Get a Witness Statement When Fighting a Red Light Camera Ticket

When a person gets a red light camera ticket, one thing often overlooked, is the value a passenger can provide should you decide to fight a red light camera ticket. Anyone in the car with you at the time the picture was taken can provide a witness statement. This is especially helpful in situations where the weather conditions prevented you from stopping in time, there was a car tailgating preventing you from being able to stop short, or maybe there was a large truck ahead of you blocking your view of the light as it passed through the intersection.

In these situations, really all you have is your own word; however any passengers can back up your position. Any witness statement you plan to provide to the court, make sure it’s notarized otherwise for all the court knows, you wrote the statement yourself. It’s worth paying a couple bucks to a Notary Public in order to make the witness statement credible. Think about it, the court is on the fence as to whether or not to believe your story, having that witness statement to back up your story with, can give you that winning edge.

Contributed by ticketbust.com, helping drivers contest and dismiss their traffic tickets. If you get cited for a red light photo ticket, contact us at www.TicketBust.com or call us at (800) 850-8038. For Spanish, please visit www.Combatesuticket.com or call (818) 584-3689. For more information on how TicketBust can help to beat your cell phone ticket, visit www.fightcellphonetickets.com or call (800) 850-8038.

Anyone who has traveled to Europe understands the convenience of driving without traffic lights and the improvement in traffic flow.  Cities all over the US are beginning to convert traditional unsafe red light camera intersections to roundabouts for several reasons. Converting traditional red light camera intersections to roundabouts eliminates the need for traffic signals as well as cameras and has many benefits listed below.  It has been reported that conversion of traditional intersections to roundabouts reduces fatal crashes by 81-90 percent, injury crashes by 25-87 percent, and overall crashes by 37-61 percent. However, it is not feasible to replace every traffic light with a roundabout, and not every intersection is appropriate for a roundabout.  Ready more about roundabouts saving lives. 

1. Up to a 90% reduction in fatalities, 76% reduction in injury crashes, 30-40% reduction in pedestrian crashes
2. Reduces the severity of crashes
3. 75% fewer conflict points than four way intersections 
4. Drivers have more time to judge and react to other cars or pedestrians
5. Slower vehicle speeds (under 30 mph) 
6. Efficient traffic flow 30-50% increase in traffic capacity
7. Improved traffic flow for intersections that handle a high number of left turns
8. No signal equipment to install and repair savings estimated at an average of $5,000 per year in electricity and maintenance costs
9. Service life of a roundabout is 25 years (vs. the 10-year service life of signal equipment)
10. Aesthetic landscaping

There Is a Positive Outcome to Gridlock

Studies are revealing that higher population densities are associated with lower fatal crash rates at intersections.   The obvious explanation is that denser populations generally lead to lower travel speeds, traffic jams, grid lock and thus fewer fatal crashes.  Rates of fatal crashes during the baseline period were higher for cities that subsequently implemented red light camera programs than for cities that did not implement camera programs. It is to be expected that cities with larger red light running problems should have been more likely to implement camera enforcement programs.  Read more on the Effects of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Fatal Crashes in Large US Cities. 

Explore Data Information Services is an Altegrity company. Altegrity is a conglomeration of companies to help their customers reduce risk, maximize opportunities, and make better decisions by gathering, processing, and analyzing information; sharing our subject matter expertise; and providing our proven training techniques. Altegrity companies include:

USIS - provides solutions protect national security, strengthen corporate safeguards, and empower decision-makers the world over.

Kroll - is a consulting firm helping clients reduce risks, solve problems, and capitalize on opportunities the world over with its broad range of investigative, intelligence, financial, security, due diligence, and technology services.

HireRight - helps implement, manage, and control employment screening programs for today's global employers.

