Photo Enforcement Defeated at the Ballot Box in Texas, Ohio
Voters in College Station, Texas as well as Chillicothe and Heath, Ohio vote to ban automated ticketing machines.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2950.asp

Just use Google

2007 Virginia DOT Report Shows Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents
A new Virginia Department of Transportation study shows accidents increased by nearly a third where red light cameras were used.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp

"The ratio is 3 to1 for every 1 t-bone crash the cameras prevent they cause 3 rear-end crashes."

Source?

An NC State study determined that it reduces all forms of accidents.

"Ah, for crying out loud! The bottom line is that the intersections are clearly marked. You know the ones that have cameras. If you choose to run the light anyway, you're gonna get a ticket. Period. End of story."

No, the bottom line is the devices that were supposed to make the roads safer are in reality making them more dangerous. The ratio is 3 to1 for every 1 t-bone crash the cameras prevent they cause 3 rear-end crashes.

Don't fight math, the numbers win every time.

Sitting at the red light on Eastman Road facing Kroger I had the chance to time the caution light for the Stone Dr. traffic. 3 seconds flat. No more no less. I'm no traffic engineer, but I've owned a couple of old Fords that wouldn't stop in 4 seconds going 45 mph, the posted limit there, unless I stood on the breaks and skidded to a stop.

THESE RED LIGHT CAMERAS HAVE A BOSS HOGG RING TO IT. HIS CUT WAS ALWAYS DOWN THE MIDDLE 60/40. UNCLE JESSEE AND THE DUKE BOYS WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED.

oliver,

i wondered about the court cost part myself.

the only ticket i've ever gotten in my life was from one of those damn cameras. the last ticket i'll ever get, cus if the light changes when it's too late to stop like it was last time - you'll see me slamming on my brakes. i'll risk peeling out and getting some stares before i pay another $100 to those pricks.

anyway, i think they should knock off some of the fine if you send in a check with no disputes. where's the incentive not to go to court and clog up the system? the court cost is BS, just like most of the tickets. it's all about money. nobody gives a crap about your safety. anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

Ah, for crying out loud! The bottom line is that the intersections are clearly marked. You know the ones that have cameras. If you choose to run the light anyway, you're gonna get a ticket. Period. End of story.

REMEMBER EXTENDING THE CAUTION LIGHT BY ONE SECOND WILL REDUCE CRASHES AND CITATIONS. THIS WOULD ALSO PUT RED-FLEX OUT OF BUSINESS. WE WOULD ALL WIN. COME ON PEOPLE THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

Ok, then, justify to me (and everyone else) that speeding up to beat that red light is better than slowing down and risking getting hit from the rear.

The torsional forces from a potential side impact will more-than-likely result in higher repair costs and higher medical bills. Cars aren't designed to take side impacts like they are front and rear ones. Bumpers are there for a reason.

Wait...

How did I get down here?!

"Patriot, there's no point to prove. What part of stopping for a red light doesn't make sense?! Yellow means slow down, not floor it."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Oliver Douglas quote:

"I am not questioning the cost. I don't care if it's just $5"


Court cost or fines you are arguing semantics.

Why would the public pay to have the roads less safe is the question.

Oliver,

I think some of it comes (at least, they claim) from officers reviewing hours of red light footage to decide if a ticket is necessary. Then there's the envelope stuffers putting the ticket in the mail, plus postage, etc, etc, etc. I'm not so ignorant as to believe there's not a profit to be had in "court costs," though. At least it's not West Virginia: $168 base court costs. Speeding is only $5 per mph over for the actual violation.

Patriot, there's no point to prove. What part of stopping for a red light doesn't make sense?! Yellow means slow down, not floor it.

I am not questioning the cost. I don't care if it's just $5. My question is, if you don't go to court, how can they charge you ANYTHING?

"Court costs" implies the appearance in court and the typing of documents by someone in the clerk's office, as well as paying for the judge's time.

If one simply sends in a check or money order for the $100 and no one has to do anything except record the incoming money and stamp it to be deposited, why the $50?

No court involved; ergo, no court costs. Savvy?

Seems like you could call it "processing fee" but court costs? I think not. But then it might just be semantics.

Actually, Mr. Douglas we were on topic. The price is not the question, it's the logic of making the roads less safe with the pretence of making them more safe. If you cannot justify making the roads less safe, who cares what the cost is of the ticket?

Watch the Damned, thanks for the logic detail, I have not the patience to explain.

