Latest Headlines
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
- Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Food Distribution Held Friday In Walnut Hill, Saturday In Cantonment
- Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
- Still Time To Sign Up! Let The Miracle League Fry Your Thanksgiving Turkey
- Tate Aggies Beat Atmore Blue Devils 71-68 In Nailbiter Home Opener (With Gallery)
- FDLE Charges Escambia Man With Child Porn Possession
- Cantonment Man Charged With Sexual Battery, Molestation Of 5-Year-Old
- Truck Driver Airlifted After Crash On Quintette Road
Escambia Considering Red Light Cameras, Could Net $3 Million Per Year
July 23, 2010
Escambia County is considering the installation of red light cameras in anticipation of adding up to $3 million per year to the county’s coffers.
“Escambia County is interested in pursuing installation of red light cameras at locations exhibiting substantial incidences of red light violations to improve enforcement capabilities,” Interim County Administrator Larry Newsom said in his written recommendation to the county commission.
The Florida Legislature approved the use of red light cameras earlier this year, with the law taking effect on July 1. According to Newsom, Sheriff David Morgan is interested in pursuing installation at problem intersections, and the idea is supported by the county’s traffic operations staff.
The automated cameras snap a photo of the car and license plate of alleged red light runners, and the driver receives a $158 citation in the mail — along with a photo of the violation. Of the $158 fine, Escambia County would retain $75. With 20 camera locations, Escambia County would earn as estimated $2-3 million per year.
The Sheriff’s Department would be responsible for providing trained traffic enforcement officer to review the photos and other evidence prior to a citation being issued. A portion of the county’s revenue would be transferred to the sheriff for increased personnel costs.
The county will hold a public hearing on August 19 at 5:30 prior to a commission meeting on a proposed red light camera ordinance.
Comments
59 Responses to “Escambia Considering Red Light Cameras, Could Net $3 Million Per Year”
Some info on the tepid success – at best – of red light cameras:
Federal Highway Administration report that cameras reduce right-angle crashes while increasing rear-end crashes:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
Article with links about cameras reducing violations but increasing accidents (but if they reduce violations enough to not be profitable, they remove them):
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080313/231629539.shtml
Article about cities shortening yellow lights to increase violations after installing cameras:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10458570-71.html
Site about yellow light shortening… of particular interest is the “Red Light Camera Information” section:
http://www.shortyellowlights.com/
If the cameras truly did what they were supposed to do, not many would have a problem with them. Unfortunately, they have unintended consequences, and enable the tweaking of an intersection to increase violations for more revenue.
If you cut all those fat cat paychecks that work for the county and Sheriff’s office you won’t have to give people tickets.
JustAnOld Soldier; your basic premise is right. If reducing violations is truly the goal, a police presence at certain times will work. It also helps to have lights properly synchronized. Have you ever drove down a street where you had to stop at most intersections due to the lights not being timed? This bogs down traffic flow, and frustrates drivers, so any improvement in synchronization will cut violations, along with a proper yellow time within each signal. This has shown to cut violations substantially. As to the blatant red light runners, an immediate blue light special will not only send a message to them but to everyone else.
For an example of how the camera companies do not want improvements to our highways for it cuts into profits:
Washington: Camera Companies Oppose Congestion Reduction Measure
Red light camera makers fund battle against Washington state ballot initiative designed to fight congestion.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2579.asp
One person talks about using cameras for surveillance purposes and nothing wrong with that, for the issue here is the cameras are used in conjunction with other mechanical equipment for the sole purpose of generating citations. If these systems were about improving a traffic situation, then why do they take measures to insure a constant rate of citations and where they have had a drop in citations (some cities also changed signal timing as part of the deal for camera systems and saw a drop in citations) the private company running the system pulls out.
An example of the system not delivering on safety or on profit:
Arizona: City Dumps Money Losing Traffic Cameras
Avondale, Arizona cancels photo enforcement after it failed to generate accident reduction or profit.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3054.asp
REGARDING:
“how about just putting some law enforcement at the locations of the worst red light running. . . . Want to stretch the Escambia County budget? Reduce expenditures, and look at ways to stretch the dollars that the taxpayers contribute to the general fund.”
Reduce expnditures and put more officers on the traffic lights? Wouldn’t you have to pay the more officers? Wouldn’t that raise expenditures?
