MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

"$1 billion in revenues for D.C. during fiscal years 2005 to 2008."

Are these cameras for safety, or revenue generation? (yes, that is a rhetorical question).

MDN word: "program", as in money making program for the DC gov't.

The reason she's cheesed off is due to lack of revenue. In fact, the iPhone owners are being responsible and doing exactly what speed traps dictate you should do - slowing down.

After all, what's the point of having drivers speeding all over the place and causing accidents even if they do end up paying the odd fine?

Jul 13, 09 - 10:53 am Comment from: Predrag

I have no issues with the red-light cameras. A friend of mine spend weeks in a hospital, followed by months of grueling physical therapy and rehabilitation after a moron, trying to squeeze by after the light turned red, plowed into my friend's car at 60 mph. Luckily, the moron was driving a Civic; had he been in a Land Cruiser (or a Hummer, or something even worse), my friend would have been no more.

There is a reason for traffic lights and cops have every right to beef up their budget by ticketing red light runners as often as legally possible.

As for speeding, there certainly are stretches of roads where the speed limit no longer makes any sense.

I'm curious what would happen if law enforcement agencies approach Apple to remove this (these) app(s) from the store...

Jul 13, 09 - 10:56 am Comment from: Tyk

Just a quick point. Predrag, if you had a friend who was almost killed from a speeder, would you change your opinion of speed limits?

Red-light cameras are ridiculous. They're a revenue stream and have nothing to do with public safety.

Jul 13, 09 - 10:57 am Comment from: twilightmoon

"Photo radar tickets generated nearly $1 billion in revenues for D.C. during fiscal years 2005 to 2008."

"That has irked D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier, who promised her officers would pick up their game to counteract the devices"

Those 2 quotes pretty much sum up the story.

The rest does not matter.

Red light cameras are about revenue, not safety.

Jul 13, 09 - 10:59 am Comment from: Greg L

Nearly $250 million in tickets per year due to red-light cameras in one metro area!?! No wonder the D.C. police chief is torqued out of shape. City leaders lean on him for money.

It is well documented that red light cameras INCREASE accidents, but those in gov't don't give a damn, since they also greatly increase revenue.

Crooks.

Jul 13, 09 - 10:59 am Comment from: HMCIV

@DC Police

If that revenue went to anything useful in the district I wouldn't be nearly as pissed off about your whining.

@ Predrag - There are numerous stories of cities deliberately shortening yellow light times, so they can hand out more tickets for people running red lights. The fact that this inevitably causes more accidents (similar to the one your friend survived) is clearly less important than the fact that these cities are making more money from the tickets.

Apps like this are one of the few weapons we citizens have against cities which abuse their traffic safety responsibilities just to make a few extra bucks.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:01 am Comment from: twilightmoon

"Luckily, the moron was driving a Civic; had he been in a Land Cruiser (or a Hummer, or something even worse), my friend would have been no more."

I'm very sorry for what happened to your friend, but if they got hit because of a second or 2 someone missed a red light by, then they need to pay attention and not try to "gun" a green light. You always need to pay attention when you drive, and not just to signal lights.

That goes doubly when you are a pedestrian. You have to assume that people will not be paying attention or might skate through the beginning of a red light, it's very common. There's no timer for a yellow light so it's not hard to misjudge one.

I live in Arizona and our governor is using the cameras to make up for budget shortfalls. Way to go local governments policing for profit. I can't wait until the Supreme Court redresses the legality of policing without police officers physically present. It is a way of maintaining Big Brother, while using safety as the reason they are doing it. I have nothing against the police I just wish they would use clearly marked cars, unless they are undercover, and physically give you a ticket instead of using cameras.

I never knew about this app until today. Thanks for the info.

Do you have any references to back up that claim?

Jul 13, 09 - 11:03 am Comment from: Gregg Thurman

Lanier is just woofing and she knows it. Her job is to protect DC's citizens from traffic law violators. It is not to issue citations.

