Latest Headlines
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To Prison For Drug Possession, Evidence Tampering, Fleeing
- A Warming Trend To Begin Thanksgiving Week
- Central High Cheerleaders Perform At Halftime Of Alabama Game
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
- Hundreds Of Families Receive Thanksgiving Meal During Food Distribution
- Two Northview High Career Academies Create Food Cart
- Escambia County Corrections Welcomes 12 New Officer Trainees
- 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
Escambia Moves Toward Red Light Cameras, Could Net $3 Million Per Year
September 17, 2010
Escambia County moved toward 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.
A citation will not go on a driver’s record if the fine is paid.
The county will give the county 30 days notice of the red light camera locations prior to their installation.
Comments
74 Responses to “Escambia Moves Toward Red Light Cameras, Could Net $3 Million Per Year”
I am glad they are looking at putting these into place! They will make a difference.
These red light cameras have an nothing to do with revenue. They fine us $10 or $400 per ticket. The bottom line is still the same: obey traffic laws to keep you and others safe on the road.
Finally! I’m tired of people thinking there are no consequences for their dangerous actions, especially running red lights! Maybe after a few tickets they’ll change this bad behavior!
I just don’t understand the idea of this being a scam to make money. Putting up Red Light Cameras will help prevent accidents. You can’t put a price tag on safety and if you obey the law you have nothing to worry about.
And so what if money is the motivation? If that’s the kind of pain it takes to make our streets safer so be it – let the people that break the laws help balance our budget. I see far more statistics and reports, from non-interested parties, that indicate reduced accident rates and traffic deaths.
REGARDING YOUR CITATION:
“There have not been significant reductions in collisions, while only a few of these collisions during this time frame, have actually resulted from a red light violation.”
There were few collisions due to red light violation. One wonders if there were always few or if they went down due to surveillance.
“Despite the dismal results in Grande Prairie, city officials insist their camera program should be expanded. The province recently authorized issuing automated speeding citations from the existing red light camera units.”
The elected officials looked at the results and decided they were having a problem with speeders and decided to crack down on that problem using the existing set-up.
“Only a third of citations issued by the camera program went to straight through violations. Instead, the majority of tickets were issued to drivers who made right-hand turns on red. The number of turning violations would have been higher, but several of the camera-equipped intersections had dedicated turning lanes without traffic signals.”
So given the legality of “right on red after full stop” here in this state, there would have been few violations with the system in place?
“The review found that after a full year of use, cameras generated $1.2 million in revenue along with a 126 percent increase in injury collisions.”
So the result WAS more injuries, but it does not report what the change–if any–in fatalities was. Again, a scratch and a crush are both injuries but if I had to choose…..
REGARDING:
” why accept a system that does not address the causes when engineering measures need to be improved and why not push for random policing that puts a public presence on enforcement and stops the violator at the time of infraction?”
And MY confusion is why you assume it must be an EITHER/OR situation? Surely engineering improvements CAN be made, surely random policing CAN be done, surely red light cameras WILL identify problem areas and problem people.
Nothing I have seen indicates only one is allowed and the others have to be ignored.
David for concerted efforts toward public safety
Regarding injuries and accident rates; one report:
excerpt:
“These findings are consistent with independent studies conducted over the past decade that have documented significant increases in both overall and injury accidents where red light cameras are used (view studies). Despite the dismal results in Grande Prairie, city officials insist their camera program should be expanded. The province recently authorized issuing automated speeding citations from the existing red light camera units.”
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2936.asp
I guess my confusion with supporters of these systems is this: why accept a system that does not address the causes when engineering measures need to be improved and why not push for random policing that puts a public presence on enforcement and stops the violator at the time of infraction? Because the money flow is just not there with these measures.
It is amazing how many of you will automatically accept the notion that all citizens who get tickets by these devices are guilty, and any measure to write citations is good. The problem is you are sacrificing sound policing methods and sacrificing sound engineering measures that do provide better public safety for a ruse. These systems have been installed not to improve safety but to generate revenue, and if it takes poorly marked intersections, short yellow signal times, etc. to keep citation counts high that is what they will do.
As to these systems reducing injury accidents, not true. Several independent studies show increase in accidents and in injuries.
Why compromise your principals, your established legal procedures, and your safety?
DriveSafe, if you are quoting the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety’s statistics, don’t bother. They lie through their teeth in undying support of these systems, and their goal is to get points added. You see the IIHS is an organization funded by insurance companies, and this has nothing to do with public safety for independent studies show that it does not improve safety. It is about how to make more money.
I guess one could look at traffic light cameras much like the lottery-a voluntary tax. The only cost is to the ones who participate.
