City Council Okays Red Light Cameras

[LarryDallas]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/122104_local_redlight.html

KTRK does not tell the whole story. Opponents are fighting the move saying it is already against the law to run red lights according to state law so local govt. can not make policy for something already on the books. These same people say the $75 is a form of city revenue designed to generate money and not punish the driver because it is not reported to insurance or the state to go on a driving record.

I think they go up before Feb. is over but if the state strikes them down they will sit idle. Pasadena and parts of Houston west of Montrose already have these thing as does the big airport. Anyone know if those are in opperation currently?

This does seem like a way for the city to just make a ton of money because it has nothing to do with making the roads safer. Since after paying the fine there is no record of light running it does nothing to get bad drivers off of the road.

Also, you have to wonder what mechanism clicks the photo and when. Does the camera have speed sensors that detect a car going through a red light with 100% accuracy that the law was being broken?

There can be skewed objectivity when a photo is snapped in a second and there is no context to support why someone was in an intersection during a red light. Two examples would be making an unprotected left turn while there is heavy traffic in the opposite direction You usually have to wait in the intersection until the light turns red to make that left as the opposing traffic stops. If a cam snaps you'll be out of luck.

You could also be a car behind someone making an unprotected left turn. If the car making the left has to wait until it is all clear and the light turns red or they shoot off left when the light is yellow your car will get photographed in the center of the intersection on a red light.

Will the city next suggest banning unprotected left turns?

Looks like a good time to invest in a can of this stuff.

http://www.phantomplate.com/photoblocker.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...e&s=hi&n=228013

These guys have a buy 2 get 1 free if you have a business w/ a vehicle fleet or have a lot of vehicles.

http://www.3sxperformance.com/photoblocker.asp

[ssullivan]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/122104_local_redlight.html

I think they go up before Feb. is over but if the state strikes them down they will sit idle.  Pasadena and parts of Houston west of Montrose already have these thing as does the big airport.  Anyone know if those are in opperation currently?

There are currently NO red light cameras in Houston or Pasadena. The cameras you've seen in those areas have nothing to do with catching red light runners. They are part of Houston's smart traffic signals plan that are linked to a system that senses traffic congestion and adjusts signal timing accordingly. In some cases these cameras really do nothing more than trigger a light to change when a car approaches a very busy street from a cross street that has almost no traffic. Those cameras do not have the resolution or ability to take pictures to issue citations to red light runners. These are the exact same cameras that TxDOT has installed all over the state, sometimes in very small towns, for nothing more than detecting current traffic conditions and adjusting signal timing to match.

I've been in cities with red light cameras and I can assure you that they are not the type of camera that the city of Houston has already installed at many intersections. The red light cameras are much larger and positioned to photograph cars from behind as they go through the intersection. The cameras currently at some Houston intersections are positioned to capture traffic as it approaches the intersection and are aimed away from the traffic signals. Red light cameras are positioned such that the photograph taken of a red light runner not only captures the back of the car as it goes through the intersection, but the red light the car is running as well.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[editor]

They have these kinds of automatic ticket-issuing red light cameras in Toronto, Vancouver, and Chicago. Any other cities?

[midtown_resident]

washington dc has 'em

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[ssullivan]

I will argue however, you point that they are not able to take a picture of high enough quality & resolution to issue a citation. Some of the cameras I install are 1/10th that size (of the slender white tubes with cameras in them on top of the traffic light poles), have exceptional fixed zoom, high ccd pixel counts, and amazing color & clarity.

Yeah Glen I know there are tiny cameras capable of taking super sharp pictures from a distance. I guess I really meant these cameras as in the ones installed at the traffic signals right now. They are similar to the freeway cameras only not quite as sharp as those are. I've seen a picture once of what the traffic light cameras used for signal timing like the city has installed and it was pretty grainy and difficult to make out the detail of a license plate number on a moving object. Granted the picture I saw was two years ago but the camera it was taken from was identical in appearance to the ones the city has been installing lately. There was a little bit of a blow up in the small town I grew up in two years ago when TxDOT installed those cameras at the two traffic lights in town. Some people thought they were for red light enforcement and the real conspiracy theory nuts thought that the government was installing them to track their movements. The local paper ran an article on the subject to try and calm the paranoid people down and TxDOT worked with them to capture a couple of images from the cameras at one of the intersections that showed that the cameras weren't of sufficient resolution to capture the kind of detail necessary to identify license plates or the identities of people in the cars at the two intersections.

My understanding is that these cameras are similar to the inductive loop technology that's been used for a long time now at some signals where a loop of wire imbedded in the pavement detects traffic. Only the cameras are better because they don't require ripping up pavement and they are able to better detect smaller vehicles, such as bicycles and motorcycles, that aren't big enough to always be detected by the loops in the pavement.

[ssullivan]

Phoenix also has them.

[LarryDallas]

Interesting stuff. I worked out at the big airport until a bigger better deal last summer. The small pods over the signals on JFK at Greens road are cameras and the people who sit in the security control room at the airport can see cars in real time through them. I have no idea what the resolution is on them.