Speed zones are set up where people drive too fast. Red light cameras are set up where people don't stop.

If everyone had the iPhone App, then all the DC Police would have to do to protect its citizens is install more cameras and radar units. The result would be slower, safer drivers and safer streets, and it would cost less than using hiring more officers.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:06 am Comment from: trex67

Yes, speedtraps generate lots of cash, but would anyone drive even close to the speed limit if the laws weren't enforced? Moot point, I know, but so many people already drive like maniacs that looser enforcement would only increase the hazards. Slowing down would also decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and decreased demand would lower oil prices.

The arguments for speeding: We're Americans (presumed for sake of discussion) and we are privileged/free to do whatever we want, consequences be damned; I'M a good driver, the rules don't apply to me; I was in a hurry, officer.

I'm not even suggesting I've never exceeded the limit, because it would be suicidal in some situations. Going the limit in heavy traffic where everyone else seems to be going 15 to 20 MPH over is potentially dangerous, even in the slow lane.

Like I said, moot point.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:09 am Comment from: DanielM

@ Kabayo re "…It is well documented that red light cameras INCREASE accidents,"

I would like to see your proof as well.

I know I don't have any proof, but I would say that, "you can't supply the documentation."

I've been a DC resident for over 30 years, and pay more than my "share" of taxes. Yet the quality of services I receive is hardly commensurate with what I'm paying. But my job was here, and I liked living in the city (no credit to the DC Govt.). Were these cameras used in a revenue neutral fashion - lowering taxes for the rest of us - they would arouse less opposition. But they're just used to pad the government's coffers.

Just to demonstrate how rigged the system is, I once returned to my car parked in the Georgetown neighborhood. As I was some 15 minutes past the 2 hour limit, a cop was starting to write a ticket. "Don't worry, I'm leaving," I told him before he could complete the ticket, and I drove off. Some weeks later, I received notice that I'd "failed to pay" for that parking ticket I'd never received, so the "fine" now carried a new penalty. THAT is the sort of crap we hate.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:12 am Comment from: Big Als MBP

Fighting the war on drugs and installing red light cameras, photo radar cameras and red light cameras that also do photo radar at the same time.

Does anyone else see the parallels in the revenue generating and addiction aspects of the cameras and the drugs?

The cops are hooked! Get the drug lords to crack down and fight these cameras!

A speed trap should be to stop people from speeding and to punish those who do. They are not to take advantage of the fact that people do speed in order to make a profit. Ideally speed traps should produce no fines since no-one is speeding so if people are using an app to make themselves aware of the location of speed traps I have no specific problem, however it should really be an extra measure in conjunction with not speeding to start with.

If the purpose of establishing speed traps is to discourage speeding, the police should welcome these private efforts to warn drivers of their presence. Wouldn't such information cause motorists to slow down in the very areas where the police regard speeding to be particularly dangerous?

Of course, the purpose of speed traps is not to get drivers to slow down, but to catch them in the act of speeding - sometimes generating car-chase scenes - so that the state can collect hundreds of dollars in fines from those caught and occasionally generate some free advertising in the case of televised car chases. It is part of the same syndrome that attends parking-meter violations: not to collect “rents” for parking spaces, but to collect money from those who overstay their allotted time and are given tickets. (This is why it is a misdemeanor, in many cities, for one to put coins in the parking meters where other persons’ cars are parked.)

Even in automobile usage, the essence of state action always comes back to the line made popular in Watergate days: “follow the money!”

Jul 13, 09 - 11:19 am Comment from: Big Als MBP

@ DanielM,

The red light cameras cause drivers to slam on the brakes when the yellow light appears. Inevitably, the car behind causes a rear end collision.

Intersection T-bone collisions are reduced at camera equipped intersections. As a result, sever injuries are reduced at camera equipped intersections.

However, rear end collisions skyrocket, giving much higher collision rates.

Google is your friend. Use it.