I wouldn’t bank on that $3M, once the reckless drivers KNOW they will get caught they WILL adjust their behavior and the number of citations (and revenue!) will drop, but so will the number of collisions, injuries and deaths – and THAT is the whole point in having traffic laws in the first place!
Am I for personal responsibility while driving? You betcha. Am I for obeying traffic lights/signals/rules? Sure am. Am I for cameras that keep people honest at red lights? Y.E.S.
Glad to have them.
Technology is the name of the game, followed by as much publicity about the locations as possible.
the only reason that there is an easy profit off of these is because people make it that way. Just because people have been running red lights and getting away with it does not make it acceptable. The cameras are just unpopular because it is actual holding drivers accountable for their actions.
I support safe drivers and the ticketing of drivers who break the law.
Why are people so upset. We all know that running a red light is against the law and now that the police have an effective tool to crack down on the infraction people are upset. The only reason they generate revenue is that there is obviously a problem with drivers running red lights. Personally I would rather the government generate revenue from voluntary donations (red light running) than from increasing taxes on all of us.
This could be a really good thing for the county. I don’t want people to think they can get away with speeding, especially when it puts others on the road at risk. The cameras should be a good way to crack down on the criminals who make roads dangerous.
REGARDING:
“I’ve asked before, so once more: what other policing policy trades one form of accident for another and calls it a success?”
I thought I answered that question in concept. If the collisions which were reduced were those which are fatal, then an increase in collisions which are not fatal could be considered a success. I don’t know that they are, just that if they were, then they would be a success.
I’m pretty sure nobody’s thrown out any hard numbers here, though. Say you reduced T-bone fatalities by a hundred and had one hundred and one rear end collisions with no fatalities, then that would be one more collision and one hundred fewer fatalities. That is just an example not that I think those numbers would apply, it’s just an example where you asked how an increase in “accidents” could be called a success.
I can’t bring myself to call them “accidents“ myself because safety is no accident; it is the result of intentional actions of those involved. If people are careful, you won’t have people running red lights or running into the rear of other people.
People really should be careful while driving.
David for responsibility
The use of camera enforcement will bring added safety for drivers and pedestrians to Escambia County. With nearly 1,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries nationally each year as the result of red light running, red-light camera enforcement is a valuable pro-safety tool. There are numerous credible studies that show that red-light camera enforcement reduces red light running and intersection collisions. The debate in the Florida legislature prior to passage of the new statewide law contains several citations to these studies and this evidence was considered by the members of the legislature.
Some latest news on camera systems and their real mission: generating revenue.
California: Red Light Camera Company Gives City a Ticket
Grand Terrace, California forced to pay Australian red light camera company $72,204 to avoid late fees.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3267.asp
David, the problem with camera systems is they are not used to improve safety, but to generate revenue. If citation counts go down, other cities/counties have shortened yellow signal timings to get them back up. Charlotte put cameras (since removed due to violation of State Constitution) at intersections not with high accident rates but those with poor visibility and approaches, which is another way to keep citation counts high. There are also viable simply ways to improve red light running: synchronization of lights (how many streets will not allow smooth flow of traffic thus frustrating drivers?), signal timing for the speed limit, clearly marked intersections especially those in curves or hills, etc. When these measures have been done real improvements in violation counts are observed and no third party, for-profit, working on a commission basis company is involved.
I’ve asked before, so once more: what other policing policy trades one form of accident for another and calls it a success? This is not about the law on red light running, and it is not as bad as the camera companies say it is. It is a small per centage of total wrecks, but it is a source of income easily obtained. How is the appeal going to be set up for your system? If it is like most others, you will find it very difficult to get an appeal no matter what evidence you have to show innocence.
didn’t say they wouldn’t, just that they shouldn’t and that we would have to be careful to make sure they didn’t
Not only should the county notify people where a camera will be located, but also how the rules will be applied. I don’t care how they are applied as long as they are applied equally if one person is going to get a ticket for a rolling right on red then everyone should get one for that offense, including the sheriff. Everyone should be allowed to watch the video that is used against them without it taking an act of congress to see it. Don’t the U. S. Constitution say we have a right to face our accuser. Of course this county wouldn’t shorten the amber light, just like they wouldn’t rebid a job so a friend could get it.
REGARDING:
“what will the Highway Patrol be doing all this time, writing speeding tickets on the interstate? Why do people not call the FHP to complain about intersections and traffic problems instead of the Sheriff’s department? Why should it have to be up to the Sheriff?”
Beats me, but they always assure me they are overworked, especially after we have to wait over an hour for one to come to a wreck and he tells us he was working in Panama City when he got the call.
I also don’t know who people call to complain, since I never complain myself. (Comment? Yes. Complain? No.) Further, I have no idea whether or not Sheriff Morgan forwards complaint to the proper authorities, I assume he does since he assures us he has our best interests at heart.
