urbanSTL

They do not do speed. If the picture came from in front of you, you do not have to worry. If it came from in back, it's possible you could have gotten a ticket. You had to be behind the while line before the signal turned red. It would probably get thrown out if there was no yellow light. The cameras take a lot more pictures than actual violations. It takes a picture whenever it thinks there is possibly going to be one. I think the sensors work on the speed of the approaching vehicle combined with the location. As long as you stop even if you cross the white line I don't think it is a violation.

^ Sorry by "never even turned yellow" I meant I went through it while it was decidedly green and the flash still went off. I assume it turned yellow eventually; I was just well past it by then. I had previously assumed that there would be no flashing until the light at least turned yellow.



I was trying to determine whether the fact that I was speeding through the intersection would catch me even if I didn't run a red light. And it's looking like not. Thanks.



-asg

I read your post again. Looks like you should not have any ticket coming in the mail. Likely just one of the cams on Manchester. I see a lot of people making rights there without stopping, or at least going well over the white line.

I found out the hard way but these things are pretty damn nifty. I got a letter in the mail, complete with 3 pictures of my car and license plate, and a link to an actual VIDEO of me running it. I would be spitting and cussing mad calling bullsh*t on it if I didn't watch the video of my stupid ass blatantly running through a red light.



I don't think that makes me an opponent of the RLCs, but son of a b****.... I wouldn't run the damn lights if there was ANY TRAFFIC AT ALL at 12:27 pm on Kingshighway on a Sunday. I always sit at those damned stop lights for 5 minutes without watching a single car drive through.



But, in the end, it's still my fault. And if you wanna watch the video, message me and I'll hook you up.

Nice to hear somebody accept the blame for his own mistake. That's unusual these days. =D>

Local redlight runners on YouTube:

publiceye wrote:Local redlight runners on YouTube:

While the clip of the pedestrian being struck (2:40 into the video) was plastered all over the news as a shock piece to show why we need red light cameras, it's kind of misleading.



The pedestrian entered the intersection while oncoming traffic had a yellow light. He/she would have been staring at a red light, and should not have ran out into the road.



The driver who struck the pedestrian entered the intersection when the light was yellow, and thus the camera did not flash. The light changes to red while the pedestrian is mid-air.



The camera triggered as the driver in the far right lane crossed the line. Considering they did hit the brakes, I suspect they were so spooked from seeing a pedestrian go flying that they blew the light.



Unless the cameras are going to trigger on people who don't stop for yellow lights, or they're going to be used to cite jaywalkers, I don't see how this would be solved by more cameras.

I still hate these cameras, looking at these videos you can see that these drivers just run the red. These type of redlight runners represent a small amount of people, but most of the time drivers get caught as the yellow light is changing over. However, the sensors don't trigger until a car actually runs a red. They should extend the yellow a couple seconds rather than install these devices. I am going to think several cities are wanting these redlight cameras and claiming their about safety due to the current situation with the economy and budget shortfalls and use them for collection addition revenue. The installation is by the camera provider and a percentage of the revenue goes to them, so the cities that install them don't have much to lose.



http://www.redlightcameraban.com/



Here is another type of plate cover, not sure if this one is legal.



http://www.loover.com

I'm sure this won't be a popular statement, but I'm sure the people who complain about these cameras are the same wihiney little bithches who complain about speed traps. Don't break the law and you won't get caught! It's simple really. I break the law EVERY day and when I get caught I man up. I'm so sick of everyone blaming the system.

I just love how they decrease the yellow light times on these lights!

I also enjoy either flooring it when I see a yellow or slamming on my brakes! I'm sure these cameras make intersections safer! whoops, they don't! oh, they're only used to generate revenue?!

Next, I can't wait for the speed cameras on streets/highways! hey, if it saves ONE life it's worth the hassle. i guess banning driving all together would save hundreds of thousands but...



please take away my freedoms! I love the police state!



Red Light Cameras Increase Crashes:

://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/0 ... 151159.htm

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

Framer wrote:Sheesh, people; just slow down and stop for red lights. What's the big deal?

I think most everyone can agree that all of the examples in the YouTube video are agregious and deserving of punishment. And I don't think anyone believes these cameras are taking away a person's right to run red/yellow lights.



However, just as speeding tickets are abused by some municipalities (see Bella Villa, St. George, etc), there is a danger of these cameras also being abused. This particular issue is complicated by the fact that, unlike police officers issuing speeding tickets, these cameras are nearly always installed and run by independent for-profit companies. That, rightly or wrongly, makes this look like a money-making venture.



And some municipalities have in fact abused these cameras for profit. Chattanooga, Dallas, Springfield MO, Lubbock TX, Nashville, and Union City California were all caught shortening yellow light times in order to inflate the number of red light tickets issued.



Conversely, the most effective way to reduce red-light runners is to lengthen yellow light times. According to this article in the Rocky Mountain News:

But Mitchell said the yellow time on Quebec will increase to five seconds from three when the camera is turned on.



That change alone could substantially reduce red light running there. Denver's contractor, Redflex Traffic Systems, an Australian-owned company with U.S. offices in Scottsdale, Ariz., counted 38 red light runners in a 12-hour period there last year. That's one every 20 minutes.