Explore Information Services - Explore Information Services provides databases to a "trusted partner" to insurance companies and government entities. A provider of database insurance technologies and e-government applications. Explore Information Services licenses databases and scrapes public information available on web to provide a database of solutions to Government Entities and the Insurance Industry. With "exception-based" reporting services for Property and Casualty Insurance Underwriters, Explore helps insurance companies mitigate risk and allows states to reduce fraud while improving public safety. Explore's e-Government Solutions serve the information needs of state government with customized database applications and integration services including: Identification of Uninsured Motorists, Motor Fuel Tax-Tracking and IRP/IFTA Commercial Vehicle Credentialing programs. Through identification, retrieval and reporting of critical data, Explore's programs demonstrate noticeable process efficiencies while offering additional revenue streams to state governments. Learn more here www.exploredata.com

Explore Insurance Services Provided
E.A.R.S. ® - Violation Monitoring Service
Violation Predictor - MVR Decision Intelligence
RiskAlert ® - Youthful Driver Discovery Service
FireSafe ® - Fire Protection Information Service
FireSafe RiskScore - Fire Peril Modeled Score

Explore Government Solutions Provided
IRP/IFTA Motor Carrier Service Systems
Uninsured Motorist/ Vehicle Financial Responsibility Verification Programs
Motor Fuel e-Filing and Tracking Systems

You let a friend borrow your car. A few weeks later you get a ticket in the mail with a picture of the car running a red light. You know you were not driving the car, but now you're stuck with a ticket and have to prove your innocence.  Lawyers say such a hypothetical situation is not only unfair, but illegal.

Red light cameras have become popular because they supposedly reduce accidents at intersections while generating revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

But now ticket recipients and their lawyers are pushing back.

Dennis Salvagio, a criminal defense attorney from Orlando, Fla., said the traffic cameras and the way cities use them to issue tickets are illegal because they force citizens to prove their innocence, rather than forcing cities to prove drivers' guilt.

"It was unconstitutional from the get-go," Salvagio told ABCNews.com. "I think everybody should fight it."

The West Palm Beach, Fla. law firm of Schuler, Halvorson & Weisser has filed 27 class action lawsuits against Florida municipalities, charging that they have operated the cameras without legal authority. The first ruling came in Orlando, where the city may be forced to refund over $4 million collected from over 50,000 tickets issued since the city started the program in September 2008.

In Houston, another attorney, Paul Kubosh, organized a group called Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, which has gathered over 30,000 signatures on a petition that would put the cameras up for a vote before the community.

"All I want is a vote. Just a vote!" Kubosh told ABCNews.com.

Against Red Light Cameras? 'I Scratch My Head'

Though citizens are upset about the cameras and the fines that come with them, Vicki King, assistant chief of information systems command for the Houston Police Department, cannot understand why people don't want cameras that may reduce the "horrific" car crashes that result from drivers running red lights.

"I scratch my head when I hear opponents of red light cameras," King told ABCNews.com. "I've had more nightmares from motor vehicle crashes than I ever did from homicide.

"I don't know why people aren't screaming at us to do more," she said.

Lawyers like Salvagio and David Kramer, one of the lawyers working on behalf of plaintiffs in the Florida class action suits, say they only want to make sure the government is following the law. Although Kramer and his firm are fighting the cameras in court, he said they are neither for nor against the cameras on safety grounds.

"Our goal is to make sure that the government operates within their authority," Kramer told ABCNews.com.

Orange County Circuit Court Judge Frederick Lauten ruled against the city of Orlando before the case went to trial, instead issuing a summary judgment. In his decision, Lauten wrote that the city did not have the right to operate the cameras because by law, only the state has the power to allow the cameras. Prior to July 1, state law did not allow the cameras.

He added that the city did not establish who had the burden of proof when it came to the red light violations, which is the problem that leads Salvagio to call the cameras unconstitutional.

"You should never have to come forward and say, 'I didn't do it,'" Salvagio said. "Under the rules, you have to come forward and say what defense you have."