I believe a person should not be involved in work machines can do better. That lowers the person to the level of a mindless machine and I think better of people than that.
This sixty-forty split of revenues is a silly question. How fines are divided is not important; whether or not public safety is improved IS important. The people who talk about shortening amber light time to increase revenue are addressing possible abuses. That does NOT mean it HAS to happen, it is just something of which to beware.
If it hurts public safety, I’m agin’ it; if it helps, I’m fer it.
David for an even better world
REGARDING:
“The big thing is the government doesn’t (yet) tell me I have to carry a cell phone. “
Don’t worry, I doubt they ever will. Enough will willingly do so if it ever comes to that. The fun thing is that they COULD monitor the location of every cell phone in the country if they wanted to do so. I enjoy mentioning that to the paranoiacs who need aluminum foil hats.
AND
“That might be why I don’t trust big brother as much as Joe Average.”
“If you can keep your head when those around you are losing theirs and blaming it on you” then you just don’t understand the problem. Somebody in government WILL abuse power if given the chance. I figure monitoring public spaces isn’t abuse, but is what they SHOULD do.
AND
“one man got three tickets in Houston, – - – My question, if this is about safety and not money, what difference would it make if you stopped 1 foot or 10 feet behind the white line as long as your stop allowed you clear vision of the intersection and to safely make your turn.”
Beats me, I’m not involved in law enforcement, but I must point out that the best officers work here and places like Houston have to make do with second best at best.
David for the best
David,
I’m well aware of the GPS in cell phones, 5 or 6 years ago I used mine to call in a bad accident that was well out in the woods. Even with the trees limiting visibility life flight flew almost directly over us on the first pass. GPS can be great when used correctly, I usually carry one when I’m hunting or fishing in case I have to call 911 I can give correct coordinates using it. The big thing is the government doesn’t (yet) tell me I have to carry a cell phone. I worked in electronics for years, and still try to keep up to date with electronic devices and gadgets. I also worked with and around some of those three letter government agencies that are known for tracking people. That might be why I don’t trust big brother as much as Joe Average.
I read comments in other media, where one man got three tickets in Houston, for turning right on red. He said the first was for a rolling stop, the second he came to a complete stop, but got a ticket because he stopped to far back from the white line, I think he said 4 or 5 feet behind the line. My question, if this is about safety and not money, what difference would it make if you stopped 1 foot or 10 feet behind the white line as long as your stop allowed you clear vision of the intersection and to safely make your turn.
So, David, what will the Highway Patrol be doing all this time, writing speeding tickets on the interstate? Why do people not call the FHP to complain about intersections and traffic problems instead of the Sheriff’s department? Why should it have to be up to the Sheriff? Oh, I know, politics. No politician wants to ask for help from another agency; they must be the one to solve the problem so they can get the credit toward that vote next election.
Not to minimize the serious nature of speeding; however, FHPs basic job is traffic enforcement and accident investigation, right? Let a Trooper look at the photos or sit at the intersections; free up that Deputy. I am more in favor of the Sheriff taking care of his business with traffic in the background and FHP doing more effective traffic enforcement.
I guess I feel that protecting our property and our community from thieves, burglars, drug addicts and pushers, to be a bit more important than writing traffic tickets; always have.
I go back to my original thought that if I really felt the cameras were for public safety instead of a way of using the law enforcement arm as a way of creating revenue, I might feel differently.
Ifish4,
just think, the government already has a GPS in most cars, they are called cell phones. They could tap that information with the proper reprogramming of the system and cell phones are designed to be reprogrammed remotely
David not worried, just commenting
REGARDING:
” I don’t feel the Sheriff’s department should be out primarily enforcing traffic laws when I believe we all would rather see them working in our community patrolling and being a deterrent to burglaries, robberies, and thefts.”
Good.
So you understand folks will soon gripe about red light runners in certain areas and pressure will force the Sheriff to pull officers off of other duties to deal with the problem and associated deaths unless they have some other way to reduce running of red lights.
Which brings us to red light cameras. They can free up the officer for the things we consider more critical without ignoring the dangers of ignoring the other infractions. Also, they are objective, not ignoring some because they are buddies, not needing potty breaks, not even tied up while the officer is dealing with a life or death situation elsewhere.
Further, if they still show an inordinate number of violators in an area, they know where to effectively use officers to put a stop to it.
