even when no cars are present in the other direction. The sole purpose for this is hopefully catch motorist running the light. It is a time-killing, money making thing for the Shelbyville Government. I would oppose anymore of these camera's being added and would love to see that one removed.
If the tickets are not going to go on your record, why pay them?? I guess it's on the honor system. In this current economic time, if I were to get one of these tickets, I am NOT going to pay it if it's not going on my record. It sounds like the only one coming out smelling like a rose is the company selling and maintaining the cameras. The city and taxpayers are getting hosed. I drive in M'boro a lot and I haven't noticed hardly any difference in the driving patterns of the people there. Everyone still drives like a maniac. How about we spend our money on something meaningful like recruiting companies to come here and provide jobs or having dedicated resources to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Now that kind of stuff would benefit everyone! (Not to mention, lowering the illegal population would improve traffic...it's a win-win situation!)
Shelbyville needs to address bigger problems than people running red lights. Just another way for out of state companies to get more of our money, but by the time they could get them installed no one in town will have a job and it will be a ghost town. Call your leaders and vote NO on this.
"It was very impressive to sit and watch the video and watch these cars run through red lights," Craig said. "It was scary."
--------------
But of course, who made the video? Redflex. Fear sells.
Want to stop accidents? Increase the Yellow light times. The amount of accidents actually increased when you added the cameras because Redflex and their Maryland counterpart decreases the yellow light times so they can recieve more revenue.
DO NOT do this Shelbyville! It doesn't create revenue like they say it will.
The only one benefits from these cams are Redflex and Traffipax, they make the money while selling you the ideal of a false sense of safety.
How about cracking down on no insured drivers. You shouldn't be able to get tags without proof of insurance.
Judging from the photo, it doesn't appear to be anything a good 12 gauge shotgun couldn't take care of......LOL
JT,
The story said the ticket would not go against your driving record. It did not say what the result would be if one did not pay. I would bet that the system works like this. You receive the ticket with the option of pleading guilty, paying the ticket without appearing in court or You could appear in court to contest the ticket. If one does not pay or appear in court, then I would suspect that an additional charge of failure to appear would be in that person's future. The whole system would be pretty much just like a ticket that an actual officer issues, except the camera records the offense and then a ticket is mailed to the allleged offender.
I hope the city does not do this, but if they do, then please let me know how you come out if you should get one of these tickets and refuse to pay or appear in court.
Last of all Shelbyville should forget about installing this system with the hopes of receiving additional revenue, as with all the jobs closing in this city no one is going to have any money to drive, much less pay a traffic ticket.
William
"It was very impressive to sit and watch the video and watch these cars run through red lights," Craig said. "It was scary."
-------------------------------
Of course it is scary, Fear SELLS. Who made the video? Redflex. Please get a brain.
"Craig said Redflex has demonstrated that towns that use the system have seen the number of traffic accidents "nosedive." He added that the city needs to look at other companies that provide the same system as well."
---------------------
Why do you believe them?
The real reason is over half the population left town due to being fined to death. Let's be real, you sound sold on this idea already, Ed. I got an idea, Extend the yellow light times, I bet you will see a HUGE nosedive in accidents too and it is FREE! Stop looking at systems that aren't proven and do something that works and is proven over and over. They want money, NOT safety. Why hand over control of our systems to a company not even located within this state? That doesn't make sense to me. Why give someone else the money?
FYI: If the ticket isn't paid, it would go on your credit report.
There's that word CHANGE again. We gotta have CHANGE! CHANGE is the latest and greatest idea seeping down from on high. Mr Craig, what scares and amazes me is how fast our electeds jump all over themselves finding another way to get the peoples money. And the illegal population does add to our traffic woes. But we must help these poor people, at our expense I might add. I like the extended yellow light idea, but it WON'T bring extra money into the city coffers so scratch that idea. We gotta get something in place that will bleed the citizens a little more. Not something cheap and easy to implement. But golly gee. Ask for a street light in an area that is darker at night than it should be. Oh no, that would not be feasible right now. But I forgot, we only count when our VOTE is required to put you people back in office.