And a cop hiding in a bush to catch me going a little over the speed limit isn't cowardly? Gimme a break

This is not about safety... Speed traps are for government revenue enhancement.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:32 am Comment from: DanielM

@ Twilightmoon re

""Photo radar tickets generated nearly $1 billion in revenues for D.C. during fiscal years 2005 to 2008."

"That has irked D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier, who promised her officers would pick up their game to counteract the devices"

Those 2 quotes pretty much sum up the story.

The rest does not matter."

Did you bother to read the article? To connect the two quotes as you have done is misleading and wrong.

Doesn't it bother you that we, remember this is a democracy, make laws that if everybody adhere to or at least respected their intent would reduce the number of our friends/family members who have had their lives destroyed by some selfish defiance because it was only there to created revenue.

I personally have no problem to put radar cameras on every corner. You and I do the crime, you and I pay for the honor. It is a hell of a lot better than having those that abide by the law having to pay for those that want to destroy lives.

"Do you have any references to back up that claim?"

(regarding my claim that red light cameras increase accidents)

How about five separate studies?

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/

A local town is getting rid of their red light cameras. From an article at http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2836.asp:

"The village has one traffic camera stationed at the intersection of Meacham and Woodfield Roads. It generated 10,000 tickets worth $1 million in less than three months. Yet instead of reducing the number of drivers "running red lights" the camera almost exclusively ticketed the owners of vehicles making right-hand turns into the Woodfield Mall. Complaints from influential area businesses, outraged shoppers and opponents led by the Schaumburg Freedom Coalition forced the village to put a halt to automated right turn ticketing in February. As a result, the UK company operating the program lost interest in running the camera because it did not make financial sense to continue.

"In the May monthly report from Redspeed, we received no straight through violations for either approach," Howerton explained. "Consequently, the only citations issued during the entire month were for left turn violations (14)."

In 2008, the intersection had seen twenty-six accidents, none of which were related to signal violations or red light running. With the camera active in the first six months of 2009, there were twelve accidents, at least two of which were rear end collisions in the right-turn lane and one that may have involved red light running. Overall, only 1.9 percent of accidents in Schaumburg last year were in any way related to intersection traffic signals.

"Analysis indicates that there has been no significant change in signal-related crashes between pre and post system deployment," Howerton concluded.

This weekend, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Daily Herald each published major stories that found Schaumburg's tactics have been copied by sixteen Chicago suburbs. In these locations, between 64 and 100 percent of red light camera tickets were issued for so-called right turn on red violations. These "violations" are given to vehicles that did stop before turning, but not necessarily at the arbitrary line designated by the municipality. They also include citations given to cars that stopped forward motion, but did not wait an arbitrary three seconds before resuming.

According to US Department of Transportation data, right-turn on red collisions are so rare that the average motorist could drive a billion miles before being involved in one (view study)."

If red-light cameras are installed for revenue purposes only, then it could be said that stop signs, speed-limit signs, school crossing signs, yield signs, hospital signs, and all other signs are installed as money-makers for the companies that produce them. Why not take them all down, save money, and let those who have no use for the law have the run of things. Meanwhile, if you don't want to contribute to your City or State red-light or photo-radar fund stop belly-aching and just drive a little more sensibly.

If used to enforce reasonable yellow-light timings, I'm a big fan of red-light cameras - running a red is just dangerous, selfish and stupid. Likewise, if a jurisdiction resets their yellow light timings to make them shorter than the generally accepted 5 seconds to make more revenue from red light cameras, they should be found criminally liable if there's an injury accident pursuant to someone trying to make it through on the yellow.

Speed cameras in DC, however, are often placed along "through" roadways where the speed limits are set artificially low - my favorite is Florida Ave. in front of Galludet university. The speed limit is 25 mph - this on a 5-lane (2+2+1) road with a college on one side and mixed residential / business on the other. The cameras are set to trigger at 10mph over - so going 35mph on a street that should nominally support a 45mph reasonable safe speed gets you a ticket (and yes, I've been had - 37 mph, and the road conditions were sufficient to support perfectly safe travel at that speed).