David for effective law enforcement
Lyall, our present Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is pushing for the VMT. He is one of two Republicans in Obama’s administration. Now I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard Republicans say over and over that they want less government in our lives and to cut taxes. Of course not all Republicans are for this, a great many are against it. It surprises me that a law that would put the government in everyone’s vehicle comes from a Republican. LaHood said he is against raising the gas tax, well I’m against raising it to, but I’m also against putting a device in my vehicle that would allow the government to know where I’m at, and no telling what other capability the device would have, I can promise you neither you nor I would know exactly what the device would be capable of. You may not mind the government knowing where you are or possibly listening in on your private conversations, but I do, as long as I’m not breaking the law, it’s none of their business where I’m at or what I’m talking about.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29298315/
David,
By incidental, I meant that enforcing traffic laws should not be the primary duty of the Sheriff’s department. It should be a secondary function, such as while the deputy is patrolling the neighborhoods and communities, and find someone is speeding or running stop signs, is DUI, or has an expired tag, then fine, make the stop, write the ticket and proceed on with your patrol. I don’t feel the Sheriff’s department should be out primarily enforcing traffic laws when I believe we all would rather see them working in our community patrolling and being a deterrent to burglaries, robberies, and thefts. I do realize that sometimes a traffic stop leads to other previously undetected offenses such as drug possession, possession of burglary tools, or possession of stolen property, too.
I am not against the Sheriff or his department, I fully respect each and every one of the employees for the job they are doing; did it myself once for a few (14) years.
Lyall,
I have to say I like your requests for citations. In other words, “Prove it, please. Don’t just say it over until I believe it.”
I believe him, but a request for proof seems reasonable–even if it hurts our feelings to be doubted.
And Scobie‘s “I furthermore feel that it is not your agency’s primary responsibility to enforce traffic. I feel that the Sheriff’s Department should do their constitutional duties by providing the services to the citizens and the courts and keeping the jail. Traffic should be incidental.”
Enforcing a certain set of laws should not be primary, perhaps, but incidental? “I’ll enforce that law if I feel like it?” Isn’t that actually called “lawlessness”? selective enforcement of laws?
And, “What other policing measure trades one type of accident for another and calls it an improvement?”
If a t-bone, or whatever it is called, is more likely to be fatal than a rear-end collision, wouldn’t reduced deaths be an improvement? I didn’t like being rear-ended when the lady on the cell phone behind me didn’t stop for the red light and I did stop, but at least I wasn’t killed.
Aren’t both kinds of collision caused by inattentive or careless drivers? And wouldn’t the rear end collisions go down if drivers got used to stopping at red lights? Or maybe if they just got used to paying attention to the drivers in front of them and driving at a safer distance?
David wondering, hoping to survive
but through for the evening, night, night
REGARDING:
“If someone borrows your car whos insurance will go up yours or theirs when you get a ticket ”
If you loan someone your car and they wreck it while running a red light, whose car will be destroyed?
David for careful loans
REGARDING:
“Something to consider: one motorist association’s reasons for not supporting these systems. Note number 10 when asking yourself about the safety aspects.”
so I dutifully looked it up and it said:
” 10) Taking dangerous drivers’ pictures doesn’t stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green! ”
They should not identify people running red lights because the machine won’t catch the speeders, daredevils, drunks or druggies?
It won’t catch the bank robbers or the international terrorists either, but it isn’t designed to do so.
That’s like saying we shouldn’t have chickens because they don’t give milk.
David in meditation mode
pondering potential photographic practices
REGARDING:
“Will you say this when the person I front of you slams on the brakes and you rear end him? Or when they shorten the yellow light and you get a ticket? Or how about you get a ticket and you were at home or not even there?”
If you rear end the person in front of you, it’s the camera’s fault?
IF they shorten the amber light, gripe then. If they follow the Georgia system, they might even lengthen it for you so you can feel better about rear ending the fellow in front of you.
If you get a ticket and you were at home, you might need to speak to your wife about her driving practices. (or she might need to speak to you about yours since you are the one expecting to go around rear ending those having the audacity to stop in front of you when the traffic signals warn them to do so.)
David for at least considering obeying the laws
“umm… don’t want the fine don’t run a red light?
Complaints about this kind of stuff make me laugh. The law has been on the books for ages, but it is suddenly an issue to enforce it? Because it will generate $ people think it is the boogeyman.”
Will you say this when the person I front of you slams on the brakes and you rear end him? Or when they shorten the yellow light and you get a ticket? Or how about you get a ticket and you were at home or not even there?
I have never had a ticket for running a red light. But, if I did run one, then I should get a ticket. People are not complaining about the law on the books, just that they are using this law to bilk money out of drivers and saying it’s about saftey.
umm… don’t want the fine don’t run a red light?
Complaints about this kind of stuff make me laugh. The law has been on the books for ages, but it is suddenly an issue to enforce it? Because it will generate $ people think it is the boogeyman.
