Red Light Cameras in Douglas
The Douglas County Board of Commissioners (BOC) has agreed to install a red light camera at the intersection of Thornton Road and Bankhead Highway. The cost of the installation is estimated to be $200,000. The county claims that this is one of the most dangerous intersections in Douglas County. Revenue generated will be used to install cameras at other intersections.
At a public hearing I expressed my concerns about this project.
First of all, I asked why the Sheriff’s Office is not patrolling the intersection and maintaining a visible presents. Trucks traveling south bound often enter the intersection at speeds well above the posted 45mph. County manager Mike Cason confirmed that the BOC approved additional funding to patrol the area, but the only time I see a patol car is when there is an accident.
Secondly, I question the effectiveness of the red light camera. Will the camera really reduce accidents, or will it be nothing more than a way to generate more revenue?
The bottom line, red light cameras are a waste of taxpayer’s money and will do little to reduce accidents. A better way to reduce speed is through a visible presents by Sheriff’s patrol cars.
What do you think?
Read what others have to say about red light cameras. >>>
*********************************************************
Latest News on Red-Light Cameras in Cobb County...
More wrecks after cameras Link to red-light surveillance cited
By BRENDEN SAGERThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 02/09/06
A red-light camera system designed to increase driver safety may actually have resulted in an increase in auto accidents at the Windy Hill Road and Cobb Parkway intersection, Marietta officials said.
City officials recently collected data on the red-light camera. Since June 2004, the city has issued about 100 tickets a day, totaling more than $2.7 million in fines.
Officials chose the Windy Hill intersection because it was once deemed the most dangerous in Georgia according to a State Farm Insurance Corp. study.
State Farm stopped conducting the study after 2001 due to its expense, a company spokesman said. The company used claim data to come up with its "most dangerous" listing.
Yet increased safety at the intersection must be measured on a sliding scale. Marietta officials point out with pride that there were two fatal accidents at the intersection in 2003 and there have been none since the cameras were installed.
But the number of accidents increased by more than 50 percent between 2004 and 2005. Marietta spokesman Matthew Daily said this was due in part to drivers screeching to a halt to avoid running the light — and receiving a $70 "fast driving award."
"We expected that would happen," Daily said. "Statistically across the country, rear-enders always come up after a red-light camera.
"Daily said this actually makes the intersection safer because "these types of rear-end accidents are less serious than a broadside or angle accident."
Yet accidents in practically all categories increased. Daily said the city would work with the manufacturer, LaserCraft, to investigate film footage of wrecks at the intersection. The camera manufacturer also handles the tickets for the city.
"One of the things that we're going to do is have LaserCraft pull the photos of the accidents at that intersection. What we're going to do is look at where these accidents are occurring," he said.
Daily said some of the data captured in the city's year-end report may deal with wrecks near the Windy Hill intersection that had nothing to do with the red-light cameras.
In reporting the wrecks, police officers may write down the Windy Hill intersection as a landmark, Daily said, even though the accident may have occurred in a nearby parking lot.
"We're always wanting to look to see how it's improved the system," he said.The city began enforcement in November with another red-light camera system at Allegood Road and Cobb Parkway.
The city has not compiled data for the three months it has been in operation.
Each light costs $200,000 for equipment and installation. The city pays $285,000 per year to maintain the camera systems at both intersections.
Find this article at: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/09cobredlight.html
2:43 PM, February 09, 2006
***********************************************************
Rethinking red-light cameras
By Bob Barr Published July 8, 2004
The money just comes rolling in to the D.C. coffers, from the bevy of red light cameras installed at city intersections over the past few years. Unfortunately, like the song in "Evita," whatever money comes rolling in to the D.C. government, goes rolling out at least as quickly. But that's another story. The story here is the growing popularity of surveillance cameras to nab red light runners and speeders. The devices are popular for local governments because of the revenue they bring in; some $2.3 million to the District government in one recent month alone. Despite the effusive protestations by D.C. officials that their surveillance cameras are for public safety only and have -- harrumph -- nothing whatever to do with raising revenue, common sense and the placement of the cameras not in the most dangerous intersections but rather in the most heavily traveled in order to maximize fines, tells the story. It is all about money. Local governments all across the country are falling victim to the siren song of surveillance cameras to raise cash from lead-footed motorists. Even in my home state of Georgia -- which once fought a war in an effort to minimize government control over the lives of individual citizens -- local governments are rushing to install the electronic eyes. The love of revenue-producing electronic devices knows no partisan bounds; local officials of Republican persuasion are just as quick -- if not quicker -- to install these intrusive but profitable devices as their Democrat counterparts. Abroad, the pattern is the same. Governments with the technologic knowhow to appreciate the power of surveillance cameras and which have funds to purchase them are scurrying to do so. London has become the surveillance capital of the world; a city in which the average person's visage is recorded hundreds of times every day they set foot in the city...
