Latest Headlines
- Two Dead, Seven Injured In Escambia County Shooting
- Florida’s Two Week Back To School Sales Tax Holiday Begins Today
- One Person Injured In Crash Near Walnut Hill
- Century Highway 29 Construction Zone Traffic Shift Delayed (Again)
- Chumuckla Highway And Pace Road Lane Closures Begin Monday
- Escambia Man Charged With Repeatedly Abusing Kitten
- Blue Wahoos Fall Behind Early, Drop Saturday’s Game To Shuckers
- Tate Showband Of The South Has A New Director
- Navy Federal Employees Honored By Manna For Volunteer Efforts
- Pine Meadow’s Cassi McGee Received Florida Outstanding Teacher Leadership Award
Red Light Camera Repeal Filed As Report Says Crashes Down
January 7, 2013
A South Florida lawmaker filed legislation Friday to repeal the law allowing the use of red light cameras, following a report earlier this week that says intersections where they’re used have seen drops in crashes in most places.
Rep. Daphne Campbell, D-Miami, filed legislation Friday seeking to end the use of the cameras, saying they unfairly dole out tickets to people who can’t defend themselves, noting that malfunctioning cameras can’t be cross-examined.
Meanwhile, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles released a report Thursday showing that crashes were less frequent at red light camera intersections, based on data from 73 agencies. The report said accidents were less frequent in intersections with cameras in 41 jurisdictions but up in such intersections in 11 jurisdictions.
The rest of the 73 jurisdictions where they are in use didn’t have the data, and the state didn’t say what the overall numbers were in the report, which was sent to lawmakers.
Since state law was changed in 2010 to allow local governments to use the cameras to catch red light runners they’ve been under attack. A repeal effort was mounted starting the very next year in the Legislature.
Campbell’s legislation (HB 91) would repeal the state law that authorizes their use. The law also sets out how the money from such tickets is allocated. Before there was a state law, some local jurisdictions used them, but there was considerable confusion about whether they were legal. Even since the law has been passed, their use has continued to be challenged in court.
“The red light camera companies exploit victims to push Florida laws to gain millions,” Campbell said in a statement. “People are presumed guilty by the picture of the camera. The corporations are the ones making the money.”
The Florida League of Cities, however, said Friday that keeping the cameras is a top priority of local governments.
“Providing cities with the tools they need to keep residents safe is the Florida League of Cities’ No. 1 priority, and this technology has been proven to help authorities punish lawbreakers, reduce dangerous T-bone crashes and change the behavior of those drivers who selfishly choose to run red lights,” the league said in a statement.
Local governments don’t want to lose their share of the revenue from the $158 fines paid by people caught on red light cameras, but also say their law enforcement budgets are strained and the cameras help them enforce laws they otherwise wouldn’t be able to.
“While the data in this report suggests a significant positive effect on traffic safety, the Florida League of Cities believes the government closest to the people governs best, and nobody knows a city better than its residents,” the league’s statement said. “Some municipalities have determined that red light running is not a problem in their community and have chosen not to install traffic infraction detectors. Other cities, after holding public hearings and listening to concerned citizens, have determined that red light safety cameras will make their streets safer.”
Campbell’s bill is yet to be assigned to a committee.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
17 Responses to “Red Light Camera Repeal Filed As Report Says Crashes Down”
Everyone needs to stop, at stop signs and red lights. It is for personal and public safety. Being unconcerned about the safety of others is to be indifferent, and being indifferent of one’s personal safety is just plain crazy.
REGARDING:
“@ David – Perhaps I should have qualified my statement specifically to criminal laws and torts.”
Yes, perhaps.
Especially since they aren’t charged as criminal activity.
The main thing is how they are used. If they are used to reduce dangerous behavior, that is a good thing. Longer ambers is part of that as are signs letting people know. If they are used as traps for people who are othewise driving safely, that is a bad thing.
As is the case with all human endeavors, they can be used or misused.
David for specifications
This is such an easy way to make alot of money, and keeps us safer on the highway. Why would anyone oppose these?
I have a friend who is the most careful driver I know get one of these tickets in Gulf Breeze. He wrote down the time and the timing of the yellow light and challenged it. The company had rigged the yellow light and brushed it off saying it was a “malfuntion.”
I have to agree with M. Murph on this one. I once heard a polititian describe the traffic cameras as revenue generation tools that take, “low hanging fruit”
As said, how long will it be before we have cameras in our homes or cars?
@ David – Perhaps I should have qualified my statement specifically to criminal laws and torts. But taxes are to fund government whose primary role is to protect their citizens and the citizens rights although in reality they certainly do use the laws for their own enrichment much to the chagrin of the common man.
@Mike J. – I accept your argument that the fear of fines may affect your driving habits but there are also many repeat low income offenders to the point of having their licenses suspended. And I would think that a wealthy person would give it little thought since from what I have read most traffic camera citations do not incur points against your license or insurance.