Another reason not to shop in Shelbyville.
What happened to the traffic time study? Has that even been completed yet? What idiot would propose that these lights be installed before we even have data from the study??? We already know that the traffic light timing in Shelbyville is nonsensical. I can't begin to count the many times I have had to sit through lights changing 2 and 3 times before I get through.
Again...our city managers have no foresight, no sense of long term planning and our poor city is paying the price. It's becoming a ghost town. We should be booming!! We have good property tax rates, no wheel tax and a beautiful landscape. City leaders need to be worried about how to get some jobs in here rather than getting a paltry sum from traffic tickets.
cherokee,
You have good sense, but here is the kicker, the City Manager isn't an elected position. It is appointed.
what happened to the spending freeze???
All you people that are worried about costing money out of the pockets should think if you slow down and stop at the red lights then you won't have to pay out of your pockets, from all the comments that I have read here you people are more dangerous than the illeagles it seems that you all are the one causing all the accidents. personially I hope they do Install them at every light and if you don't pay the fine in the allotted time take your licenesses that would slow you down I have never seen such bunch Idiots driving as we have today and it isn't just the Illegals.
Hey okbyme,
Idiots??? Being that ur sooooooo smart, who do u think pays for this if it doesn't pay for itself???? What about initial costs? Did u know that the ones in Murfreesboro cost $30,000 a month. do the math? If the ticket is $50.00. They would have to give 600 tickets a month for it to even pay for itself... How many more drivers are in Murfreesboro than Shelbyville? The little town of Shelbyville has more back/side roads than in the county. Drivers will just avoid the main lights and hit the side roads. That's how I get around anyway, to cut the traffic.....
You know what I find amazing The Tennessee Report Cards for meeting their AYP Benchmarks came out on Monday. Every High School in Bedford County is now a Target School and not one article in the newspaper about this I kept waiting thinking surely there would be something.
So just to let you all know Cascade and Community High Schools did not meet their AYP Benchmarks they are now a Target School.
Eastside, Southside and Eakin met their AYP but consider the fact they are all just K-3.
Community elementary did not meet their AYP neither did Thomas.
Cascade and Liberty are the only full K-8 schools that met their AYP in the entire county.
Hats off to you Cascade and Liberty!!!!
http://edu.reportcard.state.tn.us/pls/ap...
-- Posted by Dianatn on Wed, Nov 12, 2008, at 11:39 AM
WHERE IS THIS ARTICLE FROM THE TIMES GAZETTE? The Daily News Journal www.dnj.com had the report card for Rutherford County Schools posted Monday. I guess the difference is, that county, by and large received A's on the report card, and our did not. Hope I didn't beat them to press with the news, however they'd only be two days late.
How could they possibly report non-payment of one of these tickets to a credit agency, without knowing who was behind the wheel? Many times several family members share one vehicle.
Besides, I don't remember ever having to give my social security number to the county, when I registered my car. You can't report without a social security number or a signature, can you?
And were will the $$$ come from. Tech equipment is all the rage ( and very cool!) but is it really needed. I want to see the stats on howmany accidents were caused over the past 5 years in Shelbyville where someone ran a light.
And why is someone bringing up something on the schools in this thread. Yep.... Bedford County schools are having issues, but so is a ton of other counties across the state. Kinda hard to make the grade without the teachers, computers and money to do so.
Lets talk about this my fellow citizens of Shelbyville.
Website for this REDFLEX Company is:
http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/co...
There is a court record and a claim against the city of Knoxville in Tennessee, for installing this mess. In fairness I was not able to discover the outcome of this claim.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AT KNOXVILLE
JUDY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
vs.
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC.,
CITY OF KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE,
BILL HASLAM as MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE,
KNOXVILLE CITY COUNCIL,
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC., d/b/a
WWW.PHOTONOTICE.COM, MICHAEL L. SULLIVAN, and UNKNOWN,
Defendants.
No.: 3:06cv400
JURY DEMAND
Filed OCTOBER 16, 2006
The complete lawsuit action can be found at this link.
http://www.piratenews.org/dbhamilton-com...