Read more....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040707-090154-5151r.htm
>>>
Hitting Brakes on Red Light Cameras Safety
Studies Offer Different Results as Va. Lawmakers Prepare to Vote
By Michael LarisWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, February 18, 2005; Page B05
Last summer, civil engineering professor Nicholas Garber and his colleagues received a query from Richmond: Could the researchers figure out, quickly, whether red light cameras have had any effect on car crashes? Garber, who teaches at the University of Virginia, now finds himself in the middle of a political tussle over public policy and privacy that could result today in the House of Delegates' dismantling of efforts to shoot pictures of -- and fine -- red light runners from Fairfax County to Virginia Beach."My problem is, we are researchers who have to say exactly what the results are," Garber said. Garber studied the best data available, from Fairfax County, and documented what for many is a counterintuitive finding: that the use of cameras at intersections resulted in more injuries. That's because while crashes from the side went down, rear-end accidents went up. His results, consistent with those of some other studies across the country, have poured fresh fuel onto the heated cost-and-benefit debate on the cameras in Virginia.The problem is, transportation researchers, including Garber, say his study does not come to a conclusion on the most relevant scientific issue: whether motorists are safer with the cameras. That has left advocates sparring in Richmond with incomplete information, just as other proponents and detractors have in similar debates from California to Maryland. But a new federal study offers an answer to that question.The cameras, which automatically photograph vehicles when they run red lights, were authorized by the Virginia legislature in 1995 and also are used in Alexandria, Fairfax City, Falls Church, Vienna and Arlington. The authorization expires June 30. Bills allowing jurisdictions to continue using the technology cleared the state Senate last month but face a hostile reception today in the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee. .....
Read more....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33271-2005Feb17.html
At a public hearing I expressed my concerns about this project.
First of all, I asked why the Sheriff’s Office is not patrolling the intersection and maintaining a visible presents. Trucks traveling south bound often enter the intersection at speeds well above the posted 45mph. County manager Mike Cason confirmed that the BOC approved additional funding to patrol the area, but the only time I see a patol car is when there is an accident.
Secondly, I question the effectiveness of the red light camera. Will the camera really reduce accidents, or will it be nothing more than a way to generate more revenue?
The bottom line, red light cameras are a waste of taxpayer’s money and will do little to reduce accidents. A better way to reduce speed is through a visible presents by Sheriff’s patrol cars.
What do you think?
Read what others have to say about red light cameras. >>>
*********************************************************
Latest News on Red-Light Cameras in Cobb County...
More wrecks after cameras Link to red-light surveillance cited
By BRENDEN SAGERThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 02/09/06
A red-light camera system designed to increase driver safety may actually have resulted in an increase in auto accidents at the Windy Hill Road and Cobb Parkway intersection, Marietta officials said.
City officials recently collected data on the red-light camera. Since June 2004, the city has issued about 100 tickets a day, totaling more than $2.7 million in fines.
Officials chose the Windy Hill intersection because it was once deemed the most dangerous in Georgia according to a State Farm Insurance Corp. study.
State Farm stopped conducting the study after 2001 due to its expense, a company spokesman said. The company used claim data to come up with its "most dangerous" listing.
Yet increased safety at the intersection must be measured on a sliding scale. Marietta officials point out with pride that there were two fatal accidents at the intersection in 2003 and there have been none since the cameras were installed.
But the number of accidents increased by more than 50 percent between 2004 and 2005. Marietta spokesman Matthew Daily said this was due in part to drivers screeching to a halt to avoid running the light — and receiving a $70 "fast driving award."
"We expected that would happen," Daily said. "Statistically across the country, rear-enders always come up after a red-light camera.
"Daily said this actually makes the intersection safer because "these types of rear-end accidents are less serious than a broadside or angle accident."
