![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (19)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
GoogleMeanwhile, a legal opinion by the Tennessee Attorney General says that citations based on the traffic control devices are constitutional.
City manager Ed Craig said Tuesday he has yet to set up any dates for the three unidentified firms to give presentation, stating that once it was published in the Times-Gazette that the city was looking at the systems, "the companies came out of the woodwork."
Redflex has already given a presentation and Gatso USA is scheduled for Dec. 11 at 4:30 p.m..
While many reader comments on the T-G's website in regard to the proposal have been against the system, Craig said he has not heard any public reaction about the concept, although he said he couldn't speak for city council members.
Last week's opinion by Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper stated that the citations based on the cameras are constitutional, but the evidence must be reviewed by the city's law enforcement first.
The constitutionality of the cameras was upheld by the Tennessee Court of Appeals in July. Current state law requires that a ticket given just on the evidence from a camera would be considered a non-moving violation -- such as a parking ticket -- even though the charge would be considered a moving violation if it was issued by an officer based on his or her personal observation.
Recently, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a government watchdog organization, issued a report that called the argument that red light cameras increase safety "preposterous."
Justin Owen, director of legal policy at the center and co-author of the report on the cameras, said, "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."
The report also claims the cameras increase rear-end collisions, especially if yellow-light times are shortened, and concludes that the cameras are an unconstitutional vehicle for local governments to raise money.
The report, which can be viewed in its entirety at www.tennesseepolicy.org, suggests that longer yellow light times are a better solution for increasing safety.
Craig explained last month that if approved, Redflex would bear all of the operating and capital costs of the camera system and recover funds through a portion of the ticket proceeds. After citations reach a certain level, the city could share the tickets 50/50 with the company.
Redflex has been installing the systems since 1986 and 20 states now have the company's cameras, the firm states. Five Tennessee cities -- Jonesborough, Kingsport, Mount Carmel, Oak Ridge and Selmer -- are listed as using Redflex's system.
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 office would get a ticket in the mail for $50, Craig said. The ticket would not go on the offender'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.
Cooper's opinion was requested from State Sen. Steve Southerland of Greenfield, who asked the attorney general to consider the constitutional issues of equal protection, due process and privacy raised by the use of the traffic cameras. It was the third opinion handed down over the cameras.
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
We have lived years upon years without traffic cameras. Use this money to do something with the unused buildings and help the homeless, the less fortunate. I believe this is a waste of money.
"While many reader comments on the T-G's website in regard to the proposal have been against the system, Craig said he has not heard any public reaction about the concept, although he said he couldn't speak for city council members."
Does he actually listen to the public anyway? I mean really, all he has to do is read the comments to the articles on this website and he would see the reaction. Of course he isn't going to listen because he knows they will profit from this and that is all that matters.
If the company profits from this and they are operating it, then wouldn't you think that they would try to get as many people cited as possible?
What a complete waste of money and resources. All this will amount to is more money going out of town, while doing nothing to enhance anything. Why do you think so many companies want to install these? To make lots of money! The council should put and end to this now and tell Craig to spend more time on other matters.
A total waste of money for the city in my opinion. They can be spending this $ on other things, or even better if they stick to a 'budget'. They need to be thinking of getting manufacturing companies back in Shelbyville. This place will be a ghost town. Then there won't be hardly any traffic to worry about these cameras.
Don't we already pay the Police Department to enforce traffic laws? I am sure we do..then I don't really see the point in Nanny Cameras.
How many times must it be said fellow citizens? We the people only count when they need our voices and votes. That is, if they can't make an end run around us. Consider yourselves pretty well irrelevant til the next election rolls around. Politicians and common sense cannot co-exist, so expect none from them.
I am completely opposed to this. I am going to make sure that my city councilmen hear that from me, personally.
I think the red light cameras are a good idea. If you don't run the light you won't get a ticket. The city isn't out any money and what money is collected goes into the general fund. This is operating capital that doesn't come from property tax. The only person that is funding this system is the traffic violator.
Want to make some money in traffic citations? Ticket all the people run the stop signs in Brookhaven. I think the fine for running at stop sign is about $ 90.00. The city could make a fortune.
THERE WASNT A PROBLEM UNTIL THE RED LITE CAMERA SALESPEOPLE SHOWED UP.THEY ARE STIRRING UP TROUBLE,AND ATTEMPTING TO SWAY COUNCIL VOTES WITH PROMISES OF RETURN ON MONEY.MONEY PROMISES CAUSE BIG PROBLEMS.