But with studies showing increased yellow time can reduce red light running up to 96 percent, violators at the Quebec light could be reduced to one every eight hours.

In short, I'm fine with yellow light cameras if used in conjunction with increased signal times. Folks like those in the video would likely have run the light regardless of the length of the yellow and these cameras are indispensible in prosecuting these flagrant violators. However, if the cameras are installed merely as revenue generators under the guise of public safety, then the public has a right to be indignant about it.



-RBB

RBB wrote:However, just as speeding tickets are abused by some municipalities (see Bella Villa, St. George, etc), there is a danger of these cameras also being abused. This particular issue is complicated by the fact that, unlike police officers issuing speeding tickets, these cameras are nearly always installed and run by independent for-profit companies. That, rightly or wrongly, makes this look like a money-making venture.

If the reason for cameras is for safety and nothing else, the installing municipalities would:



1) follow the example of California and other jurisdictions that require the camera to photograph the driver's face, so that a moving violation can be assigned to the driver.



There is no reason why a ticket for running a red light should be a moving violation if a policeman catches you, but only a citation for "being the owner of a vehicle that ran a red light" if a camera catches you. That is, unless you want people to just pay the bill and move on because there's no hit to their driving record.



2) fund the installation, operation, and maintenance of the camera systems on their own. Private companies, especially those out of state (or even out of the country, in the case of Redflex, the Australian vendor that has installed systems in the region), should not be getting paid commissions whenever a citation is issued.



The cameras should be bought and paid for outright, and any service contracts should not be pegged to revenue generated by enforcement activities.



If the standards of evidence and penalties are the same as if you got a ticket from a policeman, and private companies aren't getting kickbacks for generating tickets, then I am 100% in support of red light cameras.

I won't dispute what Ben and RBB say, but the bottom line is, if you just STOP FOR RED LIGHTS then this whole thing is a non-issue.

yes, the "non-issue" is that they make the intersections LESS safe not more. and if the reason was safety, then they clearly fail. it's that simple. and yes, don't run red lights, i was almost t-boned by a drunk running a red on Kingshighway.

ben1040 wrote:The cameras should be bought and paid for outright, and any service contracts should not be pegged to revenue generated by enforcement activities.



If the standards of evidence and penalties are the same as if you got a ticket from a policeman, and private companies aren't getting kickbacks for generating tickets, then I am 100% in support of red light cameras.

I agree with you and RBB on this one. The way most municipalities do this, it looks more like a money grab than a sincere attempt to improve traffic safety.



I'm especially suspicious of the cameras here in St. Louis, as the city promised for five years to synchronize the signals at major intersections (which still hasn't happened yet in many parts of the city), yet the city wasted no time installing red light cameras.



Properly synchronized signals could reduce traffic accidents and improve motorist and pedestrian safety as well.

the goal certainly seems to be an issue of money for the city vs. safety of its citizens.

St. Louis police oppose red-light cameras

ST. LOUIS — Count St. Louis police officers among those who oppose the use of red light cameras.



The executive board of the St. Louis Police Officers Association recently voted 13-3 against using cameras to ticket motorists who run red lights, said its president, Sgt. Gary Wiegert.



...



Wiegert said city officers are electing not to stop drivers who run red lights, believing that they are duplicating the cameras' work.



"But they're missing other violations that come out of the car stop — the dope, the guns, the revoked license, the stolen car," Wiegert said. "Every major arrest I've ever made has been off a basic car stop."



He said officers were not under orders to ignore traffic scofflaws, "but who's going to pull over someone who runs a red light if the camera is going to take care of it?"

Full story at the link.



-RBB

^Of course, the vast majority of intersections still do not have cameras, so I would hope that officers are still pulling people over at those intersections.

Just like they oppose stop signs, err I mean stopping at them. I love it when the cops pull over people for rollilng stops, but I hardly ever see them come to a complete stop.

^ I'm waiting to see if St. Louis has a present in the mail for me as well. The other day I was making a left hand turn from Germania Avenue onto Gravois Avenue and I proceeded on a yellow light only for it to turn red while I was in the middle of the intersection.



Now, I didn't see any flashes, and theoretically I should be okay since I was well ahead of the white line at the left turn lane on Germania. That said, I don't trust these cameras as I see them flashing all the time, even when there appears to be no violations and even though I know many of the pictures taken are thrown out.



And I agree about the danger of complying with these things as well. I thought I was going to rear end a car and decapitate my wife via her seat belt when I had to come to a quick halt behind a car on South Kingshighway at Chippewa Street several weeks ago, even as I followed from a safe distance.



If the city insists on having these cameras, I'm okay with that. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that safety is prioritized over revenue generation when there's evidence that suggests these things aren't what they're purported to be.



Actually, I'd have less of a problem with the red light cameras in the city if yellow signals were lengthened. These remind me of the ones I encountered in Springfield, Mo. last summer- the yellow light is definitely on less than three seconds. Meanwhile, the yellow signals at red light camera intersections are at least four, maybe five seconds long in Brentwood. The timing seems reasonable in Hazelwood and Florissant as well, both of which have a long string of red light camera controlled intersections along Lindbergh Boulevard.



Now that the StLPOA has joined the club that questions the value of these things, it'll be interesting to see what happens.