AND
“I believe this technology is a lazy man’s way out of the red light running problem ”
I agree, it looks like the lazy way to remedy the red light running problem. No car in hot pursuit. No officers tied up to do what a camera could do just as well. No sleeping. No potty breaks.
Should we always take the hard way?
David thinking tools are handy
Instead of getting a contraption that will squeeze dollars out of our citizens, how about just putting some law enforcement at the locations of the worst red light running.
I’m tired of watching people run through our traffic lights like they weren’t there, but I am also suspicious of a technological solution that will be expensive (as previously noted by others), and will likely grow our local government’s power over a citizen’s right to a fair system and a right to challenge the accuser.
I believe this technology is a lazy man’s way out of the red light running problem – and I strongly object to the use of this system in our county. Big Brother can stay out of our county.
I’m all for law enforcement, but I would rather have the trained eyes of an officer that can show up in court over the easily manipulated technology that county administrators hope will be a cash coffer or cash cow.
Want to stretch the Escambia County budget? Reduce expenditures, and look at ways to stretch the dollars that the taxpayers contribute to the general fund. Be responsible with the taxpayer’s hard earned money, otherwise you might find fewer and fewer taxpayers.
REGARDING:
“If you come upon a traffic signal that has been deliberately shortened below the engineering standards and you have to choose between slamming on the brakes to stop thus threatening a good rear ending versus getting the ticket, then see how you feel about the system afterwards.”
If you DO, then YES, throw a run-mad fit. You don’t have to assume it will happen just because it CAN happen. For that matter, they can do such trickery without using traffic cameras. I remember back when Century used to require a certain number of speeding citations per officer per shift. The town council was upset to discover it was illegal. Same thing here.
One of the benefits of living in the Sunshine State is the Sunshine Laws which would not allow such foolishness to go on too long. Fred Levin (my hero!) would save us if nobody else did. You can point out abuses and poor designs. That is good because that points out what to avoid.
Here’s another thought: You know how they use LEDs, just a bunch of glowing dots in an array to make the traffic lights? You also know how most images are made of picture elements, pixels which are basically small dots in an array? Now imagine incorporating in the amber lights a countdown to let folks know how many seconds before the amber light goes red 8 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1 – RED. (or however many seconds the things are amber)
It might help, might hurt, just a thought.
David for informed drivers
REGARDING:
“And David Huie Green, you should consider running for office, with the excuses you keep coming up with you sound like you would fit in with our corrupt hall of fame.
put the doughnut down and get a job producing rather than robbing.”
I DO like doughnuts.
But you seem to think I am involved in law enforcement. I’m not. I’m just tired of folks who think they have a right to run over anybody who gets in their way.
I’m not excusing them. Why are you?
“You knew exactly what I was saying. That was entirely asinine.
What I was referring to was a traffic study to see what problems existed at the light; not allowing for stupid excuses by drivers.”
as·i·nine
1. ridiculous: utterly ridiculous or lacking sense
2. like ass: relating to or resembling an ass
[15th century. < Latin asininus < asinus "ass"]
I had never looked up that word before. Thanks for inspiring me to check. I've been called a lot worse.
It doesn't really matter so much what you had in mind when you wrote it. It just made me think of the excuses people DO use when involved in a fatal crash. You aren’t stupid and I don’t intend to act like you are but we both know people who will use any excuse to justify what they’ve done wrong. I listed a few.
Studies are good. Road improvements are good. Timing improvements are good. Sometimes people are bad, though.
I’m not worried about Big Brother on public roads. As long as government stays outside the house, it isn’t Big Brother. I’ve long wanted better monitoring of roads and intersections. I’ve seen plenty of bad drivers who drove that way a long time before getting others injured or killed. This strikes me as a way to get to them sooner and save a few lives in the process.
I don’t care where the money goes if it succeeds in saving a few lives. With proper monitoring, we could find DUIs, careless drivers, speeders, daredevils. Done properly we could even find robbers and murderers simply by knowing who was on the public roads in the area at the time of the crimes.
Nobody has a right to privacy in public. It’s a contradiction of terms. Public safety shouldn't be.
this county is broke and you want to give an out-of-state company %60 of whatever they can take form the people, we need a Robin Hood to stop the county spending and let the people keep it.