Speed cameras do slow traffic - people learn about them and slow down. Differences in speed are what cause injury accidents - not low speeds. People going too slow to keep up with traffic flow are just as guilty as those who go much faster of making the roadways more dangerous.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:32 am Comment from: Predrag

Tyk:

My opinion on speed limits is that while they for the most part have the same purpose as the red lights, the main reason people so often violate those limits is because there are areas where the limits don't seem to make much sense. I have no doubt that majority of them have a valid purpose.

Most Police Chiefs in this country encourage speed trap reporting, be it on local traffic reports or with web tools such as Trapster. They do so because the speed traps in their eyes are about safety and not about revenue, and the more people who know they are out and about doing speed enforcement, the safer the roads.

That Chief Lanier would take this reversal and make it about revenue means that her priorities as Police Chief are not the safety of the people in her region. Yes, there's an argument that says they need the money to spend on other safety programs, but the city should be funding the needs of her department regardless.

I know that running a Police Department in any city is about managing budget and relationships with the City Council etc... But at it's core it is about Public Safety... this all just says she is bowing to pressure from City government instead of standing up for the needs of public safety.

At least I never hid behind a badge and a weapon.
Eggoy!

Jul 13, 09 - 11:40 am Comment from: The Other Steve

What the heck is a speed camera?!?!?

Are they talking about police holding a radar gun or is this a sign of things to come?

Jul 13, 09 - 11:43 am Comment from: Harvey

DC is a company town, and the company (the government) is tax exempt. DC is also home to a lot of tax-exempt organizations. It's the national capital, so it has to provide police services for events such as inaugurations and protests. It's not part of a state, so it has to provide all the services of a state. DC does get some compensation from the federal government, but it is called a "subsidy," so it sounds like a hand-out even though it isn't enough to even reimburse the city for the services it must provide. Most of the people who work in the city don't live in the city, which means they don't pay city income tax.

I live in the DC area, and I am very sympathetic to the city's problem that its tax base is too small. I don't like the red-light cameras and the speed traps, but what else can they do?

Jul 13, 09 - 11:43 am Comment from: The Other Steve

Oh, and BTW -

Thanks D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier for telling me (and millions of others) about this app that we didn't know about before.

. . . downloading it now.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:45 am Comment from: silverhawk

I live in a Minneapolis suburb. The police here post in the local newspaper where they will be placing their speed trap for the week. It slows down the traffic, at least amongst those of us who read the paper.

Minnesota does not allow red light cameras. The driver must be cited versus the vehicle. We also do not allow sobriety checkpoints.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:51 am Comment from: The Other Steve

@Harvey

"I don't like the red-light cameras and the speed traps, but what else can they do?"

They can pull you over, point a gun at you and say "give me your wallet!" No, wait, they are doing that already!

Find a legitimate way to fairly tax and charge fees to people that you are providing the services to or don't provide the services.

Jul 13, 09 - 11:54 am Comment from: Mr. Reeee

More bicycle lanes! NOW!

Burn FAT, not GAS!

Jul 13, 09 - 11:56 am Comment from: The Other Steve

@silverhawk

I applaud the Minneapolis police. Publishing in the local newspaper serves the purpose of slowing people down. Those who don't look it up can pay the ticket.

I'm not against red light cameras. (I don't run red lights) And I want the safety they provide. I'm just against the abuse of them when they just become revenue generators.

We got caught by one of those cameras once. We were doing something like 35 mph in what turned out to be a 25 mph zone. We paid the fine (pretty sure it was $50 or less) and didn't speed on that road again. End of story.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:00 pm Comment from: ecrabb

@Harvey,

I live in a state capital and hear all the whining about all the tax-exempt government buildings and organizations. Of course, the whiners never bother to mention the millions and millions of dollars of tax revenue generated from the commerce those tax-exempt organizations generate.

Imagine how much revenue is generated in D.C. from all the NON-exempt activity that's there only because of all the tax exempt government: Everything from hotel, conferences, airlines, taxi and car service, restaurants and catering, to NGO's, construction and retail... The list goes on and on.

It's a fact that every city that doesn't have commerce like D.C. wishes they did. So, cry me a river!

Jul 13, 09 - 12:02 pm Comment from: Galloway

The jist of the article not whether red-light cameras or speed cameras increase or decrease accidents. It is that some people are being made aware of red-light cameras and speed cameras and as a result, are correcting their behavior. This is the POINT of the red-light or speed cameras in the first place (their effectiveness aside). Their point is not (or should not be) to generate revenue.

This DC police chief clearly has her head up her ass. She seems to think that people correcting their behavior -- the behavior the cameras are intended to correct -- is cowardly. For that alone she should lose her job. Of course, she won't, because the politicians who support her are interested in the revenue, not in the actual safety benefits. Which is why no amount of studies purporting to show the detrimental effect of cameras will EVER change the policy of using them.

On the other hand, here in the Houston area, my brother got a citation from a red-light camera. The citation clearly stated that the violation was NOT a moving violation and would not appear on his record. This is because, since the camera is only intended to identify the car, and not the driver, no specific driver can be charged with a violation. In this case, in fact, it failed to cite the correct person, as it was my brother's wife who had borrowed the car and gotten nabbed. It could have easily been a friend who borrowed the car. If my brother took this to court, numerous lawyers have said he would probably win. It is likely only through cases like this that cameras might be found to be unconstitutional.

Again, this is regardless of whether such cameras increase or decrease public safety, and my condolences to your friend, Predrag.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:07 pm Comment from: Amazin1

I am thoroughly convinced that most traffic citations are issued for revenue generation only - which is a pity! I have suggested a number of times in the local papers that all revenue, beyond what is required to cover court cost, be given to a charitable organization of the violators choice. Then we will see how many tickets are really written. The danger of collecting taxes/revenues through any means other than direct taxation is that the revenue stream can be altered through change in behavior and then collection just needs to shift to another stream. In addition, these are all hidden revenues. Even in DC a $1B is a lot of money. Who would have guessed it would be that much? Eliminating traffic violations too much would have an adverse affect on revenue, so there is no real incentive to reduce it too much. What irony.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:08 pm Comment from: Galloway

Oh, additionally, the citation I mentioned in my previous post was for a right-turn on red violation just as noted in the post by shiva105 -- the kind that virtually never cause an accident or result in a decrease in public safety in any way.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:13 pm Comment from: Cubert

Anything to keep raising money for all that fancy cop equipment that never gets used. Well, except maybe to invade people's privacy, violate their civil rights, and other minor things like that.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:21 pm Comment from: DanielM

@ Big Als MBP

Try Googling search for articles that support the converse.

It is interesting that even when one examines the better conducted studies, the incident is as you pointed out. What is missing in the comparative data, is that it the results don't account for increase in traffic, but are based on absolute 'violation' numbers.

For example, to compare before camera installation and after camera installation and say that the number of accidents did not change, suggests that the number of vehicles entering the intersection is the same year after year. Certainly from my perspective, the number of vehicles on our roads have increase significantly year after year.

As such, if there were 100 reported accidents 5 years ago and since the camera installation the incidence was the same as they have reported, nobody has taken into consideration the increase in traffic.

@ silverhawk

However, the "car sensor" approach to traffic lights encourages red light runs.

Example. I'm in MSP area. at bass lake and 100.. You can hit the light at logan coming out of a neighborhood. hit a red light at 100. hit the red light on the other side of 100 on the bridge, and then manage to hit the next light! I've managed to hit every red light up to 81 one day, in the afternoon! All accelerating slowly and not exceeding any speed limit.

So, this retarded hippy hybird driving retard backward state loves to make everyone "stop and go". nice.

This system is nice at 3 am Sunday morning... that's about it. Even then I manage to hit red lights on empty major roads.

you get to the point and look, and say "whatever, I'm tired of stopping for no reason".

Look around you while driving. When you come to a light that just changed red, look at the cars behind you.. 10,20,30.. look at how many cars at the intersection your at that prompted the light change.. 1, 2, 3.

This happens all over the state.. The lights need to be timed.

highway 169 and 494.... there's a real well engineered intersection right there. If all the lights were to be green at the same time, it might work... instead you have a back up for 5 miles every day

I grew up in MI (Detroit area). I could drive on major 2+2+1 roads for 15 miles and hit the first or second light once I turned on the road. from that point on, clear easy driving.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:38 pm Comment from: Mike Caine

> The red light cameras cause drivers to slam on the brakes when
> the yellow light appears. Inevitably, the car behind causes a rear
> end collision.

Then the car behind is obviously driving too close to the car in front. You should always be able to stop in time if the car in front has to brake hard.

I was broadsided by a driver trying to beat red light at a 4 way intersection. When my car stopped moving I was facing the opposite direction. I looked behind me and my back seat was as flat as a pancake. I received some small lacerations from flying glass as my drivers side window was half down when it shattered but I luckily walked away practically unharmed and just shaken up. Mainly because the other driver hit my rear quarter panel of my 2 door car. I cheated death by fractions of a second. My car was totaled but I lived to see another day.

I believe in traffic cameras and speed traps where others have had frequent accidents or there have been deaths. These are dangerous parts of the road that need to be monitored for public safety. Placing traffic cameras in city street areas where motorists are going 5 MPH is in my opinion a revenue decision. Again, unless there are issues of safety judging from past incidents.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:46 pm Comment from: twilightmoon

Geraldo of the Desert"Meanwhile, if you don't want to contribute to your City or State red-light or photo-radar fund stop belly-aching and just drive a little more sensibly."

Learn some facts, and stop being ignorant.

The post right above you says:
between 64 and 100 percent of red light camera tickets were issued for so-called right turn on red violations. These "violations" are given to vehicles that did stop before turning, but not necessarily at the arbitrary line designated by the municipality. They also include citations given to cars that stopped forward motion, but did not wait an arbitrary three seconds before resuming.

And:
Analysis indicates that there has been no significant change in signal-related crashes between pre and post system deployment

These systems are a non-safety increasing revenue enhancing scam. They are not about traffic safety and never will be, they are merely a method to generate revenue.

If a few fractions of a second at a yellow-to-red light causes someone to have a collision then the person at the green light or the pedestrian at the cross walk was not paying attention. You should never assume that everyone will stop exactly before the red light at a signal and always allow a second or two padding.

Gunning a Green Light is just as dangerous as running a red light.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:48 pm Comment from: alansky

Of course, there's absolutely nothing cowardly (or downright chicken sh*t) about hiding behind bushes and billboards to collar hapless drivers. Another moron with a grudge!

Jul 13, 09 - 12:51 pm Comment from: Galloway

>> The red light cameras cause drivers to slam on the brakes when
>> the yellow light appears. Inevitably, the car behind causes a rear
>> end collision.

>Then the car behind is obviously driving too close to the car in >front. You should always be able to stop in time if the car in front >has to brake hard.

Should, could, would. Leaving the proper amount of space on a major stop-and-go road in even the suburb of a big city at any time other than the middle of the night is nearly impossible. Plus, what the driver behind you SHOULD be doing doesn't help you if you're the one who has to slam on the brakes in a short yellow to avoid a red-light camera.

Jul 13, 09 - 12:52 pm Comment from: Doc4i

Put a camera at EVERY traffic light! Fine them unmercifully till they stop running lights! If the green light says it's OK to go and it's not, then it's just Russian Roulette. Do you really have to make that light? Is it so important that you would risk dying or killing to make it?