Yet accidents in practically all categories increased. Daily said the city would work with the manufacturer, LaserCraft, to investigate film footage of wrecks at the intersection. The camera manufacturer also handles the tickets for the city.
"One of the things that we're going to do is have LaserCraft pull the photos of the accidents at that intersection. What we're going to do is look at where these accidents are occurring," he said.
Daily said some of the data captured in the city's year-end report may deal with wrecks near the Windy Hill intersection that had nothing to do with the red-light cameras.
In reporting the wrecks, police officers may write down the Windy Hill intersection as a landmark, Daily said, even though the accident may have occurred in a nearby parking lot.
"We're always wanting to look to see how it's improved the system," he said.The city began enforcement in November with another red-light camera system at Allegood Road and Cobb Parkway.
The city has not compiled data for the three months it has been in operation.
Each light costs $200,000 for equipment and installation. The city pays $285,000 per year to maintain the camera systems at both intersections.
Find this article at: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/09cobredlight.html
2:43 PM, February 09, 2006
***********************************************************
Rethinking red-light cameras
By Bob Barr Published July 8, 2004
The money just comes rolling in to the D.C. coffers, from the bevy of red light cameras installed at city intersections over the past few years. Unfortunately, like the song in "Evita," whatever money comes rolling in to the D.C. government, goes rolling out at least as quickly. But that's another story. The story here is the growing popularity of surveillance cameras to nab red light runners and speeders. The devices are popular for local governments because of the revenue they bring in; some $2.3 million to the District government in one recent month alone. Despite the effusive protestations by D.C. officials that their surveillance cameras are for public safety only and have -- harrumph -- nothing whatever to do with raising revenue, common sense and the placement of the cameras not in the most dangerous intersections but rather in the most heavily traveled in order to maximize fines, tells the story. It is all about money. Local governments all across the country are falling victim to the siren song of surveillance cameras to raise cash from lead-footed motorists. Even in my home state of Georgia -- which once fought a war in an effort to minimize government control over the lives of individual citizens -- local governments are rushing to install the electronic eyes. The love of revenue-producing electronic devices knows no partisan bounds; local officials of Republican persuasion are just as quick -- if not quicker -- to install these intrusive but profitable devices as their Democrat counterparts. Abroad, the pattern is the same. Governments with the technologic knowhow to appreciate the power of surveillance cameras and which have funds to purchase them are scurrying to do so. London has become the surveillance capital of the world; a city in which the average person's visage is recorded hundreds of times every day they set foot in the city...
Read more....
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040707-090154-5151r.htm
>>>
Hitting Brakes on Red Light Cameras Safety
Studies Offer Different Results as Va. Lawmakers Prepare to Vote
By Michael LarisWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, February 18, 2005; Page B05
Last summer, civil engineering professor Nicholas Garber and his colleagues received a query from Richmond: Could the researchers figure out, quickly, whether red light cameras have had any effect on car crashes? Garber, who teaches at the University of Virginia, now finds himself in the middle of a political tussle over public policy and privacy that could result today in the House of Delegates' dismantling of efforts to shoot pictures of -- and fine -- red light runners from Fairfax County to Virginia Beach."My problem is, we are researchers who have to say exactly what the results are," Garber said. Garber studied the best data available, from Fairfax County, and documented what for many is a counterintuitive finding: that the use of cameras at intersections resulted in more injuries. That's because while crashes from the side went down, rear-end accidents went up. His results, consistent with those of some other studies across the country, have poured fresh fuel onto the heated cost-and-benefit debate on the cameras in Virginia.The problem is, transportation researchers, including Garber, say his study does not come to a conclusion on the most relevant scientific issue: whether motorists are safer with the cameras. That has left advocates sparring in Richmond with incomplete information, just as other proponents and detractors have in similar debates from California to Maryland. But a new federal study offers an answer to that question.The cameras, which automatically photograph vehicles when they run red lights, were authorized by the Virginia legislature in 1995 and also are used in Alexandria, Fairfax City, Falls Church, Vienna and Arlington. The authorization expires June 30. Bills allowing jurisdictions to continue using the technology cleared the state Senate last month but face a hostile reception today in the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee. .....
Read more....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33271-2005Feb17.html
posted by James Bell @ Tuesday, December 20, 2005
1 comments