Something to consider: one motorist association’s reasons for not supporting these systems. Note number 10 when asking yourself about the safety aspects.
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/objections
The NMA opposes the use of photographic devices to issue tickets. With properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for ticket cameras. They can actually make our roads less safe.
Some latest news from your state on the accuracy…or should I say inaccuracy of these systems. Notice it took her going public through a newspaper to get them to drop the citation.
” In Troy, New York, motorist Susan White was falsely accused of running a red light on May 20 at 4:32pm by an automated camera in North Miami Beach. The $125 ticket came with a photograph of a dark Chevrolet with an extremely blurry license plate. White drives a light-colored Kia Soul. White explained to the Times-Union newspaper that she has never been to Miami and was at work in Troy on May 20. After the Times-Union got involved, American Traffic Solutions canceled the bogus ticket.”
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3265.asp
The following is a quote from an earlier post by the Escambia County Sheriff: “As for accurately identifying the driver of the vehicle, policy in other jusrisdictions usually allow for the owner of the vehicle to sign a sworn affidavit that they were not driving the vehicle IF they identify who was. So this coners a friend, family member, employee (for a company vehicle), etc.”
Wow! I’m not a lawyer, but statements like this are very troubling especially the part about family members being compelled testify against another when it is long recognized by the courts that a husband and wife can’t be forced to testify against the other. Would the Sheriff enforce a county commission red light ordinance that stoops so low and violates established rules of evidence to coerce a confession from someone who has been wrongly accused by a camera and desk jockey? We’ll see.
I once received a ticket from Dade county Fl. I supposedly went thru a toll
booth without paying. Thing is, I’ve never been to dade county, or own a
motorcycle like the one in the picture. After contesting the ticket, it turned out
to be a typo when putting in the tag number of the bike. Camera or not, it is
still garbage in garbage out.
i
If someone borrows your car whos insurance will go up yours or theirs when you get a ticket who will have to go to court the owner or the person that gets the ticket who will have to take the class to remove points owner of auto or person who you let borrow.??????????????????????????????????????????
First, if everyone fought against these tickets, the courts would come to a standstill. Secondly, the most important part that no one knows about is:
The cameras are good enough to read the plates and the computers will cross reference them to a file of plates. This file of plates are congressmen, government officials, police officers, etc. If it shows as “someone important” on the inside, the ticket is purged from the system before it goes to someone reviewing the tickets manually. Isn’t that a shame? Why can a mayor or local officials and afar be in such a database system to NOT receive a ticket? I’d say that’s not fair at all.
Lastly, in California (among 3 other states), it has to ticket the person, not the registered owner–sun visor down, sit up high. Can’t see you, can’t ticket you. But Orange County courts just declared “photo enforcement citations as hearsay”. Thus, challenge the ticket, can’t use the photos in court! (look it up, Orange County, 25may10). Tickets are in Capitola, CA $455 each.
Sorry Sheriff > David Morgan you have lost my vote in the future, along with my county commissioner that votes for your cameras.
Enough of the greed and waste.
Why is it that politicians never seem to be able to work within a budget like the rest of us that arn’t dependant on handouts?
Ifish4
“You might want to check the people pushing this, surprisingly it’s the very ones that’s always saying we need less government in our lives and claim they don’t won’t to raise taxes.”
[citation needed]
Facts please.
GW, sadly GPS tracking private vehicles is already being tested in some states, it’s called a VMT tax. They say only billing information is needed, on the other hand they say it can be expanded to charge not only by the distance but also by the time your on the road (rush hour), and what type road you drive on paved or dirt. My way of seeing it, if they have to divide the tax among states and counties, then they will have to know where you were diving at all times. Of course the people for this say their not interested in where a person is, yeah right we believe them don’t we. You might want to check the people pushing this, surprisingly it’s the very ones that’s always saying we need less government in our lives and claim they don’t won’t to raise taxes. I don’t even want a vehicle with OnStar in it, since GM has the ultimate control of it and not you.
This is just like the seatbelt law. No one cares whether we live or die. It is a way to make $$ from the fines.
Well, the county could use some of that $3M to pay for that fancy ‘Secret Squirrel’ radio system that they just gotta have. See it’s a break even deal.
[tongue-in-cheek]
@Buddybellsheadboy56, I love it and couldn’t agree more!
I’m afraid the day is coming when all cars will have GPS in them and our travels and speeds will be monitored. We will be charged fines then for speeding. We will also be taxed on the miles we drive, state by state, and county by county. It is scary what is coming with technology. “Big Brother” is watching more and more and will find a way to charge us for what he sees.
