urbanSTL

violations are down because they put up so little warning signage, and people were forced to learn the hard way. who cares about citation count, lets see accident count & volume throughput numbers.



the ends still don't justify the means



- they can't conclusively link the car and the driver

- the profit sharing scheme with the camera manufacturer is a taxpayer ripoff

- its just not about safety, its about money. yea yeah so maybe they'll use the money to make improvements, maybe they won't. it goes back into the general budget or to the police, not back to streets dept.

- over the past few years, i would say backed-up intersections and mis-timed lights have only gotten worse, in-spite of the $ they're burning on new hardware.. so i already know they're incompetent

- it further punishes the people who buy into the system, it's already a huge pain to be a totally legit STL driver, with all the BS to get tags, I see many many cars that are not legit .. so the only people left with no incentive to mind the cameras will be the tagless, uninsured, plateless drivers... great

- i'd bet most of the fatal light-running accidents are caused by people flying through mid-cycle out-of-control, probably running from something, or on something, not joe-schmo who was just trying to piggyback through a yellow, after waiting 10 mins at a backed-up badly-configured intersection.

- its mother-***** unconstitutional! guilty until proven innocent.

take it to the insult thread cheney

who are you to judge my wrongness, or if my complaints have merit? very condescending tone, very rude indeed.



the constitutional statement is a topic-nationwide, and you ignore the rest. you don't have to attack my motives and sanity to win an argument

Gone Corporate wrote:

shinpickle wrote:- its mother-f***ing unconstitutional! guilty until proven innocent.

You are wrong and making complaints without merit.



Whether for the sake of trying to fight the gravity of your bad idea, or seeking the attention & validation from others, I don't know. However, I do not recognize your posting as having constructive meaning. I recommend that you either 1. fight City Hall to have a successful response to lawbreaking stopped, 2. take it to the Courts over the constitutionality of the underlying precedent of laws, 3. reassess your own base of positioning regarding the issues at hand, or 4. take a deep breath and count to ten.

Regardless of all these complaints, I definately feel a whole lot safer pulling into an intersection when the light goes green or crossing a street once the walk sign says go. When you see a yellow light in the distance that doesn't mean speed up; yellow is a safegaurd for times when you are already too close to the intersection to stop safetly. I have witnessed thousands of red light runs where the drivers could easily have stopped. I say let the city make money from these cameras.



Also, I am happy to report that I have finally witnessed St. Louis PD ticketing drivers for red light runs. Only a year ago, the belief was "there are too many serious crimes to enforce traffic regulations." Hopefully, strict traffic enforcement can pull some of those serious criminals off the streets as well.

Seriously, people; just slow down and stop for the red lights. What's the big deal?

The "big deal" is that the City is notoriously incompetent at traffic control, yet it's managed to put in all these red light cameras before, for example it could even synchronize signals downtown. (See other thread: They've been promising the sychrnonization for something like four years now.)



Moreover, the City has been caught in the past for corruption in ticket enforcement and payment (parking ticket scandal of the late '90s). The opportunity for flim-flamming these red-light cameras is immense.



Does it happen? Last week I went to the new Bartolino's, which is adjacent to perhaps the most notorious red-light camera in the City -- the multiple intersection just south of 44 on Hampton whose lights virtually force you to run yellows if you don't want to sit there for 10 minutes or more.



Exiting Bart's eastbound, I wanted to turn left on Hampton. THE LIGHT NEVER CHANGED. EVER. I sat through four cycles and finally turned right.



It's probably incompetence moreso than any revenue-grabbing conspiracy, but we have a right to object strenuously given the City's history in such matters.

Not saying anything about the rest of your post, but I can probably explain why you never got a signal. That is probably a sensor controlled light, and you were not in the correct place to send a signal to the control box that you need a green. The good news is those help to maintain traffic control, the bad news is if you don't stop in the right spot you are stuck. This is assuming this is a camera or sensor controlled intersection. I've never payed enough attention. At least it wasn't a no right on red. Then you would really be screwed.

Possibly, except even if true, the City was incompetent and/or negligent, because:



That new Drury and the new Bart's seem to be generating tons of business. On that particular day, the parking lot was overflowing, and that intersection is the main way in and out. Having the signal set to be tripped by a sensor during lunch and dinner hours at the restaurant is, at best, pure stupidity.



Plus the car trapped in front of me did in fact move its position several times while waiting for the light to change.



Interesting question: If any of those cars had run the red, would they have been photographed?

Does a camera face out of the parking lot? If there is one, I would assume yes. The cameras may only be on Hampton. I'll be driving by there later today, so I will see what I can see.

http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/ wrote:
Six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the amber cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners. The local governments in question have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.



The cities in question include Union City, CA, Dallas and Lubbock, TX, Nashville and Chattanooga, TN, Springfield, MO, according to Motorists.org, which collected information from reports from around the country. This isn't the first time traffic cameras have been questioned as to their effectiveness in preventing accidents. In one case, the local government was forced to issue refunds by more than $1 million to motorists who were issued tickets for running red lights.

The city says the red light cameras are not about lining the city coffers with citizen's dollars and is solely about safety? If at least six cities have endangered its citizens out of greed, perhaps this claim should be verified, eh?

I support the red light cameras, but if this kind of thing is happening, then I may have to re-think my position.

When I first moved to Charlotte, I was surprised to see not red-light cameras, but actually signs warning you of speeding cameras on major thoroughfares. Turns out that a court ruling stopped the program (though signs remain), but not on the basis of any individual rights, yet rather because there was a non-governmental party making profit in exchange for operating the system.

I don't about any of the other cities, but a press account said that Springfield cut a second off the yellow light time at "105 state-owned intersection signals" last year and added yellow light time at "136 city-operated lights" to make them all the same.