Nothing but a profit maker and another reason for me to stay out of Shelbyville.
Does Shelbyville really have enough of a red-light problem to justify this system? I don't think so...I'll a question I've asked before...Wasn't there supposed to be some high-cost traffic time study in Shelbyville? Where are the results and recommendations from this study?
What kind of data is the city basing this decision on? Is it just because someone thinks this is a good idea? Is somebody getting a kickback from the sale of this system?
What would be the problem with the city of Shelbyville installing Cameras on their own if they are hellbent on this idea. I'm sure you could hire a couple of flunkys to monitor the system a lot cheaper than what this 3rd party supplier would charge.
How many times must I say this. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF TAX.
So...all of the money generated up to a certain point, and then 50% after that would be leaving not only the city, but the state as well? Great idea, lets have them collect our property taxes as well and give them 50% of that. I smell a kickback too. I hope that is the case and someone is attempting to line their pockets. To think anyone who had nothing to gain, could advocate this plan is beyond comprehension to me.
They are going to get these red light camera systems wether we like it or not. All they are seeing is the word "PROFIT". I bet we will be getting more red lights put up too.
Just paid a fine from New York that was mailed to us after we got home. We got in the wrong lane at a toll road and could not stop or pay. The fine was $0.90 (ninety cents) and a $25 service charge. They sent us a picture of our car and tag. If this will stop people running redlights...go for it.
A little copy and paste gives some thought to this issue.
General Objections
Ticket recipients are not adequately notified.
Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understands it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.
The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
Ticket recipients are not notified quickly.
People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. There may have been a reason that someone would be speeding or in an intersection after the light turned red. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.
There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists.
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.
Ticket cameras do not improve safety.
Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.
Taking dangerous drivers' pictures doesn't stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
from the site of:
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/
More copy and paste history of another community.
Red lights raise extra green for city coffers
More tickets, higher fine, the major reason for $1.3M jump in revenue
Keith Gerein, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
EDMONTON - Red lights are helping to keep the city in the black this year.
While speeding seems to be declining, other road offences are holding steady or increasing, police say. And red-light cameras are doing particularly good business, a big reason why the city is likely to bring in $1.3 million more than expected from traffic tickets this year.
"The amount of enforcement we're doing in 2005 is relatively comparable to what we did last year," said Carol Wagar, chief administrative officer for the police.
View Larger Image
A sign, above, alerts drivers to a red-light camera, ...
Chris Schwarz, The Journal
More pictures:
Email to a friend
Printer friendly
Font:****Speeding tickets are down, Wagar said, "and that's positive because it means people are starting to learn to slow down.
"But red-light infractions are somewhat higher this year compared with last year. And as well, the cost of the fine is quite a bit higher than what it used to be."
More than $200 higher, in fact -- drivers caught running a red light now pay $287 after surcharges, up from $69.
Last year, red-light cameras resulted in about 10,000 tickets; this year, the number is expected to be about 11,000. That's one reason police are on pace to bring in $23.7 million from fines this year, after budgeting $22.4 million.
Now a dispute is brewing over how the extra money should be spent.
City police say they need most of the money to cover higher traffic enforcement expenses, including extra overtime and officers' court-time costs, leaving only about $320,000 of the surplus up for grabs, Wagar said.
The force wants to use that money to offset a higher-than-predicted increase in recruit wages.
But at least one city councillor objects. Coun. Mike Nickel said letting the extra traffic money go to police would create a perception the department is raising extra revenue for itself.
"Traffic fines are a form of tax and it should not be within the power of a civic department to impose extra taxation," Nickel said.
"That's the responsibility of elected officials."
According to municipal regulations, excess fine dollars go to the city.
"Council gets to decide where it is most needed and we deal with the police budget as appropriate," Nickel said.
It's not uncommon for police to run a surplus in traffic fines -- last year, it was $2.4 million.
However, Wagar denied this means the police force is issuing extra tickets to raise money for itself. Surpluses are a result of conservative budgeting, based on the previous year's figures, she said.
Nor do police have a problem with council deciding how to spend extra fine revenues, she said.
"We are certainly supportive of that, and that would solve any perception that our traffic enforcement is to raise dollars. Traffic enforcement is for safety."
Council is expected to discuss the issue next Tuesday.
The provincial government takes a big chunk from every traffic ticket paid, charging 20 per cent of the face value to process each payment and another 15 per cent for a fund to help crime victims.
The company that operates the cameras and other equipment also takes a small slice.
link is at:
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonj...