Audit: L.A.'s red-light cams are ineffective
09-29-10, 12:23 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Audit: L.A.'s red-light cams are ineffective
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...les&id=7695841
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- A new audit shows red-light traffic cameras are not paying off for the city of Los Angeles. The controller's office finds the cameras aren't improving traffic safety, and they're not paying for themselves.
One of the main ways that the system can be fixed is to put the cameras at the most dangerous intersections in the city. Currently, that is not where they are located, according to the report.
"It's silly to have them at intersections where they're not needed," said Paul Miserantino of Los Angeles.
The cameras are meant to reduce traffic accidents by catching dangerous drivers who run red lights, and the cameras do catch thousands of violators each year. But according to the audit, the red-light program in L.A. is not doing all it can to keep the most dangerous intersections safe.
City Controller Wendy Greuel said only half of the city's red-light camera intersections show a reduction in accidents.
One of the main reasons why the high-risk intersections don't have cameras is the city council in 2006 decided to put one camera in each district instead of where they're needed the most.
Greuel responded to the audit during a Wednesday news conference, saying the cameras should be placed at the dangerous intersections.
"And if in fact, some of those cameras are in intersections (where) it isn't dangerous, we need to move them," she said.
The program has cost L.A. $2.6 million in the last two years because the city does not get a large portion of the ticket. For the $500 ticket, the city gets $150 and the rest goes to the state. In addition, more than 45 percent of those ticketed simply aren't paying the fine.
One of the main ways that the system can be fixed is to put the cameras at the most dangerous intersections in the city. Currently, that is not where they are located, according to the report.
"It's silly to have them at intersections where they're not needed," said Paul Miserantino of Los Angeles.
The cameras are meant to reduce traffic accidents by catching dangerous drivers who run red lights, and the cameras do catch thousands of violators each year. But according to the audit, the red-light program in L.A. is not doing all it can to keep the most dangerous intersections safe.
City Controller Wendy Greuel said only half of the city's red-light camera intersections show a reduction in accidents.
One of the main reasons why the high-risk intersections don't have cameras is the city council in 2006 decided to put one camera in each district instead of where they're needed the most.
Greuel responded to the audit during a Wednesday news conference, saying the cameras should be placed at the dangerous intersections.
"And if in fact, some of those cameras are in intersections (where) it isn't dangerous, we need to move them," she said.
The program has cost L.A. $2.6 million in the last two years because the city does not get a large portion of the ticket. For the $500 ticket, the city gets $150 and the rest goes to the state. In addition, more than 45 percent of those ticketed simply aren't paying the fine.
09-29-10, 12:30 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
The controller's office finds the cameras aren't improving traffic safety,
09-29-10, 01:40 PM
#4
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see that their plan to generate revenue at the expense of taxpayers has failed. However, I'm not optimistic that they would make logical decisions moving forward. They'll probably just drain even more of our money to dump into additional cameras.
On the contrary, it is precisely the traffic that's making these cameras such cash cows. We are often caught in situations where the traffic flow and speed is not only slow, but inconsistent and sporadic. This means that from a dead stop, we have to guess whether to stay or try to make it across by the time the light turns red. It's easy to say that we should always just "stay", but when you have 100 irritated drivers behind you and you just waited 5 cycles to cross one street, sometimes you just try to make it.
On the contrary, it is precisely the traffic that's making these cameras such cash cows. We are often caught in situations where the traffic flow and speed is not only slow, but inconsistent and sporadic. This means that from a dead stop, we have to guess whether to stay or try to make it across by the time the light turns red. It's easy to say that we should always just "stay", but when you have 100 irritated drivers behind you and you just waited 5 cycles to cross one street, sometimes you just try to make it.
09-29-10, 01:56 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
One city in the Bay Area completed an investigation on recently installed red light cameras. It was determined that the cameras caused no significant reduction in accidents at the intersections involved and the main motivation for the cameras was to increase revenue. Red light cameras in the entire state of CA may be in trouble for good.
09-29-10, 02:00 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
No different than any large and dense urban area, despite the internet hearsay. And the courts in CA are reviewing and dismissing citations via improper enforcement activities with increased frequency. Red light cameras and "unsurveyed" speed traps are on the radar.
09-29-10, 02:04 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Trending Topics
09-29-10, 02:20 PM
#9
i am a little bit confused. whether the cameras are effective or not that's one thing. but if the redlight cameras are really working well (achieving goal), shouldn't that mean they aren't paying off themselves at all??
i mean, if it's very effective and everyone is careful / watching out, then the cameras will catch ZERO violators. isn't that the whole point?
and with that in mind, why do they seem to focus that much on not able to get back the cost? or all along, it's about another way for more revenue?
i mean, if it's very effective and everyone is careful / watching out, then the cameras will catch ZERO violators. isn't that the whole point?
and with that in mind, why do they seem to focus that much on not able to get back the cost? or all along, it's about another way for more revenue?
09-29-10, 02:29 PM
#10
"A new audit shows red-light traffic cameras are not paying off for the city of Los Angeles. The controller's office finds the cameras aren't improving traffic safety, and they're not paying for themselves.
One of the main ways that the system can be fixed is to put the cameras at the most dangerous intersections in the city. Currently, that is not where they are located, according to the report.