What are those metal rectangle bar like things in the roads just prior to the cross walk? Someone once told me they were sensors to time traffic lights. True or no?

BTW, if the signal post munted cams are for light timing they do a lousy job. They have them in Pasadena just inside the belt on Spencer highway. Traffic does not seem to move faster during peak hours. I've worked in that area for a few years and nothing seems to have changed. Actually, I think many people have a false understanding that those pods are a combination speed detector/cam so they tap their brakes going through the intersection. IMHO, that is more dangerous than the red light runners casue may more people drop their speed 5-10 mph than the number of people that would have run red lights.

[ssullivan]

What are those metal rectangle bar like things in the roads just prior to the cross walk?  Someone once told me they were sensors to time traffic lights.  True or no?

BTW, if the signal post munted cams are for light timing they do a lousy job.  They have them in Pasadena just inside the belt on Spencer highway.  Traffic does not seem to move faster during peak hours.  I've worked in that area for a few years and nothing seems to have changed.  Actually, I think many people have a false understanding that those pods are a combination speed detector/cam so they tap their brakes going through the intersection.  IMHO, that is more dangerous than the red light runners casue may more people drop their speed 5-10 mph than the number of people that would have run red lights.

There are some really old metal rectangular traffic detection devices in some streets around town at intersections but I think those have been phased out long ago.

As for the cameras, it all depends on how they've been programmed. I can't speak for sure, since I don't work for the city of Houston or Pasadena. But from what I've read and seen before, sometimes such detection systems are used to detect when there is excessive traffic and a longer green signal is needed. Other times they may be used where a street with low traffic volume crosses a street with a much higher traffic volume. Rather than have the signals cycle every few minutes and make cars on the busier street stop for a green cycle on the less busy street when there are no cars on the less busy street waiting at the red light, the signals just don't change until the system detects a car waiting on the less busy street. There is an intersection by my apartment complex that is programmed that way. These devices are also used sometimes for left turn signals so that the signal timing system can skip a left turn signal cycle if there are no cars actually waiting to turn left. It all depends on how the system has been programmed to operate.

[Heights2Bastrop]

A number of years ago a speed camera was set up on the Gulf Freeway around LaMarque. The system worked fine, and motorists were ticketed by mail. However, some legislative body struck down the system as unconstitutional. I thought it was a wonderful idea.

I also think the red light cameras are a great idea. They have proven to be effective in other cities, and I have seen figures where accidents had been reduced by over 40%. I

[jmancuso]

you should have a chance to fight it in court and not HAVE to pay it on demand.

[LarryDallas]

Woah, hold the phone on that one. Don't buy into the constant fear and paranoia that the media pumps you full of to get you to keep watching so you can be more terrorized and they can sell advertisers air time for higher bucks.

I hardly think of a speeder or red light runner would be classified in the same catagory as an international terrorist. And yes, big brother is a bad thing. What will be next? Will they decide to put cameras in your house to make sure that the cops will know if there is problem and they can come there in an emergency instead of you having to call them?

I can't speak for others but I would rather live a life of freedom from people knowing all about me, where I go, when I go, and what I do without the 100% gauranteed "safety" than have someone monitor things about my life which are private so I can have security (whatever that means these days).

The allocation of revenue from speeding tickets via cameras in residential areas would never be so so funds go to the area they were generated in. All you have to do to come to that conclusion is look at residential areas in upscale areas vs. the less upscale ones. Both homeowners pay taxes but the overall upkeep and repair of govt. property like streets and sidewalks is better in the upscale areas. You could argue and say that they pay more tax so they are entitled to better returns. True, but even that is not followed.

Some area 1 will get repaving and new sidewalks while area 2 gets nothing when the things in area 2 are worse. There is also usually not a proper ratio of tax revnue to return in these types of projects. If the homes in area 1 cost 10 times as much as the ones in area 2 then for every 10 feet of new road in area 1 the area 2 location should get one foot. That usually does not happend at all.

Cameras in residential areas would also perhaps prevent accidents de facto. A speed bump makes the driver slow down whereas a camera allows them to drive like an animal and get the ticket later. If someone on a bike or on foot is involved in an accident with a car the speed bump may save their life because the car had to physically slow down. A camera enforced area would allow the car to run at high speed during the crash and the odds of the victim getting hurt or killed would go up. There would be perhaps a picture of the accident taken but evidence like that after a tragic event does little good for the victim.

I'm actually for speed bumps in residential areas. The stripped 20 mph ones work very well and I'd love to have them put on my street where they sometimes do 50 mph. Physical deterence is much more effective in the moment of the violation of law.

[rantanamo]

Garland, Tx has them.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[jt16]

you should have a chance to fight it in court and not HAVE to pay it on demand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I completely agree. The camera will assume guilt without considering any facts. What happens if the car behind you is barreling down on you and it's much safer to run through the light, rather than come to a stop. I've been in situations where I drive more to protect mine and my passengers lives.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[pineda]

food for thought regarding surveillance cameras in Texas