Another article on red-light camera shenanigans:



Red light camera monkey business may be a national trend

Six U.S. cities have been found guilty of shortening the amber cycles below what is allowed by law on intersections equipped with cameras meant to catch red-light runners.

Yellow is still really long here in St. Louis. So long that sometimes I feel stupid stopping for a yellow light.

Some of the stuff posted above is from Angry Motorists sites, many of whose posters object to red light cameras, police anti-crime cameras, speed radar, and airport screening on philosophical grounds. (Wait until they learn that WalMart is going to be saving video of rifle and shotgun purchasers!)



In the St. Louis area (where more than a dozen municipalities have red light cameras), the pattern has been the same. Lots of red light violations when the cameras first go up, fewer when the municipalities actually start sending out fines, and sharp declines in violations after the first ten or eleven months of operation. Apparently, either the old dog learns new tricks -- or else it takes another route. Either way, that particular intersection has fewer red light runners.

publiceye wrote:Some of the stuff posted above is from Angry Motorists sites, many of whose posters object to red light cameras, police anti-crime cameras, speed radar, and airport screening on philosophical grounds. (Wait until they learn that WalMart is going to be saving video of rifle and shotgun purchasers!)



In the St. Louis area (where more than a dozen municipalities have red light cameras), the pattern has been the same. Lots of red light violations when the cameras first go up, fewer when the municipalities actually start sending out fines, and sharp declines in violations after the first ten or eleven months of operation. Apparently, either the old dog learns new tricks -- or else it takes another route. Either way, that particular intersection has fewer red light runners.

publiceye,



Is there a place for the general public to see standard yellow light lengths for city intersections (both with and without cameras) and how that compares to MODOT standards? Also, are you aware of any metrics on the number of accidents at intersections where cameras are installeds - whether there has been a noticable decrease in t-bone accidents or, as has been reported in other areas of the country - increases in rear-end collisions from people panic stopping?



These cameras are not evil per se - if they prevent accidents and help with law enforcement, that's a good thing. But I think you can see how some might be suspicious given allegations of profit-taking in other locations. Assuming St. Louis City is on the level (and at this time there's no reason to believe it's anything but), I personally think it'd be to both the public's and the city's benefit if that type of information is as transparent as possible.



-RBB

I don't about any of the other cities, but a press account said that Springfield cut a second off the yellow light time at "105 state-owned intersection signals" last year and added yellow light time at "136 city-operated lights" to make them all the same.

I fully agree with RBB's post; transparency is key. To that end, there are some valid questions begging to be asked.



1. What was the intent in Springfield standardizing yellow light times? I'm no traffic engineer, but I do know that every intersection is different. There can and probably should be disparities in yellow light times (albeit few, to keep maintenance costs low) at intersections due to the prevailing speed (limit), length of intersection, etc. By the way, here are the federal DOT guidelines on this topic: http://snipr.com/yellowlights. Unless Springfield's intersections all possess quite similar characteristics, standardizing yellow light times likely may have reduced safety for drivers on its roads. So I ask, what was the true intent?



2. The effect of standardizing did in fact create deltas from prior to current settings and these deltas were lesser or greater depending on the intersection. So the question is, did Springfield place a higher percentage of red light cameras in intersections where the yellow light delta had decreased? If so, this is the likely answer to the first question.



The world we all live in is a self-adjusting system. People can create websites utilizing Google Maps and overlay every single red light camera in the city, region, nation and world. Word passes around and people can quickly adjust their behavior to avoid $100 fines. Granted, people shouldn't run red lights anyway but it's clear that there will be more red-light infractions at intersections where the yellow light delta has decreased.



In much of the research I've done on this topic, the bodies running red-light camera revenue programs both understand and exploit human behavior. If the government needs to raise money, they should first keep the safety of its people in mind. Yellow-light durations should be appropriate for the location and should not be manipulated out of greed. If manipulated, you may make more revenue but you'll also create more accidents. Given the increased danger that reduced yellow-light deltas cause, I'd discourage a "cat and mouse" game of moving red-light cameras around to increase revenue. And even if you're just adding new red-light cameras, realize you will eventually reach a twofold plateau; people's behavior will have adjusted and you'll eventually run out of new intersections to place red-light cameras. Once the plateau occurs, have you structured the program in such a way that you don't end up losing money? Dallas screwed up that one.



If it can be proven that municipalities place revenue interests over safety, they will create disfavor among constituents. The constituency is smart enough to discern whether or not this is the case. If transparency is an issue, clarity can be obtained via Missouri Sunshine requests. If our government is operating with good intentions, it has nothing to be scared of. Understand this.

I went through Kingshighway and Manchester northbound earlier tonight. I know the intersection had red light cameras installed, but that much didn't matter: I had a clear green, and it never even turned yellow. But I saw a flash go off as I went through the intersection (or possibly just before). I'm not sure the speed limit there (35 maybe?) but I was probably a little over whatever it was, especially coming down off the bridge.



The flash freaked me out a bit (and, given it happened after midnight, it could have been dangerous to blind me). Could it have been flashing getting someone on Manchester almost running their red? Or are these cameras noting speeding violations too now? I'd really rather not have to deal with something for a few mph over the limit, especially with such flaky evidence of speed as a still photograph!



It should also be noted that I was on a motorcycle. Does the lack of a front plate make any difference? What about that my face would be impossible to recognize inside my helmet?



Or am I worrying for nothing? Thanks for the insights.



-asg

^ I see the traffic lights flash constantly, even when there isn't a single vehicle past the white lines (in the middle of a light transition when everyone is stopped). I frequently notice the one on Hampton Avenue by Dirt Cheap (the smokes store that can't get a liquor license for some reason).