"It's silly to have them at intersections where they're not needed," said Paul Miserantino of Los Angeles.
The cameras are meant to reduce traffic accidents by catching dangerous drivers who run red lights, and the cameras do catch thousands of violators each year. But according to the audit, the red-light program in L.A. is not doing all it can to keep the most dangerous intersections safe."
The article seems to me to be stating that there is room for improvement, not that they should be removed. I think red light cameras are here to stay, and I welcome them myself.
One of the main ways that the system can be fixed is to put the cameras at the most dangerous intersections in the city. Currently, that is not where they are located, according to the report.
"It's silly to have them at intersections where they're not needed," said Paul Miserantino of Los Angeles.
The cameras are meant to reduce traffic accidents by catching dangerous drivers who run red lights, and the cameras do catch thousands of violators each year. But according to the audit, the red-light program in L.A. is not doing all it can to keep the most dangerous intersections safe."
The article seems to me to be stating that there is room for improvement, not that they should be removed. I think red light cameras are here to stay, and I welcome them myself.
09-29-10, 04:01 PM
#11
i don't mind red light cameras, especially when you see people trying to gun it to pass an intersection so as to not have to wait for the next green light. some are placed properly, and those are the ones that can nab a good 10-15 violators any given day just from the shortness of the intersection (drivers thinking they can speed and make it across in time). the most dangerous intersections, i believe, are the ones with the longer crossing paths. at a yellow light, you'll see two to three in an intersection trying to make a left turn, waiting for a pedestrian to cross. when the light turns red, they'll quickly go, and then some more, thinking they don't want to wait and there's no camera there to catch them running red essentially. the danger is that some pedestrians are not able to walk as fast or have trouble walking period (no fault of their own), but you see these motorists zipping by them before they even get to the middle of the crosswalk. it really pisses me off when they their lack of patience and care for others is overlooked just so they can scoot by.
but then again, everytime i read a story of red light cameras, it makes me think of those who don't run front plates or that ridiculous spray blocker fad.
but then again, everytime i read a story of red light cameras, it makes me think of those who don't run front plates or that ridiculous spray blocker fad.
09-29-10, 06:17 PM
#12
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man I get them quite often here in TX, but luckily it doesn't get reported to insurance if you simply just pay the fine. They are $75 here.
There is a movement to get the camera's banned, considering the company gets revenue every time a ticket is written. Kind of backward to have a contract company getting paid for writing tickets, eh? http://www.banthecams.org/
There is a movement to get the camera's banned, considering the company gets revenue every time a ticket is written. Kind of backward to have a contract company getting paid for writing tickets, eh? http://www.banthecams.org/
09-29-10, 06:53 PM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
That's because it's usually difficult or impossible for the cameras to focus through the windows and get a clear shot of the driver's face. The cameras are designed to focus primarily on the rear license-plate (some states don't require front-license plates). So most red-light cameras shoot from the back, where the driver would not be visible anyway. This has led to the sale of the so-called "Photo-Blocker" spray, which is supposed to put on a film-coating that makes the plate-numbers invisible to the cameras, while still keeping the numbers visible enough to police to be legal. This spray, to my knowledge, has not been scientifically tested, and opnions (and experiences) differ on whether it is actually effective or not. So, because of all this, the ticket (and the fine) is normally sent to the car's registered owner, who is responsible for paying it, unless he or she can legally prove that someone else was driving at the time (such, for example, if the car was reported stolen).
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-29-10 at 06:56 PM.
09-29-10, 11:28 PM
#14
That's because it's usually difficult or impossible for the cameras to focus through the windows and get a clear shot of the driver's face. The cameras are designed to focus primarily on the rear license-plate (some states don't require front-license plates). So most red-light cameras shoot from the back, where the driver would not be visible anyway. This has led to the sale of the so-called "Photo-Blocker" spray, which is supposed to put on a film-coating that makes the plate-numbers invisible to the cameras, while still keeping the numbers visible enough to police to be legal. This spray, to my knowledge, has not been scientifically tested, and opnions (and experiences) differ on whether it is actually effective or not. So, because of all this, the ticket (and the fine) is normally sent to the car's registered owner, who is responsible for paying it, unless he or she can legally prove that someone else was driving at the time (such, for example, if the car was reported stolen).
09-29-10, 11:34 PM
#15
Lexus Test Driver
Good to see that their plan to generate revenue at the expense of taxpayers has failed. However, I'm not optimistic that they would make logical decisions moving forward. They'll probably just drain even more of our money to dump into additional cameras.
On the contrary, it is precisely the traffic that's making these cameras such cash cows. We are often caught in situations where the traffic flow and speed is not only slow, but inconsistent and sporadic. This means that from a dead stop, we have to guess whether to stay or try to make it across by the time the light turns red. It's easy to say that we should always just "stay", but when you have 100 irritated drivers behind you and you just waited 5 cycles to cross one street, sometimes you just try to make it.
On the contrary, it is precisely the traffic that's making these cameras such cash cows. We are often caught in situations where the traffic flow and speed is not only slow, but inconsistent and sporadic. This means that from a dead stop, we have to guess whether to stay or try to make it across by the time the light turns red. It's easy to say that we should always just "stay", but when you have 100 irritated drivers behind you and you just waited 5 cycles to cross one street, sometimes you just try to make it.