Question (back on subject): If you don't go to court, why is there a $50 court cost?

Have I missed something?

Also, what happened to your right to confront your accuser in court? Any idea?

Anonymous Source. Please don't ever brake check me. I have neither a license nor insurance and I may be intoxicated so my reaction time may also be impaired. I could send you a Get Well Soon card to your hospital bed from the Sullivan County Jail where I'll be serving my mandatory 4 days for driving without a license and possibly DUI. I own nothing but my car, and I suspect it will be totaled in the crash, so a lawsuit won't be much help either. I could always win the lottery someday, but to avoid paying for your convalesence, I'd have my mother turn in the winning ticket. I'd rethink that idea.

Anonymous Source, if you are willing to be a quadriplegic to prove a point, you may have other issues.

It will be very unfortunate for the individual who rear-ends me. The accident will be his fault for...

Following. Too. Closely.

So, even though I'm being fitted for a wheelchair, it's at his expense.

It's a lose/lose.

Anonymous Source quote:

"If you rear-end someone stopping at a traffic light, even if they stop suddenly, you're following too close."

When you are the one being rear-ended and you are being fitted for a wheelchair let me know how that works out for ya.

Jane,

Your idea, respectfully, sounds like those chain e-mails that made the rounds when gas was first creeping up. "Everyone don't buy X gasoline for X days!" When thinking on a macro scale, it's just unfeasible.

Better to vote those with whom you disagree out of office. Also, more predictable results. I wouldn't put it past some officials to follow the "in for a penny, in for a pound" mindset and spend thousands of dollars in small claims court for a measly $100.00 "out of principle."

I hate to keep doing this, but to quote Will A Blige:
"...RedFlex is a (sic) Australian owned business..."

Jesco:
"...redflex is a MAJOR contributor to the ACLU."

>American Civil Liberties Union
>Austrailian
>American

I see what you did there.

RE: Jesco White

I sure hope you used a large enough hook for all that bait you just cast. LOL

what no one ever tells you is that redflex is a MAJOR contributor to the ACLU. so a good bit of the money they make in kingsport is used to stamp out all remaining remnants of the fast disappearing christian god whenever possible. why i bet some of you helped fund the investigation over in gate city with your reckless driving. how does it feel to help people who hate god and everyone in the south?

If the lights were ruled unconstitutional in dippy liberal Minnesota, that speaks volumes. They will eventually be ruled unconstitutional everywhere. Kingsport, in their greed, wants to keep reaping the rewards as long as they can.

Those that like them are the selfish "me" crowd that enjoys finding ways to get someone else to pay their taxes. What makes this even more apalling is that the majority of the money goes to a company instead of Kingsport.

Take out the lights. If you do get a "bill", refuse to pay. If EVERYONE refuses to pay, they will have no choice but to take them out.

And no, I have never received one of these "bills". If I could think of a way to receive the "bills" without endangering the public, I would suggest citizens getting purposefully "billed" to swamp them with postage for the bills that yield no dollars for their coffers.

Anonymous Source

Must be one of the stupid ones I referred to earlier.

Hopefully, this new contract will be looked at more closely than the last and the city will make most of the money (unlike the current contract), and hopefully, they will choose and consider **only** bids submitted by US based compaines.

"...privacy invaded on public streets..."

I see what you did there.

Anonymous you're dead wrong. all the people that post on here in opposition to the cameras have never received tickets. and if they have, it was bs. No one on here has ever gotten a ticket from these cameras, they're all very good drivers who believe in the right to not have their privacy invaded on public streets and the right to drive as they wish because of said driving abilities. personally i think they should extend the caution to 38 seconds, that would reduce accidents to zero.

It doesn't matter if they're unconstitutional elsewhere, they're legal here. Until the Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments about the constitutionality of traffic cameras, MN laws won't be incorporated anytime soon. Maybe someone here has pockets deep enough to contest it all the way to the state supreme court?

If you rear-end someone stopping at a traffic light, even if they stop suddenly, you're following too close. Period. You're supposed to leave enough space between you and the car in front of you to cover a panic stop. You deserve the headache you'll get if you hit someone.

I wonder how a cross-indexing of those who have run red lights and gotten tickets vs. people posting on this story would look.... Probably a pretty solid correlation.

I,too,saw that at least one state (Minn)has ruled these cameras unconstitutional.So,that is simewhat heartening.But,the fact that our elected officials would put these cameras on it's citizens cannot be excused.Bottom line,in a city where the majority do not vote,city gov can & will do as it pleases.After all, they are HIGHLY educated.

