Traffic Cameras

For many years traffic cameras are being utilized as a tool to deter red-light runners and help prevent accidents. In addition, government agencies have created revenue for their law enforcement divisions via traffic camera fines, instead of increasing taxes. In some instances, they are facing claims of violating the rights of vehicle owners. Over time, their red-light cameras have become more efficient at creating a monetary benefit versus the safety claim. Unfortunately, they are being misused by some officials as a revenue-generating tool. Furthermore, the contractors are contractually controlling the specification to alter the outcome and increase ticket revenue. The steady increase in revenue produced by issuing tickets would appear that

Complainants filed lawsuits nationwide with varying claims of injustice. As a result, the rejection of these lawsuits were abundant by lower courts. However, the appeals court process was successful for some of these complainants on varying reasonings, consistency was not prevalent in the beginning. Conlon references in his article that the complaints range from violation of due process, rebuttal presumption, confrontation, the right against self-incrimination, and ordinances conflicting with state law, tickets issued for non-moving violation when clearly the vehicle was in motion in the intersection which resulted in the inability to fight the ticket (197-229). Due process along with rebuttal presumption appears to be the most egregious complaints, in which penalties imposed on the owners of the vehicles, even if they were not the driver of the vehicle. The state applies penalties against the driving record of the owner of the vehicle, not the actual driver. The owners could not defend themselves against the violations. What happened to being innocent until proven

Yes, agreeably safety is an important issue to the public, as it should be. Studies conducted “by the Federal Highway Administration suggests that dangerous broadside collisions were reduced by 25% at intersections with traffic cameras, while rear-ended collisions increased by 15%” (Higgins, et al. 1). Furthermore, the Federal Highway Administration recommends that “yellow change interval should have a minimum duration of 3 seconds and a maximum duration of 6 seconds. The longer intervals should be reserved for use on approaches with higher speeds” (Section 4D.26 of the 2009 MUTCD). Consequently, a reduction in red light runners and accidents will result if the appropriate yellow change interval, followed by a red clearance interval of the recommended times implemented. State departments of transportation are responsible for setting the exact timing on these intervals based on the specifications of each individual intersection. A blog published electronically by the National Motorist Association referenced six cities that violated the yellow change interval state required minimum times in order to increase revenue (www.motorist.org). Findings by the Texas Transportation Institute indicated “they found when the yellow signal was 1 second shorter than what the standard ITE timing formula specifies as a minimum, red light violations jumped 110% (www.thenewspaper.com). The