Let me post some excerpts from this claim.
SECTION 1983 and 1988
(Contract to Deprive Civil Rights)
82. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.
83. Tennessee Courts have held that "[n]o governmental entity can by contract deprive itself of inherent powers necessary to the performance of its functions or of power or duty imposed upon it by prior express statutory or constitutional provision." Batson v. Pleasant View Utility Dist., 592 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)(citations omitted); see also Broyles v. State, 341 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tenn. 1960).
84. The United States Supreme Court has held that the powers exercised by municipalities "must be granted in express words, or necessarily to be implied [from the express words]." Detroit Citizens¿ St. Ry. Co. v. Detroit Ry., 171 U.S. 48, 54 (U.S. 1898).
85. The Tennessee Supreme Court has historically held that "[t]he delegation of sovereign power is, in itself, an act of sovereignty, and can only be made by the constituent body in whom the original power resides, or by its express authority." State v. Armstrong, 35 Tenn. [634, 655 (1856)]. See also Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006).
86. The Attorney General of the State of Tennessee has opined that a contract between a municipality and a third party that involves "the issuance of citations to such violators . . . ." by that third party violates the principle that a state¿s sovereign powers may not be delegated to third parties. Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006). Such a contract "is effectively delegating to the private company . . . the manner of enforcement and the enforcement itself of the city¿s traffic ordinances." Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006).
87. The Attorney General of the State of Tennessee has opined that a contract between a municipality and a third party that involves "the collection of fines" by that third party violates the principle that a state¿s sovereign powers may not be delegated to third parties. Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006). Such a contract "is effectively delegating to the private company . . . the manner of enforcement and the enforcement itself of the city¿s traffic ordinances." Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006).
88. Knoxville Code § 17-73 provides: "[a]ll fines and forfeitures collected upon conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail of any person charged with a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be paid into the city treasury and deposited in the general fund and be expendable as provided by the city charter."
89. Knoxville Code § 17-210(d)(1) provides: "[a]ny violation of subsection (c) of this section shall subject the responsible person or entity to a civil penalty of $50, without assessment of court costs or fees. Failure to pay the civil penalty or appear in court to contest the citation on the designated date shall subject the responsible person or entity to assessment of court costs and fees as set forth in this chapter and chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances."
90. The contract between the City of Knoxville and Redflex expressly provides that the collection of fines for traffic violations will be conducted by Redflex. Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract states "Redflex will collect all payments on Citations and will deposit all payments into a lockbox account . . .." Exhibit C, Redflex Contract.
91. On information and belief, the Redflex Contract violates Knoxville Code § 17-73 and such deposit of funds is actually barred by existing ordinance and a contract is void contract when the provisions of the contract are in conflict with the laws which govern the contract. The Redflex Contract is void. See also Shavitz v. City of High Point, COA 05-571 (N. C. Ct. App. May 16, 2006) attached hereto at Exhibit D.
92. The assessed court processing fee of $67.50 which is assessed in order to schedule a hearing is initially paid to Redflex and then shared by the City of Knoxville in a split of 85% Redflex 15% City of Knoxville according to Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract.
93. If the payment is received by the City of Knoxville, then the City must forward the entire payment to Redflex according to Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract , therefore the City of Knoxville never has control of the payments made to Redflex until after deposit, all such payments only subject to administrative accounting by Redflex after deposit.
94. Redflex is impermissibly exercising police power by controlling the images which are relied upon by a City of Knoxville police officer, in this case Defendant Michael L. Sullivan, in the issuance of a Red Light Photo Enforcement Program Notice of Violation/Citation. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(2).
95. On information and belief, the only images relied upon, by the officer signing the citation, are the images which the officer declared under penalty of perjury were reviewed, namely the two images selected by Defendant Redflex for printing. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(6).
96. Reflex is exercising oversight and self serving training of the City of Knoxville police officers assigned to the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program and such close continuous relationship is an element of a supervisory relationship which is an impermissible exercise of police power by a private company for profit. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(13).
97. Defendant Redflex provided training includes strategies for presenting "Violations Data" in court and judicial proceedings, an impermissible intrusion into prosecutor functions, and an apparent effort to train officers to prosecute alleged offenders whom they did not personally observe violating any statute, and therefore a planned contractual effort to train non-attorneys to present hearsay as fact and to act as prosecutors. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.15.
98. Defendant Redflex is contractually obligated to "interact with court and judicial personal" in an impermissible exercise of police power by developing the subpoena process, and controlling the coordination between Defendant Redflex, the City, and City Court personnel all of which is an impermissible exercise of police power by Defendant Redflex and an unconstitutional delegation of governmental authority. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.16. The effect of this delegation is to allow a private company, with an economic interest in enforcement, (payment is based on citations paid), to control the access of information to the court, and the presentation of that information to the court.
99. Defendant Redflex is granted ownership of evidence which is to be used in a court proceeding which is an impermissible transfer of governmental right and power to a private company, and a violation of Constitutional protection provided to defendants.
100. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring the act of the City of Knoxville, void, and therefore any liability of the Plaintiff under the void ordinance, Knoxville Code § 17-210, a nullity, and that such enactment was a violation of the Plaintiff¿s Constitutional rights.
101. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring the contract between the City of Knoxville and Defendant Redflex, void and therefore any effort by Defendant Redflex to collect any claimed sum derived from the contract or any liability of the Plaintiff under the void ordinance, Knoxville Code § 17-210, a nullity, and that such contract is a violation of the Plaintiff¿s Constitutional rights.
102. Plaintiff claims damages for the denial of proper access to the Court to defend herself, in the amount of $1,000,000.00, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trail, and her attorney fees, available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
103. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants must disgorge themselves of the obtained funds and return the money to the parties from whom Defendants using unconstitutional practices did seize the money from, and that her attorneys be compensated in accord with the common fund doctrine for the benefit accruing to the beneficiaries of the litigation.
Just some more food for thought regarding this. I personally believe that this would be a bad thing for our city to adopt or implement.
I am sure that many of you will agree with my concern regarding this issue.
Brett the Jett.
PS Looking forward to kicking New England's butt tomorrow!!! That's for you Eric!!!!
more interesting information.
Red-Light Camera Enforcement Companies Limiting Due Process
Posted on October 26, 2007 by archrone
Knoxville's red-light cameras are receiving some more attention, in the form of a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.
For months, citizens accused of running camera-monitored red lights in Knoxville were told they'd have to pay $67.50 just to have a hearing to contest the charge.
"The city acknowledges that was a mistake, having that incorrect language in the notice," attorney Michael S. Kelley told U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips at a hearing Thursday.
But, did Red-flex change that language on citations? The article doesn't say. But, the lawsuit filed does address another problem with red-light camera enforcement, that is changing the offense from a criminal to civil offense.
Under state law, running a red light is a class C misdemeanor. Under Knoxville's ordinance that laid the groundwork for the bargain with Redflex, it is deemed a civil offense.
"They call them civil," Hamilton argued Thursday. "They are not. There is not a single case in which a criminal defendant has to pay to have a hearing. No one has ever threatened to charge a defendant to schedule a hearing to defend himself. It shocks the conscience of the court. It shocks the constitution. They have turned an attack on our constitutional rights into a business."
So, we have at least two problems -- that the offense of running a red light has been changed from a criminal to civil offense, and extortion tactics -- paying up front to challenge your ticket.
So, in order to argue their position and argue that there is no case, Red-flex's attorney states:
Kelley, who represents Redflex, counters that even though Redflex incorrectly stated on the notice that a person must pay to schedule a hearing, it is not illegal to require someone to post money on the front end of a civil case.
[...]"The crux of the argument is that there was established an appropriate process for (Williams) to challenge the issuance of this ticket and challenge the entire red light enforcement system," Kelley said. "(Williams) chose not to do that. A plaintiff can't sit back and refuse to use that procedure and then file a federal lawsuit and say I've been deprived of my due process rights."
Here's a clue from me: The argument is not about bypassing the process to challenge the ticket based on Red-flex's determination, the argument is the constitutionality of that process. If someone is going to challenge the constitutionality of the procedure why would they follow the procedure?
At the heart of that, still lies an interesting fact that doesn't seem to be brought up very often, and I think is glaringly evident in this case -- by designing the procedure that is currently in place (changing a criminal offense to a civil offense), Red-flex (and other red light enforcement companies) have also shifted the burden of proof onto the the person that received the ticket.
When errors occur, innocent drivers still must carry the burden of proof -- Drivers that have experienced the frustration of having to defend themselves against a system that is fraught with error, have a difficult time seeing any of the positive benefits that these devices can bring. Many drivers simply pay their tickets out of sheer frustration because they have no way of defending themselves. The way the photo enforcement system is designed, motorists are required to pay the fine unless they can provide proof of innocence. In most cases, drivers find it extremely difficult if not impossible to produce any type of proof.
It seems that all the way around, Red-flex and similar companies have played around with limiting people's due process.
Filed under: Bizness, Local Government | Tagged: Knoxville, red-light cameras, red-light tickets, Tennessee
link is
http://cronespeaks.wordpress.com/2007/10...
How about folks like me who will SLAM on the brakes to make sure I don't have to pay anything to the thieves behind this system? Anyone thought about how many accidents will be caused by people slamming on the brakes if the light even hints changing to yellow? Who watches over this "system" to make sure it is actually on the up and up and not just making money for this company? Would it not be in the best financial interest of the city and this company to set things up so that people get caught up short on a yellow light? Of course it would. This isn't about safety..it is about making money. Redflex isn't about safety anymore than insurance companies are about handing out healthcare...they both are businesses and they exist for one purpose...to make money!
I was going down 231 and a tractor trailer was in front of me so I couldn't see the light. He had not even put on any brake lights and when I got to the light it was turning red as I went under it. I couldn't stop in the middle of the intersection without slamming on the brakes and there was no way for me to even tell that it had turned yellow. Besides, some of these lights only stay yellow for a few seconds then turn red! I guess if I had to defend it in court, I would be told I should have stayed back far enough that I could see the light. Wonder how many people would have passed me.
Great points, Brett. I have thought many of the same things since they put those things up here in Murfreesboro a few months ago.
PS I hope you do kick New England's butt.
Unless the camera also takes a picture of the driver, I don't see how they can ticket the owner of the vehicle. Especially since you don't have to have a license to drive to register a vehicle. Let's see 'em send a ticket to some elderly person who happens to own a car but has someone drive them around and doesn't have a license. I would LOVE to see that hold up in court.
Brett - Thanks for posting those things regarding the lawsuit. I've never understood how a corporate entity could fine citizens, or hold evidence, or receive kick-backs based on the number of citations that were issued. To me that sounds like a HUGE conflict of interest. Then again, I'm no attorney.
Thom,
It doesn't take an attorney to know something isn't right about the entire setup. People with common sense would know this is wrong. All they have to do is extend the yellow light times by 1 second and it would solve alot of problems. But again where is the money in that?
Since I work in M'boro everyday, I'm used to the cameras. I can't tell that they have made a real difference in driving habits. My one problem with the proposal is this: With the economic times being what they are for city, county, state government, is it really wise to even be considering a proposal at this time? Also, I think that they have a person at the PD in M'boro that actually has to sit down and review all those tapes. Isn't that going to take an officer off the road?
This whole idea is silly . . . they claim that the system will pay for itself from the money it will generate from tickets issued but yet they also claimed the point of having these cameras is to eliminate speeders and people running red lights. What happens if the cameras do their job and there are no tickets issued to pay for the service . . . who pays the difference then? The taxpayers do of course. So in theory we will be fined no matter if we break the law or not. Basically the company wants you to continue to break the law because it is in their best interest in making money.
Wouldn't this scenario be considered an oxymoron? :-P
Shelbyville is trying to come up with more money, and that is the purpose of getting these traffic cameras. It is a guarantee income maker, because it does not allow a driver that is 2 - 3 cars links from the red light to stop in time enough. People that do stop in time will probably be slamming on their brakes, and anyone behind them can possibly rear end them.