And David Huie Green, you should consider running for office, with the excuses you keep coming up with you sound like you would fit in with our corrupt hall of fame.
put the doughnut down and get a job producing rather than robbing.
Jan Brewer from Arizona has it right… keep the spy cams out of our county.
This isn’t about a guilty conscience, this is about abusing a policing policy for revenue generation. If you come upon a traffic signal that has been deliberately shortened below the engineering standards and you have to choose between slamming on the brakes to stop thus threatening a good rear ending versus getting the ticket, then see how you feel about the system afterwards.
@David
You usually write a very good post. You knew exactly what I was saying. That was entirely asinine.
What I was referring to was a traffic study to see what problems existed at the light; not allowing for stupid excuses by drivers.
You can do better than that.
REGARDING:
“I wonder if it would be too much trouble to examine why the intersection is a problem, i.e., timing of lights, congestion issues, visibility, necessity of the light in the first place, etc.”
“But officer, I had to run the light because it was timed wrong. It tried to stop ME. Sorry about the dead kids; they shouldn’t have gotten in my way, though.”
“But officer, I had to run the light because it was so congested and I was in a hurry. I couldn‘t wait an extra minute or two to go through legally. I had to get through it and on my way. Sorry about the dead kids. Look on the bright side: The mother’s young. She can have more after she heals.”
“But officer, I had to run the red light because I couldn’t see anybody and was in a hurry. They need to fix the visibility problem or maybe put up some sort of signal so folks won‘t have to see cars coming from the side. Sorry about the old lady. She shouldn’t have tried to run that green light.”
“But officer, I had to run the light because it shouldn’t have been there in the first place. There isn’t enough traffic to justify one. Sorry about your wife, though. You know it‘s partly her fault, she should have been looking out for people like me who run red lights and YOU should have been here to stop me, not some silly camera.”
There may be problems which should be addressed, but surely risking killing people isn’t the solution. Slow down, save a life or if that doesn’t matter to you: avoid risking dents in your car.
David for not having to say you’re sorry
SW, apparently people have short memories, or a lot of trust. It’s only been a few months ago that four of our five county commissioners were going to change a already decided seal bid to satisfy one of their good old boys over a few thousand dollars. No telling what they might try to come up with for that extra three million dollars.
@AL
No. Just don’t trust the government.
It makes me laugh that so many people start crying about extra law enforcement. Guilty conscience much? lol
To me, it’s just about principle. Do we really need or want ‘Big Brother’ watching us?
I wonder if it would be too much trouble to examine why the intersection is a problem, i.e., timing of lights, congestion issues, visibility, necessity of the light in the first place, etc.
It’s not about simply ‘not running the red light’. It’s about our government devising ways to circumvent the rule of law and about another way to generate revenue. Sure, it will be justified as fines against lawbreakers; but is that what it really is?
I am all for law enforcement when it is for the public safety; I am not for using law enforcement as armed revenue collectors.
“an extra 2 – 3 million a year will be EARNED. ”
an extra 2 – 3 million a year will be taken in fines from law breakers
there’s an error in the story. it says an extra 2 – 3 million a year will be EARNED. nothing will be earned, money will be TAKEN from those who work for it and given to those that can’t make an honest living.
All the wonderful checks mentioned are just simply not working. As previously stated; I was ticketed in Phoenix for a rental car that I was not driving.
They aren’t working or they aren’t being worked? It’s possible to devise a system to rip off the law abiding citizens. It’s possible to devise a system to punish the guilty and not the innocent.
It can be done either way. Nothing is certain where humans are involved.
That’s why we need checks and balances on power. Some would do it with civil disobedience, but that’s hard when involving traffic signals. Some would do it with lawyers, but that’s expensive. Some would do it with letters and phone calls to legislators and papers insisting the proper system be put in place and followed.
Take your pick.
“I would recommend that those contemplating breaking the law should become familiar with the Florida State Statutes and avoid legal advice from “internet lawyers”.
Nobody including me ever claimed to be an internet lawyer. Why are you so ruffled by the fact that not everybody agrees with or abides by every single law that’s on the books? Everybody on this board is capable of making their own decisions in life.
