Cameras, traffic, and cash
The proposed ordinance to authorize use of automated cameras in traffic enforcement was passed by Oak Ridge City Council on first reading. Several citizens made thoughtful comments before the vote. Among other things, they commented on the “Orwellian” aspects of this monitoring, the difficulty in slowing a semi-trailer in order to stop it before a stoplight changes from yellow to red, the high cost of a $50 ticket for a typical working person, and the dire consequences to motorcyclists who are struck from behind after stopping for a traffic signal.
In response to a question, city manager Jim O’Connor said that red-light cameras had been discussed in the past, but that Ashley Paine’s fatal accident was the impetus for pushing forward with a proposal. He acknowledged, however, that red-light cameras would not have prevented her death.
Regarding money, O’Connor estimated that cameras would produce $300,000 in fines the first year — that’s 6,000 tickets at $50 each. That’s a lot of money flowing out of local pockets! Unfortunately, most of that cash would go to the out-of-town system vendor to pay for the system and its maintenance and operation. That seems wrong to me, but then I remember that all of those people can avoid fines simply by following the law. If only people would follow traffic laws without the threat of tickets and fines…
City manager O’Connor agreed to hold a work session on red-light cameras before bringing a proposal to Council for a vote. I asked for a work session, and other Council members echoed the request. Work sessions, like meetings, are public meetings, and I expect this one to include lively discussion.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
If people would follow the law without threat of penalty, there would be no need for the law in the first place — only a suggestion, perhaps.
I appreciate your diligence on this one. Although I’ve considered many arguments both for and against the cameras, the motorcyclist’s dilemma is one that I hadn’t thought of… and it’s the one that caused my husband to give up his bike — for some years, his primary transportation — before we met.
Fortunately, he wasn’t hit. Stopped at the light, he said he had a “bad feeling” and gunned the Yamaha 750 through a red light; a co-worker told him later that a car had slid sideways into the spot where he had been sitting.
Comment by Netmom — March 19, 2008 @ 5:34 am
Great Post!
I figured the Orwellers would come out, if they only read the book. The Red Light Camera, sounds like a district in “1984″. Did these comments come from people who would talk at the camera? We are photographed and recorded everywhere we go by use of credit and bankcards, video surveillance, Neighborhood Watch, stalkers, and by our very own officers. I don’t understand the validity of such an argument, or on the other hand the validity needed by an officer. If a picture presents a thousand words, why doesn’t a judge determine if a crime happened?
I do understand the path of this money. It isn’t healthy for a Re-Entry city, and nowhere have I read how these cameras will be dealt with and the precedence our judge will have to deal with when the Red Light Camera goes offline.
I support the constant reminder these cameras present, but the money behind them isn’t collected to help Oak Ridgers. If the schools still had driver education class, I would support the money to go to that, or to an Ashley’s Camera Law that would divert money to supplement transportation for students and citizens in our city. Somewhere there is a cash flow for public and student transportation, but to put in cameras just to change the driving habits of people isn’t what I call leadership. Now if those cameras can identify the occupants. That is the Orwell story I read.
Comment by Ray Kircher — March 19, 2008 @ 8:59 am
Here is another question I found. Will the Scarboro community cry foul when the majority of the cameras are by their community? I do believe there will some argument as to why all the red-lights by Scarboro have a camera?
Comment by Ray Kircher — March 20, 2008 @ 10:13 am
What do you think about the pay the fine and the camera agency will not report the offense?
I do believe the judge in Knoxville was talking about this. How can a city behind the safety of the camera continue red-light runners to a free pass for low-insurance rates? I find that if I were an insurance sales-man, the city would be hiding information I need to protect my investors. Why would I give the same rate to a person who obeys the laws and never shown tendency to bend the safety rules on the road? There are no long-term effects to a red-light runner. I believe the only lesson these people learn is running it can mean a sale but not an increase in my rates.
The issue red-light cameras have validity behind is revenue. Nothing else like security, microphones on the cameras, people obeying the camera and not the law, can stand up to the people who continue to run the light because they pay it and off to another city or sale they go.
This camera can put us into another kind of danger. The people who can see affordability in running a red light is a very scary mindset collecting in a city. We really need a traffic division in our police force. We have grown, I’m sure the numbers will reflect that.