That amounts to shifting the burden of proof, which is illegal, Salvagio said. He described the legal problems inherent with the camera laws as something one learns in "law school 101." The only reason more people don't fight these fines, he said, is that it is easier to pay the fine rather than to hire a lawyer and go to court.

Lawyers for the city of Orlando could not be reached for comment.

Tickets From Red Light Cameras Make Millions for Cities

Citizens also complain that cameras are used only as a way to make money and do not accomplish their intended purpose of making intersections safer.

"Especially in the last two years, governments just looking for any ways to generate revenue," said Jeff Cohn, founder of photoenforced.com, a site that tracks the location of red light cameras.

"They're writing tickets like no tomorrow," Kubosh said, and pointed to a Rice University study that found that accidents did not decline at Houston intersections with the cameras. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that while right angle or "T-bone" crashes declined, rear-end, or "fender-bender" crashes actually increased in intersections with the cameras.

Either way, Assistant Chief King said the cameras are worth it.

"If I had to choose between someone being involved in a T-bone crash, which has a very high injury rate and a very high mortality rate, and someone getting bumped from the rear ... I'll take that every day of the week and twice on Sunday," King said.

Houston has collected more than $45 million in fines since it first installed the red light cameras in 2006. King said the money from the tickets pays for the cameras, and the remaining funds are split between trauma centers and traffic programs.

King said the only goal is safety and wishes they could install more cameras in Houston. While growth of the cameras continued for many years, that growth may have ceased.

Cohn, of photoenforced.com, which maps the locations of red light cameras, estimated that there were more than 5,000 red-light cameras in 1,300 cities across the United States and Canada. Cohn thought that number may go down.

"I'm starting to see a trend now where cities are removing cameras," said Cohn, adding he is neither for nor against the cameras.

Cohn said the reason for the decline is that municipalities often find the cameras are ineffective from a cost standpoint, but questions of legality may be an increasing factor.

According to thenewspaper.com, an online journal on the politics of driving, 15 states have banned the use of red light cameras. They also wrote that red light cameras have never passed a vote before the general public.

Article By John Wetenhall from ABC News

Can Wireless Regulate Hazardous Driving?

Written by: J. Gerry Purdy of MobileTrax, 4/28/2010

With a topic like this, I absolutely have to say I believe in speed limits, and I support the hard-working and often not appreciated public safety officers that help deal with accidents and problems that deserve their attention.

However, when you consider the time that highway patrol officers and local police officers spend on the side of the road with a radar gun simply to manage those who are driving above the speed limit, it’s easy to see that this is not a good, efficient way for these public safety officers to deal with the problems of society -- especially when there are so many drug problems and serious crimes that need greater attention.

The nature of a ‘speed limit’ has become accepted in society as a ‘guideline’ – a general indicator of the speed that people should travel. Of course, unless you’ve been a recluse at home for the past few years, drivers on major Interstate highways almost never drive slower than the posted speed limits. Most states have established laws that define ‘speeding’ as a driver and the car exceeding the posted speed limit by 10 mph. Thus, if the posted sign says 65 mph, then most of the time you won’t get pulled over for a speeding ticket when doing 74 mph. Bad weather and driving congestion naturally alter the average speed downward.

When I see these ‘speed traps,’ I get mad -- but not for the reason you might think. I’m not upset that police officers are trying to catch speeders. Rather, I’m upset because these paid guardians of our public safety are wasting so much of their valuable time having to sit on the side of the road just to give out a few tickets to those who are driving too fast.

I believe there’s a much better solution, and there’s already indication that systems are coming into place that may eliminate the need for any highway patrol officer to ever worry about simple vehicle speed enforcement again.

Here’s the way I believe this new solution should work in the long term. All cars will have multiple transmitting radios -- from Wi-Fi to 3G or 4G cellular to mesh networking -- so that cars can network with each other and be connected to the highway patrol. Most cars have a toll sensor in the window as well that isn’t active but does allow the car to be recognized when it passes a toll booth or toll lane.