You sound like an obedient little citizen John, the government and your parents must be very proud of you.
They did the same thing in Phoenix and there are several ways to fight the violation. They ended up spending more money on processing these cases through the system to have the people get the violation revoked. They have been proven useless in bigger cities. What is the point in getting them here? It will be a waste of time and money.
prevention is whats needed…since we are not going to do that…lets make some money on it. Turning into a business huh ? Everything is all about money now…wont be long…this thing reminds me of the “SIN TAXES ” on smoking and drinking..the people are not going to quit right ?…so lets make some money on them. Might be a good business venture in here somewhere for us too…mmm
Red Light Cameras are just another source of revenue for spend happy politicians.
All the wonderful checks mentioned are just simply not working. As previously stated; I was ticketed in Phoenix for a rental car that I was not driving. I eventually was refunded the $180. paid to protect my FL drivers license three months later after much aggravation and proving that I was not driving that car. Most anyone experiencing this would not think the cameras were such a good idea.
If we were to do something worthwhile to prevent drivers running red lights it would entail:
A comprehensive driving test to get and retain a drivers license.
Real punishment for, driving without a valid license or no drivers license.
Severe punishment for causing a collision with another vehicle.
Don’t run the light and you won’t have to worry about it.
NOW, lets see if we can get a “METHBUSTER” in Molino
When you get a ticket the insurance company is told of this. If someone else is driving you auto and gets a ticket could someone please tell me if their insurance is contacted or yours. I believe it would be yours since it is your auto that person was driving. so if someone borrows your auto runs the light you would get the ticket and points on drivers licence because tag shows in your name.
be careful what you do the eye in the sky is watching
What insurance company is called the person driving the auto or the owner of the auto on the tag. Who gets the points on the licenens, The person driving or the owner of that auto that run the light. What a can of worms.
If they are gonna a picture of tags and send you a ticket, why can’t you take a picture of the money and send that picture to them?
REGARDING:
“It always gets me when the government officials act like they have a conservative ideology and then plan on doing something like this that violates the Constitution, because you don’t have the right to see your accuser. ”
Let us consider the statement, “ . . . trained traffic enforcement officer to review the photos and other evidence prior to a citation being issued. ”
The trained traffic enforcement officer is the accuser and will be there in court to accuse the defendant. The Constitution is satisfied.
And it is generally considered conservative ideology to stop crime, punish criminals and make them pay.
It is generally considered liberal/progressive ideology to look for and/or create loopholes which allow criminals to get away with murder–unless they are rich criminals, of course.
David for keeping
our ideologies straight,
no matter which we favor
Generally speaking, the cameras are set up to photograph the driver and the tag. There is a time delay to allow people in the intersection at the time of the light change to clear the intersection before considering them to have run the red light–usually a couple of seconds, which at thirty miles per hour would let them travel 88 feet, plenty of time to clear the intersection unless you are stuck there because of a traffic jam ahead of you.
If the high resolution cameras were tied to a regular video recording, the officer watching the event could tell the most important thing–if the driver entered the intersection AFTER the light changed. There would certainly be no question about right on red after full stop–or stuck due to traffic jam.
You really do want to catch the guilty (unless it’s you or me, of course). You want a record of their habits if they run a red light later and hurt somebody. This is also helpful just in case of a crash; eliminate the question of exactly what each driver did.
I have watched at the intersection of 95A and 9 Mile Road as two cars flew through the intersection AFTER my light had turned green. That meant the light on the first driver’s side had been red at least two seconds already when he shot through, even longer for the one tailing him. THOSE drivers should have their autos confiscated and auctioned off–that would REALLY bring in some revenue.
David for a safer world
with criminals footing the tab
William, LOL!
In response to whitepunknotondope’s advice of:
“For all you anti-gov types: You can take steps to thwart this. There are products you can spray on your license plate to increase glare which will make it difficult for the cops to read the plate off the photo. Or you can cover the plate with a dark plastic cover.”
If anyone plans to try this, be advised that it is NOT just an “infraction”.
As Oversight pointed out, it is a misdemeanor, which subjects you to ARREST.
I would recommend that those contemplating breaking the law should become familiar with the Florida State Statutes and avoid legal advice from “internet lawyers”.