Comment by Ray Kircher — March 23, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Amazing story about the sixth sense that saved your husband, Netmom. Now I better understand why I so often see him in motorcycle clothing even though I’ve never seen him on a bike.
Interesting suggestions about dedicating the money from the cameras, Ray — if there is any “extra” revenue to be dedicated.
I don’t expect that traffic enforcement would target Scarboro, or any other neighborhood. I don’t yet know what intersections staff has in mind for these things. I’d expect them to propose locations on our major thoroughfares (Illinois Ave. and O.R. Turnpike), although there may be other intersections (such as the intersection of Florida and Tennessee Avenues) with serious red-light problems. I asked city staff for the accident statistics that they are using as a basis for a camera enforcement program, but I haven’t gotten them yet. Hopefully, I’ll get the data on Monday.
One thing we don’t need to worry about here is private deals between ticketed drivers and the camera company. The camera company would interact only with the police department — it would not send tickets to drivers or collect money from drivers. As it’s been explained to me, the company would supply data to the police, and a police officer would examine the photos of the violation, then issue a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle. Together with the ticket, the police would send the vehicle owner a copy of the photos of the violation. Thus, the vehicle owner would not need to go to court to see the evidence behind the ticket. Just paying the ticket would cost $50, and there would be additional court costs if a person chose to go to court to fight the ticket, but either way the ticket would not be a recorded on the person’s driving record as a violation.
Comment by Ellen Smith — March 23, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
That is the problem of not reporting the offense. If the offense is so much a problem to enforce cameras, how come people who can afford the ticket are allowed the free ride on insurance expenses? Isn’t that why insurance companies collect this information of people who run a red light without a camera but is caught by a police officer? Should those people just pay a fine and not have the offense reported?
The non-reporting of a crime is similar to the bill presented earlier in state House, I believe. A Good Samaritan law is what our city will neglect by not reporting the offense. The way I see it, repeat offenders will not be forced to change their driving habits. Who is keeping track of safety in our city?
On the issue in Knoxville, the judge is correct that the lawsuit against Red Light cameras can stand if procedure is met. The lawsuit has merit, and a strong one the way the Judge felt.
How can a person be stopped at the red light or face consequences of a fine and raised insurance rates, while a person can just go through red light cameras with only the consequence of a fine? Are we not equal while driving a vehicle on our roads? Seems to me this law will favor rich people who are running late but can afford the ticket, while a poor person cannot run the light to save a job or visit a dying relative. We are teetering on constitutional rights.
Comment by Ray Kircher — March 24, 2008 @ 10:09 am
The theory is that nobody wants to pay a $50 ticket, so everyone will be careful to avoid getting ticket. However, it may be true that tickets go disproportionately to people who can least afford to pay them…
Regardless of ability to pay, I hope you’ll agree that if a ticket is issued to a vehicle, with no indication of who was driving that vehicle, it’s not fair for the ticket to be recorded on the vehicle owner’s driving record.
Comment by Ellen Smith — March 24, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
That is the scary part, people who think they can get away with it. Not until the tragedy does names get published.
These cameras are not 100% preventive. I would think it is fair to record the vehicle’s history to its owner. States with safety inspections on vehicles hold the owner responsible for vehicle condition no matter who is driving. You must be very careful with your car title in those states. Being responsible with a vehicle should be held as strong as responsibility with alcohol or guns. This falls inline with responsibility by the flooring company who gave Brummett the truck to drive, in reference to the motorcycle accident in Clinton. All of any traffic rules that are habitually violated should be reflected on the driver’s record and the owner if the owner doesn’t want to cooperate with the police.
Are we letting our safety be auctioned off to a Red-Light Camera company because the city cannot afford a traffic division? Our city should stay out of Roulette games like this and take course to fight crime harder than we do.
I feel you are undetermined to what these cameras will do to our city, as so am I. It is difficult to take seeing all of that money leave Oak Ridge when our police department could have stepped up and kept it working here. I wonder what names the surrounding citizens would have for us while setting up these cameras? I do believe we will take the heat for this revenue neutral program.
Thank you for taking this seriously and the time behind it. Great Work Ellen!
Comment by Ray Kircher — March 24, 2008 @ 5:53 pm