Remember by adding one second to the CAUTION LIGHT would solve all the problems. Studies have proven this action is the best result not the ambush on the City Streets.

I think they should nothing else lower the total ticket down to $50.00 max.
Way it is now the ticket is $50..00 plus another 50.00 for court cost. So the ticket end up being $100.00.
the city did not break it down for the citzen to see how much the city made 100% from the $50.00 for court cost. ,if they are going to keep the fine at the same rate. Then 50% should go in program for the youth . not general funds

The greed of Kingsport city government is incredible. They install these cameras on the pretense that they make the roads safer which has been proven to be a lie and yet the BMA continues to put in jeopardy the life of every citizen of this city, so they can line the city's coffers. And the citizens of Kingsport are to stupid to know they are being scammed. Good luck Kingsport, you people are going to need it.

I read that a couple of towns in va. they took out the cameras because the people refused to pay

3 years these cameras have been standing tall in our city proving that our leaders care nothing about our right to due process.

If you do the math, we are sending somewhere near $800K a year overseas from just from Kingsport. What a racket. No wonder our economy is going to He!!. I agree with one more second on the yellow light, even with the cameras, and pay someone in Afganistan to do a study on how much we saved the citizens of K-town by doing this. Help the community, not some bunch overseas. As bugs bunny said.... WHAT A BUNCH OF MAROONS

Just extend the time on the caution light one second. That would decrease accidents and give the motorist time to stop. Plain and simple.

John, You are mistaken. The only time that these become an official citation is if you do contest it in court. The red light "bills" don't even add points against your drivers license, unless you contest it in court. It is their way of extorting the money from you out of fear. They rely on you being too afraid to contest the ticket because if you do, the bill turns into a citation and effects your driving privileges. That is why they have also added an additional fee for challenging a ticket and failing. It's a way of frightening people into just paying the bill out of fear that contesting it will end in additional fees and that it will add points toward their driving privileges.
It is their belief that they have found a loop hole in the law that doesn't allow private companies to profit from traffic citations and the law that says a citation has to be issued by a uniformed officer. Since the bill mailed to you is not an official citation they feel that they are not breaking the law.
The one and only option we have to challenge this injustice is to refuse to pay. The city doesn't get their money, they then sell your bill to a collections agency for a reduced amount and the agency then tries to collect the fine, or any settlement amount greater than they paid to acquire the bill.
Not paying the bill only sends it to collections. It DOESN'T make you a wanted felon.

I agree don't pay it. How are they gonna know if you got it in the mail it's not sent certified, just say you never got it. What can they do? Nothing..

Did you know "the Minnesota State Supreme Court found traffic cameras are not constitutional." How does Tennessee justify their cameras. Hillbillly cameras.

Will, you are wrong. If you don't pay you will go to court then pay.

I have never received a "bill" from one of these revenue generators, but if I ever do, I will NOT pay. Everyone needs to know that these are NOT traffic citations or court summons. They are a bill. Ignoring the bill will not result in loss of your driving privileges nor will they put a warrant out for your arrest. The worst they can do is turn the bill over to a collections agency at which time you can either contest the bill, settle for a fraction of the cost, or just let it drop your credit score a couple of points. Either way, we can all send Kingsport a message that their attempt to benefit, monetarily, in the name of safety will not work. If everyone who receives a bill from these unconstitutional devices refuses to pay, I guarantee they'll be cut up for scrap in a very short time.
On a side note I think that it's important that everyone knows that these cameras do not just snap a picture when someone runs a red light. they also record real time video 24/7 essentially keeping innocent population under surveillance by a foreign owned company. RedFlex is a Australian owned business, NOT based in the U.S. as they have deceivingly reported in the KTN. they merely have a U.S. office in Arizona. If you visit their website you'll see that it's all about the money. Their front page is all about investing in their money making mega machine.
We need to put a stop to this before it gets to the same level as it is in the U.K. where video cameras are used to fine you for anything and everything, including parking too long in a Pizza Hut parking lot while waiting for your food to be cooked (yep it did, and does, happen). Once the Government get a taste of the free money they can't stop. Next will come dozens of new driving/parking ordinances that serve only to fill the city coffers with the glorious sound of jingling coins.

What survey?

I just completed one of AARP's surveys, sorry kingsport.

They've achieved their goal, more rear-end wrecks and their money has gone out the roof. Whoopi for kingport.