I would also suggest that if you disagree with this proposal, attend the public hearing and make your objections known.
Well here they go again. They have thought up another way to take our money and it is a win, win for the county and the insurance companys.
Here is the thing I don’t get about red light cameras. I can go under a yellow light never see the red of the light, yet get tickeded for being in the intersection on a red light. How did I run a red light if I never seen the red light? Think about how many people will slam on brakes and get rear ended. If it was truely needed I might could go for it, but its just another lie to take our money. I guess they like this idea because it almost looks like free money. They company sets it all up and one officer reviews the pictures and as usual the government robbs the people they represent. Of course is it in the name of public safety and that makes it O.K.
http://fireredflex.com/ethics.html
“Every ticket Redflex issued between 1997 and 2008 is now in question,” said Dow.
Dow said facts unveiled as a result of the lawsuit could provide legal grounds to challenge thousands of Redflex photo radar tickets issued before August 2008.
If you enter an intersection at a slow speed (for many safety reasons), you will not clear it and be ticketed.
This is only about more revenue……………………
Elect representative people that are capable of balancing a budget.
I received a speeding ticket on a rental car in Phoenix that I had rented. I was not driving the car!
It always gets me when the government officials act like they have a conservative ideology and then plan on doing something like this that violates the Constitution, because you don’t have the right to see your accuser.
Think about it. The government doesn’t generate revenue except through taxes, fines/penalties, and fees.
I guess it’s ok for some punk to give advice, but forbid it if another does. At least I didn’t make a suggestion to do something illegal in a contemptuous attempt to outsmart the law. Advice: Drive with due regard toward every intersection control device because one should ready for the unexpected like those who would attempt to “beat the light.” My last comment on this topic – if you have issue with red light cameras, take it up with your county commissioner.
Wake up people use your head on this issue… crime will not be reduced, in fact many cities and towns have have accused the red-light ticket company of committing crimes by subverting the law.
DO WE REALLY NEED ELECTRONIC MERCENARIES???
Is the county that broke, and out of control?
So it is about revenue generation. Oh, by the way, it’ll make things safer, too. This just proves to me that our public officials think we are ignorant.
Who will be working the rear-end collisions that will probably increase because people panic stop to avoid getting a ticket? How does that work for ‘Right Turn on Red’?
Who will get the ticket owner of auto or driver? Also, if you are pulled over get a ticket what insurance will this go against the person that is driving the auto or the owner of that auto ? I think it would be the person that it belongs to because you have to show proof of insurance. Could someone tell me the answer.
Will this go against the insurance of the person that the auto belongs to or the person that is driving the auto??????? If a person is driving someone else auto and pulled over and gets a ticket what insurance will this go against the owner or the driver?????? Could someone answer this question?
“Ok – here it is spelled out for all of you who want to “hide” your license plates:”
Nobody on here said they wanted to hide their license plates, so nobody needs YOU to “spell it out” for us. Who do you think you are?
“Advice: Slow down and when the light turns yellow prepare to stop instead of stomping on the gas pedal. It could save your life or the life of another.”
This advice is not valid in every circumstance as the situation is not black and white, please read my earlier post for more sensible information.
I’m not opposed to the camera as long as there are warning signs conspicuously posted at every camera location. This would give drivers
a fair chance to avaoid the automated citations.
The scoflaws would then have absolulutely no excuse!
Ok – here it is spelled out for all of you who want to “hide” your license plates:
“F.S.S. 320.061 Unlawful to alter motor vehicle registration certificates, license plates, mobile home stickers, or validation stickers or to obscure license plates; penalty.
No person shall alter the original appearance of any registration license plate, mobile home sticker, validation sticker, or vehicle registration certificate issued for and assigned to any motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner. No person shall apply or attach any substance, reflective matter, illuminated device, spray, coating, covering, or other material onto or around any license plate that interferes with the legibility, angular visibility, or detectability of any feature or detail on the license plate or interferes with the ability to record any feature or detail on the license plate. Any person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree…”
Advice: Slow down and when the light turns yellow prepare to stop instead of stomping on the gas pedal. It could save your life or the life of another.