Once again our “leaders” are showing their shortsighted greedy approach to what is loosely called governing.All these people want is more of our cash to line their own pockets. They do not give a hoot in hades about the needs of the populace or how many wrecks those stupid things cause.If we as voters don’t keep throwing these thugs out until they understand that we the people are in charge,we will just continue to be a backwater tourist trap.Get rid of every incumbent,replace him or her with someone who promises to do what we want and if they don’t throw them out too. Its time ,people,to take our county back from these good ole boy jacklegs and replace them with public servants.
Who will pay the fines for the police cars that get caught? The tax payer? I have police cars go past me all the time and I am doing the speed limit. Do they have to give themselves a ticket and if so who pays it? Do the police not have to obey traffic laws? Am I the only person who has ever noticed any of this? Lots of questions but does anyone have any answers? Sorry another question.
Darryl, I understand your concern; however, I haven’t heard her say that per se. She was quoted in an interview conveying her Christian beliefs, but I didn’t see that in the context where she wants government in our bedrooms. Maybe I missed something.
Please! Make no mistake about it this is all about money. The company in Arizona who is the ones who are normally behind this is making a fortune. For the local police departments they see it as additional income. So, it really has nothing to do with safety of which they try to lead you to beleive. I currently live in a big city who has had them in the past and their were law suits filed against it and some of the areas have taken down the cameras as a result. It had become such a revenue generator that the cities had a hard time taking them down because all of a sudden it started cutting their budget down. When you hear things like that it reminds you of what they are really after and that is called money.
SW; good luck , especially if they go for the gold.
I’m still mad about that woman who won Delaware GOP candidate who complains about big government but she wants to come into our homes and tell us how to live and what we can and can’t do in our bedrooms.
And if someone else is driving your car? All of these will end up contested in court, only clogging up the court system
Let’s have the BOCC truly be honest with us for a change and say what this is really about: the money. Otherwise, why not mail warning notices to offenders with no fine? After all, it’s about improving safety for citizens and not the money, isn’t it?
By the way, there’s this old ’70’s song that keeps popping into my head every time I read about red light cameras and it goes something like, “money, money, money……money!”
A thought that just occurred to me. If we are sending 60% of the money to the camera company and keeping 40%. And our 40% is $3,000,000.00
then, if my math is correct (math stuff is hard…)
X * 0.40=3,000,000
So X=7,500,00
That’s $7,500,00 total moneys generated, minus the counties “cut” of 3,000,000.
7,500,000-3,000,000=4,500,000
So, the money going to the camera company, from our county, is $4,500,00.00!
Ya, that should help the economy. Just not ours. Should make the people out of jobs feel good.
Mr. Morgan,
“A consistant complaint receieved at the ECSO is traffic. Speeding, running redlights, stop signs, etc. We simply do not have enough officers to cover all areas. Therefore we are always looking for ways to electronically enhance our coverage. This tachnology has been used in many places to great benefit.”
[citation needed]
Going to need some non biased data to believe that. A third party. Not the people trying to sell you the equipment or some insurance agency watering at the mouth because of the higher premiums.
“The benefits? Vastly reduced accidents (t-bones) at intersections, use of the cameras for other crimes, ie get-a-ways from hold-ups, carjackings, etc.”
[citation needed]
From what I can find, from 3rd party non biased resources, it might reduce Right Angle accidents, but increase others.
“As for accurately identifying the driver of the vehicle, policy in other jusrisdictions usually allow for the owner of the vehicle to sign a sworn affidavit that they were not driving the vehicle IF they identify who was. So this coners a friend, family member, employee (for a company vehicle), etc.”
So, to prove I’m innocent, i have to be a snitch. Or pay the money. And %60 of that money does not even stay in our county? Correct me if I’m wrong, but is it NOT “innocent until proven guilty”, and the burden of proof is on the accuser? So why should I have to prove I’m not guilty. You should be PROVING me I’m guilty. Also, will I have a right to confront my accuser? Not the paper pusher looking at hundreds of photo’s either. The person that was an EYE WITNESS to the alleged offense?
And installing camera’s will not stop the speeders/light runners. I can put an app on my phone that will tell me when I’m getting close to a camera. There are websites that all they do is to let people know where the cameras are.
I am all for making our streets safer. But, this is not the way to do it. Please remember who you work for and let us VOTE on it. Then, if it passes, I will be the first one helping you install them. I won’t be happy about it, but this is, or was, America, and we are governed by the people, for the people…at least that’s what we are told.
Darryl and Lyall, how dare y’all confuse the issue with facts; and to dare question those community leaders who know so much more than we do, the gall! They are just trying to take care of us since we are so incapable of taking care of ourselves-you know, we all have a little ‘Homer Simpson’ in us, right?
[tongue-in-cheek]
You both make great points and I agree.