Fox news has an episode on these Traffic Cameras today saying what some of these cities are doing may be Unconstitutional. Their will be alot of lawyers available soon on this, where the companies that make them and the city it's in will probably end up getting sued. Then they will either correct the time it takes to go from green light to red light, or do away with it altogether. The city do need to make better use of it's spending habits and income generating needs. I assume these cameras will be put on the main roads like North main and Madison street, it ain't like Murfreesboro with many main roads, shopping malls, etc. If we are trying to be like the BIGGER CITIES, then get bigger and better paying jobs here, entertainment for the young people and their family, where people can HAVE MONEY to spend "HERE" in Shelbyville instead of having to go to other cities for JOBS and evening and nights out for fun and entertainment. Let's find ways of Putting Money into the hands of citizens, so they can spend their money here in our town, instead of taking money from citizens (that probably can't afford to just give away due to lack of jobs and income) by means of these "possibly unconstitutional cameras.
Cameras like this are under review by the courts at this time. I think it would be wise to wait to see if the courts say yay or nay.
ARE WE BECOMING A POLICE STATE HERE IN OUR LITTLE TOWN?SEEMS LIKE IF TRAFFIC LIGHTS WERE COORDINATED FROM BEGINNING NORTH/SOUTH AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH MAIN AND LANE PARKWAY ,PROCEEDING NORTH THROUGH INTERSECTIONS AT:SOUTH CANNON;MADISON STREET;AND AT EDGEMONT(THE BEGINNING OF COLLERADO BOULEVARD)THERE WOULD BE A LESS GRIDLOCK THAN WITH THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS AS THEY ARE NOW.WHY IS IT THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO PUNISH THE PUBLIC FOR THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL CAN CORRECT,LIKE THE TRSFFIC FLOW PROBLEM ON NORTH MAIN?TRAFFIC CAMERAS ARE FOR PRODUCING TICKET REVENUE THROUGH FINES,NOT FOR HELPING THE SAFE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.I WILL GO TO TRADE IN TULLAHOMA IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT CHANGE ITS TRAFFIC ISSUE POLICY TOWARD TAXPAYING HOMETOWN CITIZENS.
A person has a right to question the person that is issuing a citation. In this case the "person", or individual is a camera. This is the flaw regarding these cameras. The camera will not go to court when you do, and testify to the judge that you broke the law. This is the weakness and the unconstitutional nature of the use of these cameras. Our constitution specifically states that WE have a right to due process. How in the heck do we have due process if it's a camera????
Nice to see a lot of you wish me well tonight.
Brett the Jett.
If this will make people pay more attention when they drive. Then I am all for it. My daughter and I were at the red light on Fairfield Pike. When I got the green I waited for a second, which is something I have learned to do since moving to Shelbyville. There was a van about thirty yards from the intersection coming from the Celebration grounds. I proceeded slowly through the intersection watching the van. The girl never slowed down, I stopped and she ran the red light while talking on her cell phone, and never looked at me I don't think she even knew where she was. If I had proceeded as I could have I don't know if my daughter and I would be here today. I have seen more people run traffic lights in Shelbyville, than any other place I have lived. Which includes San Diego, and San Francisco Calf. Hiroshima Japan, Tampa Florida. I don't know what the actual rate in these cities, I am just speaking of what I have seen. The worse by far is Shelbyville. I love this town I would not want to bring my children up any were that I have lived before. However I want them to be safe, as well as my wife and myself, and if the Traffic light cameras will do that then lets get them up. As for constitutionality if your not breaking the law then you have nothing to fear.
If someone is talking on a cell phone and completely runs a red light, a camera is not going to make them think twice. The cameras will only make people slam on their brakes, causing more accidents. Ask the folks in Murfreesboro.
Show me the numbers. I would like to see the percentage that the rear-end collisions have increased in Murfreesboro due to the cameras. I drive through Murfreesboro twice a day during rush hour and have not seen a rear end collision.