I’m glad to see that most people know this is all about money, but expect county officials to lie to you and tell you that it’s about safety. It’s good that the law requires that before a citation can be issued it has to be reviewed by a officer. I think this comes about from what happen in south Florida, one city was using the cameras and had to refund about 70% of the fines collected. They were letting the company that installed the cameras send out the citations, the company wasn’t in Florida and nobody told them that it was legal to turn right on red in Florida. It’s a known fact that in some places they shorten the yellow light to catch people that’s to close to the intersection to make a safe stop. Just wandering if some of these people that’s all for this will be happy and smiling when they are writing that $158 check if they happen to be one of the unlucky ones to become the victim of a shorten yellow light. It’s also been noted that rear end accidents go up when the yellow light is shortened. With all this county has been guilty of trying to make a dollar, I wouldn’t be surprised if they completely eliminated the yellow light to catch more people. Remember people, it’s 100% about making money safety has absolutely nothing to do with this.
LE Supporter: I do know the facts. That part of my post was for ANTI-GOV types, if you read it again you may see that.
Just because YOU “support” LEO doesn’t mean everybody else does. If I wanted to use one those techniques (which I don’t by the way) I damn well would and I wouldn’t give a cow’s udder what you or any other LEO “supporter” or LEO thought about it.
I’d also like to explain a bit of misinformation that is drilled into us from the time we are children.
Red does mean STOP. Green does mean GO. But yellow does NOT mean go slow in the context of an intersection.
In an intersection, yellow means the light is going to turn red in a matter of “x” seconds. The only situation where you would slow down is if you are approaching the intersection but not yet in it. If you ARE in the intersection or you are coming up at speed limit TO the intersection and the light turns yellow, you have to make a safety judgment call to either stop if you can safely do so, or you should continue to go through the intersection at speed limit. After your light turns red, the opposing traffic will not get THEIR green light for another couple of seconds. This is a necessary built-in safety measure by the DOT.
Bottom line is, this device can be useful for catching blatant red light runners, but more often penalizes people for driving the only sensible way there is to drive.
On the show Mythbusters, they easily beat the red light camera without obscuring the license plate. They simply ran the light at 170 mph.
I’m thinking 170 mph is a bad idea on Davis Highway.
To “whitepunknotondope” Tinted license plate covers are illegal, as well as anything that changes the appearance of your plate from any angle… No the camera won’t catch it that time, but Police will stop and write for these violations. Know the facts before posting.
“Escambia County is interested in pursuing installation of red light cameras at locations exhibiting substantial incidences of red light violations to improve enforcement capabilities,”
Basically, beware of large intersections where the distance to travel across the intersection is considerable. Translation: you have to travel a greater distance to clear the intersection and a camera is more likely to snap your pic before you cross. Those are the money makers, and make no mistake, when they talk about 3 million dollars in the public statement, this is ALL ABOUT REVENUE.
For all you anti-gov types: You can take steps to thwart this. There are products you can spray on your license plate to increase glare which will make it difficult for the cops to read the plate off the photo. Or you can cover the plate with a dark plastic cover.
There are are two types of people who will get snared by this system: the very small minority who actually run through a red light, and the vast majority who will be paying fines because they went through yellow and the camera snapped before they cleared. The only way I would support this concept is if the fines were only sent to drivers whose front bumper was less than halfway through the intersection when the light turned red.
Is this the first step to eliminating police officers? Or just an effort to place police in areas that they are needed more.Guess we will see.
I would feel better if I knew all of this was about safety. We all know they only see the 3 Million per year revenue. When was the last time you saw a deputy sitting at a traffic signal waiting for red light runners? Case proven
It’s all about the mighty dollar, go eSCAMbia!
Love it!!!!!! “Alleged” light runners? Escambia County has needed these for a long time. I use the “5 second rule” and look both ways before moving forward after a light turns green.
Yes, go for it! Better this than raise our taxes.
(nytimes)PHOENIX — At the first tick of the clock Friday, an array of automated cameras on Arizona freeways aimed at catching speeders were to stop clicking.
…. Less than a third of the 1.2 million tickets issued were paid, and the state collected $78 million, far below the projected $120 million annual revenue.
Some of those tickets, typically $181 apiece, no doubt were lost in the mail; others no doubt were not paid as violators tested a legal theory that they needed to be served in person. Process servers who were supposed to follow up could hardly keep up with the load.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us/16camera.html