@robby – What if one life is lost because someone makes a split second decision and slams on brakes at a yellow light from fear of a ticket and is rear-ended at 60 mph by a work van that can’t stop on a dime. Yes, people shouldn’t be going 60 mph in traffic areas with red lights but they do including law enforcement. Just something to think about. There are two sides to every coin.
@Michael, ” Taking money from my wallet does not make me a safer driver. I suppose the fear of losing money might make some pay closer attention but I am skeptical.”
Well, if a person gets one, two, three, etc. tickets it will hurt their wallet more and more. It does change behavior and perhaps attitude.
I was pulled over twice on the same long straight road. Once for speeding and once for the license plate light not working at night. I got warnings for both. Now I am careful with my speed there and check my cars lights all around. So therefore it changed my behavior. Because I got warnings not tickets, they don’t get any money from me unless I make a mistake.
Question: if red-light cameras are being used at an intersection, is the warning sign required to be there? I see cameras sometimes with no sign and wonder if they are for red-light enforcement or traffic safety.
But what if it saves one life. From someone running a red light. It would be worth it. I think so. I have lost a love one from that. I was against red light camera’s But now I have a different outlook. Stop people from running red lights what ever it takes.
REGARDING:
“Laws are for the protection of society not profiteering”
Actually, tax laws are specificly for the enrichment of the governing body.
Not that that applies here, but that is a usage of law holding long standing.
Now, you could say that enrichment is for enforcement of other things to protect society just as wanted posters enriched bounty hunters by the capture of killers.
It’s worth considering.
David for a better world
I hope Rep.Campbell is successful in repealing this law. There is something inherently corrupt if not evil in for-profit companies participating directly in law enforcement. Laws are for the protection of society not profiteering. If the local governments using these cameras are truly concerned with safety and not revenue, why don’t they reduce the fines and require violators attend mandatory driver safety classes. Taking money from my wallet does not make me a safer driver. I suppose the fear of losing money might make some pay closer attention but I am skeptical.
Its at least good to see something bipartisan that I can get behind for a change.
“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” –James Madison
REGARDING:
“in cities where the citation rates dropped (which is what traffic enforcement is suppose to do in the end due to the goal supposedly being public safety) they have actually decreased the timing of the yellow signals,”
Interesting you say they had fewer infractions if they had the yellow lights on for shorter periods.
Other states have extended the time on the amber lights by two seconds wherever cameras were set up — therefore not entrapment. It would be reasonable to include video recording to show not just the vehicle at time of infraction but what went on before and after the picture to avoid chance of erroneous charges.
No matter the reasons of some wanting them, the reduction of people running red lights would be a good thing and is bound to be the reason for at least some of those who support it. Note that the article includes:
“Meanwhile, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles released a report Thursday showing that crashes were less frequent at red light camera intersections, based on data from 73 agencies. The report said accidents were less frequent in intersections with cameras in 41 jurisdictions but up in such intersections in 11 jurisdictions.”
So generally it seems they have reduced crashes and possibly save some lives and legs — if that matters.
David for better drivers
Pss…Don’t change my tag either!!! THE NEW TRAFFIC FRIENDLY TAGS ARE UGLY!!!
Money rules, An officer could be assigned to different areas and have a better effect on drivers than red light cameras alone! The cameras could back up the the officer’s clame as does his car cam. What’s next? Cameras in my home…via my tv maybe? Give an inch…ya better get ready to give a mile! Just thinking out LOUD hum……
Something to consider with these revenue generating systems: in cities where the citation rates dropped (which is what traffic enforcement is suppose to do in the end due to the goal supposedly being public safety) they have actually decreased the timing of the yellow signals, most of the time below federal standards, to get citation counts back up. As to reductions in accidents, make sure you look at all the data: is the miles driven during the period still up or is it down, and other considerations.
There are so many inherit problems with these automated systems that they should not be used. Wrong people getting citations, cities focused on keeping citation counts high over actual public safety improvements, owners automatically at fault no matter who was driving, and in areas of strict enforcement with poorly timed signals along a stretch of road an actual increase in accidents.
I think it is just a money making thing anyway. Knew someone that lost part of leg from guy running red light. Come to find out he had 33 red light violations. I even got one once for not stopping my wheels all the way before turning right on red, that does not seem to fair to me.
money maker they dont realy care about accidents just the money
It is all about the camera’s parallax view, and the bias thereof.
From the article, “…keeping the cameras is a top priority of local governments.”
That’s right, the government is like a crack addict craving another fix once it gets its hand on more of your money.
Just look at your ECUA trash bill and see the $’s for the landfill that the county commission tacks on. And where is all of this money going, to the clerk of the court’s employees?