Headline says it all – it’s all about the cash.
One more post dealing with camera accuracy.
Cameras Falsely Accuse Motorists of Driving Crimes Worldwide
Cameras in the District of Columbia, Oregon, Virginia and France try to collect fines from innocent drivers.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3244.asp
8/14/2010
California, Tennessee: Bogus Red Light Camera Tickets
Riverside, California puts illegal sign up at photo ticket location while camera falsely accuses Tennessee man of running a red light.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3230.asp
In Hallandale, Florida, the private firm American Traffic Solutions mailed a $125 ticket to Phil Kodroff accusing his car of “running a red light” at the intersection of Federal Highway and Hallandale Beach Boulevard on May 22. The Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel reported that Kodroff’s vehicle committed this crime at the speed of 0 MPH.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3203.asp
And this from Florida on keeping citation counts high some areas have resorted to shortening the yellow signal timing. This is one of the main things that drive up accident rates to ridiculous levels while officials lie about the safety benefits.
Florida: County Drops Right Turn Tickets, Shortens Yellow
Shortened yellows make up for lost right-turn red light camera revenue in Collier County, Florida.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3152.asp
All I can say is that those whose jobs have them on the road a great deal, good luck and watch that rear view mirror when approaching the intersections with cameras.
Lack of benefit for public safety:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3175.asp
6/18/2010
Illinois: Study Finds No Benefit To Chicago Red Light Cameras
Analysis examining Chicago, Illinois red light cameras finds no clear safety benefit.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3009.asp
Despite the agency’s best effort to present automated enforcement in a positive light, the unavoidable results were that, on a statewide level, accidents and injuries increased where cameras were used.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2936.asp
Canada: Cameras Increased Accidents, City Wants More
City report shows serious accidents more than doubled at red light camera intersections in Grande Prairie, Canada.
Some of you will say your system will be different and it’ll work right. I think that is wishful thinking at best.
With counties and cities hurting for revenue,you see the battle over these systems get worse, for many areas want them to try to fill budget gaps. Unfortunately, the data shows that the marketing of these system as a public safety issue is a lie.
Last comment for a while. Got to keep working to pay my taxes.
Just a couple more articles for your reading pleasure.
Are RLC Systems Good?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=292547&page=1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311151159.htm
They are not a money grab. I promise.
http://cbs4.com/local/red.light.cameras.2.1690790.html
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/03/ald-burke-red-light-cameras-a-money-machine.html
Just to be fair, i tried to find some study’s/articles stating the benefits of RLC systems that were other than an editorial/option of somebody. Really could not find any worth reading. Wonder why….
Some legal issues to consider. The spending in courts and elsewhere to maintain the systems may make the revenue generated look not so good:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3240.asp
8/24/2010
More California Courts Refuse Red Light Camera Evidence
Another consolidated ruling in Orange County, California finds red light camera evidence inadmissible hearsay.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3177.asp
South Dakota Court Rules Against Red Light Cameras
South Dakota circuit court judge rules red light camera program violates procedural due process. Jury to decide whether to fine camera company.
What other policing measure trades one type of accident for another and calls it an improvement?
What about a third party working the system for profit? No one see a conflict of interest?
These systems market themselves as foolproof for a photo doesn’t lie, but the companies that run them and the IIHS lie through their teeth in promoting them for mistakes happen frequently. Citations issued to people who were not even on the road at the time. And check out the appeal process; is it set to make you pay first and then jump through hoops to prove your innocence, even when the photo doesn’t show your car?
I will more than likely not be driving down there again but I hate to see the citizens of Escambia accept this on their roads due to the lies, manipulation of facts and big dollar marketing campaign that is selling it to them.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
Notice that Right Angle crashes decreased, but Rear End Crashes increased. So, instead of our police working t-bones, they will be working more rear ends.
Ya, should save money. Crash is a Crash. Still having to work it.
Also, notice how at the bottom of the study, they talk about the “Economic Benefit of RLC Systems” But hey, its just for safety. Money is not a factor.
Other communities and states have called for a vote, why don’t we? Oh, i know, because no RLC system has EVER passed in a referendum. Don’t let them vote on it, cause then we cant get the money. See Following article.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-01-17-red-light_N.htm
Don’t let us vote on it cause the County/state/Country does not belong to “We the People..” anymore does it?
Move along citizen, nothing to see here…
(google is your friend)
Anybody else notice that everytime Mr Morgan comes on here all we hear from him is how he’s right and were wrong.
Sir, it’s getting hard to see around your ego. I for one will be using my vote as such. This will be my first time having the honor of voting in this county. Way to make an impression. Please remember who you work for. Also, I’m not to happy about 60% of our local money is going out from our city. Kinda sounds more like a money making scam than anything.