That's not to say that they are not happening. But before I take for granted that what someone says in a Blog is true I would expect to see a link to a web site where the information is available from the police department. Anyone can write in a blog, anything they wish to espouse. I could say that red light cameras cause an increase in teen pregnancy. Does it make the statement true?
Rear end Crashes because of Traffic Cameras
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/03...
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2268...
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/files/pdf...
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430....
There seems to be a Decrease in T bone (Side) crashes, but an Increase in Rear- end crashes.
I was in Murfreesboro Saturday and twice my daughter either had to slam on her brakes as the light was changing or risk going through the light. The roads were wet and slick, and she was not going fast at all, but sometimes when there are large trucks in front of you, you can't see the light until you almost get under it. My 5 month old grandson was in his car seat in the back, and if you slam on your brakes, you risk getting rear-ended. So if the people get a vote, I say NO. I would like to see the statistics of how "unsafe" our city streets are to begin with before pursuing this. This is just a money-making scheme for this outside company. We need to be more concerned with money making opportunities for our fellow citizens who are jobless or soon to be jobless. Where will they get the money to pay these fines, if half the city is unemployed?
Its just another tax people.
I have read most of the comments on the subject of redlight cameras. Here is mine. Everyone is concerned with cost, a genuine concern. Others worry about causing a different type of accident. I have driven in Murfreesboro before and after the installation of the cameras. I have noticed some still slamming on their brakes to avoid running a red. My belief in this complete matter is as follows. To those that exceed the speed limit or fail to drive with their complete attention on the task of driving will find it difficult to stop in time, but they also find it difficult to stop anyway camera or no camera. If you drive as you should you would be aware of the situation in front of you and therefore avoiding an accident. If you are panicing at the mear thought of running a red light you may need to slow down. If you have a problem seeing a light due to a large truck in front of you , try following a bit further back as is the rules of the road. You are suppose to stay back far enough to see his mirrors. The cost of the cameras and who pays for them is not all that important verses a small child or anyone being killed in a side impact accident. Everyone I have spoken with has mentioned the fine, well if you pay attention and obey the law you should never have to worry. These cameras only activate on a red light , if you go throught on a yellow you are safe. If you have your seat belt on a rear end collision in most cases are non injury accidents. I have had people bump me at red lights that were red long before we got there. Way to much is being read into the whole thing. Big brother is not spying on us through a traffic light camera. If you think about this it is nothing more than a police officer sitting at an intersection keeping watch 24/7 to insure your safety. Open your mind and think about it. Some of us need to take a defensive drivers course to learn more about driving. Others need to put their cell phones down or buy a hands free device and pay attention. Last but not least some need to quit driving offensively and start to drive defensively. I think the cameras are a good idea. I am sure this is not a popular stand. Just think about what I have said with an open mind.
dakota316
you say:
The cost of the cameras and who pays for them is not all that important verses a small child or anyone being killed in a side impact accident.
I say:
This has nothing to do with these types of accidents. Your concerns for children are valid, however, they have no place here. We are talking about more taxes on the average citizen Dakota.
you say:
These cameras only activate on a red light , if you go throught on a yellow you are safe.
I say:
No, the cameras can be set to fine you for a yellow light.
Your problem is that you apparently believe that government should be your father and mother. My problem is that government has too much control over the common folks. This system is nothing more than an additional tax on the citizens of Shelbyville.
Also, fundamentally we all have a right in court to talk with the individual that accuses of a fine. In this situation, we do not have a right to address our accuser, IT'S A CAMERA!!!
Brett the Happy Jett, sorry fellow titans fans, I told you we would win today.
Seems the mayor city manager,city council members are saying the Shelbyville Police dept is not doing a very good job of enforicing traffic safety laws.
I thinks rather than installing traffic cameras
have the police do what they do best POLICE work.
If the city must have the cameras I would like to see a reduction yes a layoff of police officers
that is if the city of Shelbyville is that hard up for the cash.
there's always the Ouster Law
TCA 39-16-402
"refusal to perform duty imposed by law"