My initial comment was not directed at the Sheriff or his deputies, but it was more pointed to those who would approve and employ such an arbitrary and capricious method of revenue generation – that being the board of county commissioners. I have to agree with Mr. Wilcoxon in his assessment that Sheriff Morgan is misleading the public when he states that his agency does not create dollars his agency. Although the Sheriff does not directly benefit from the monies generated by officers who write tickets, his office does receive a steady revenue stream from the BOCC which does receive money that is collected by the clerk of the court from traffic enforcement efforts. The only difference is that the collected fines are “laundered” as it is put into the “general fund.” .
I misstated that your agency doesn’t generate the revenue; I meant your agency doesn’t receive the revenue…directly. As the BOC does hold the budget strings, that money could come to your department by way of budget, correct?
To Sheriff Morgan,
As a former law enforcement officer (certified in three states) and now employed in the private sector, I understand your position and your responsibilities.
However, sir, I must take issue with this type of enforcement for any agency. I feel convinced that this type of approach is improper and designed to generate revenue for the respective jurisdictions. I understand that your agency does not generate revenue; but if the company who will be in charge of the system and the county government share in the revenue then I must question the intent.
I agree that intersection related accidents will change in dynamic; I personally feel that while the t-bone type accidents may occur less frequently, the rear-end collisions will quite probably increase as people panic stop to avoid the possibility of being cited by the camera operators. FHP, not ECSD, will be just as busy working accidents, just checking different boxes on reports.
I furthermore feel that it is not your agency’s primary responsibility to enforce traffic. I feel that the Sheriff’s Department should do their constitutional duties by providing the services to the citizens and the courts and keeping the jail. Traffic should be incidental. All too often, it is easy to get caught up in that type of enforcement and forget the basic police function. [Quite frankly, if you're going to enforce traffic, what do we need with State Troopers in Escambia County? While I understand you have no direct authority over the state's enforcement agencies, you understand the premise of the statement. I, for one, would be in favor of your pressuring the FHP to 'up' their help to traffic enforcement-encourage them to work more intersections instead of writing the proverbial speeding ticket.]
I support and respect your efforts, in principle, and I support you (and your agency) in particular with your endeavours as Sheriff of Escambia County. I realize your job is obviously political in nature, try to not stop being a police officer and citizen.
Dear Too Much Government:
While it will ‘generate revenue’ as you say, that is not the primary reason. In fact the majority of the revenue goes back to the company installing and maintaining the equipment (actual percentages will be worked out prior to contract signing, it is usally around a 60-40.) All revenues generated go back to the EsCo Board of County Commissioners, General Fund. THEY DO NOT come to the Sheriff’s Office as was inaccurately reported by the PNJ.
A consistant complaint receieved at the ECSO is traffic. Speeding, running redlights, stop signs, etc. We simply do not have enough officers to cover all areas. Therefore we are always looking for ways to electronically enhance our coverage. This tachnology has been used in many places to great benefit.
The benefits? Vastly reduced accidents (t-bones) at intersections, use of the cameras for other crimes, ie get-a-ways from hold-ups, carjackings, etc.
As for accurately identifying the driver of the vehicle, policy in other jusrisdictions usually allow for the owner of the vehicle to sign a sworn affidavit that they were not driving the vehicle IF they identify who was. So this coners a friend, family member, employee (for a company vehicle), etc.
Is this a perfect system or answer to speeding and red light violators. Of course not. And we will continue to refine the process as we go along. But it most assuredly is better than what we have.
And then again, WE don’t have a right to violate any law merely because we can get away with it, or by limiting law enforcements ability to detect it.
As always, thank you for your continued interest in the management and oversight of the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office.
David Morgan, Sheriff
Escambia County Florida
436-9512
The only ways government can generate revenue is by taxes, fines/penalties, and fees. All have been steadily rising; now this.
If I were convinced this was for public safety, then I might be more in favor; however, I’m not. I believe, sincerely, that this is strictly for revenue generation through fines/penalties-even the title of this article and the first line of the body tout it.
Remember this at election time. If the county needs more money, maybe they need to stop spending first instead of trying to generate more revenue.
From the article: “A citation will not go on a driver’s record if the fine is paid.”
How does the camera’s evaluator determine the driver’s identity, so that the citation is issued to the actual driver? That’s the problem in a nut shell with red light cameras and issuing citations from behind a desk; it can’t be done in a consistently fair or correct manner. Consider the vehicle that is registered to an entity and not an individual like a business or church; does the violation go on the entity’s driving record which doesn’t have a driver’s license or does it get arbitrarily tossed out?
No matter how the county spins red light cameras, it is not motivated by anything but dollar signs and easy profit.