There are two basic driver issues that need to be addressed: 1) those that speed and 2) those who drive recklessly.

Regarding driving recklessly (or appearing to do that via something wrong with the car) should be dealt with via intervention. First, the local wireless mesh should result in vehicles self-programmed to get out of the way. Second, the local police and highway patrol should have the right to intervene and stop the car. We’ve all seen situations where two cars are racing each other or someone is participating in ‘road rage’ with someone else by trying to get out ahead and then cut them off, using their car as a weapon. These situations can easily be detected. Once that happens, the local police or highway patrol should take over control of the car and pull them safely over to the side of the road.

For those that want to go faster than the posted speed limit, e.g. they want to drive 80 mph in a 65 mph zone, it seems we should change the entire process of scolding violators to automatically generating revenue for the privilege of driving faster and getting to your destination more quickly. Once cars are outfitted with wireless communications, public safety can communicate with each car, and the cars (and trucks) can then also communicate with each other (via mesh networking).

Here’s the core recommendation: each state sets up a ‘speed tax’ that is posted (and available on the displays in the wireless enabled vehicles). Then, cars that speed are simply charged a fee based on how fast they are going. Want to get to grandma’s faster? OK, drive 75 mph instead of 65 mph, but you’ll have to pay a toll (which might be called euphemistically a ‘speed tax’) for doing that. The speed tax schedule could look something like this:

* Less than 40 mph, $1 per mile (yes, charge people for going too slow)
* 40 to 65 mph, $0
* 65-69 mph, $.10 per mile in town, $.05 out of town
* 70-74 mph, $.20 per mile in town, $.10 out of town
* 75-79 mph, $.50 per mile in town, $.15 out of town
* 80-84 mph, $1.00 per mile in town, $.20 out of town
* 85-90 mph, $2.00 per mile in town, $.25 out of town
* Greater than 90, vehicle is slowed down by the highway patrol or permission must be granted by the public safety officials, e.g. an emergency.

Thus, if you need to drive 200 miles to grandma’s house but wanted to drive at 80 mph, you’d get charged 200 miles at $.20/mile or $40 for the privilege to do so.

You can see part of these systems already in place in Florida where coming out of Miami, you can get access to the SunPass extra lanes that are not as crowded. The Florida Turnpike system adjusts the charge to use the extra lanes based on the time of day. Thus, during rush hour the charge is typically $2.75 and off-peak it’s $.35. While they don’t charge for the speed you are driving yet, there’s no reason they couldn’t add that capability in the future. And, its developments like this that lead to lanes that can charge for access and then charge you for the speed you drive in the special lanes.

And perhaps 50 years from now, all cars will have wireless, we’ll be able to eliminate speed traps, and highway patrol officers can utilize more of their available time to truly helping with public safety. Wireless technology will be used to charge for the right to drive faster. Speeding tickets will morph into a speed tax, while having the ability to prevent unsafe conditions that cause a multitude of accidents.

A growing percentage of drivers caught by red-light cameras around town aren't paying their tickets. But beyond sending their names to a collection agency, there's little the city of Columbus can do to collect that money.   Nearly $1.6 million in Columbus, Missouri much of which would go to the city's public-safety department. The department has used these fines to pay for new police cruisers and the city's summer-crime strike force.

Last year, 28 percent of all red-light-camera citations issued by Columbus were sent to a collection agency, up from 12 percent in 2007. Part of any funds collected now would go to the collection agency and Redflex, which operates the cameras for the city. The poor economy might be one reason why drivers aren't paying, said Deputy Public Safety Director George Speaks. A $95 ticket is a big hit.  But once your ticket is sent to a collection agency, the fine grows to $120. If you don't pay, the city will send you a notice. After 90 days, your case is sent to Capital Recovery, a collection agency. Running a red light is a civil infraction that doesn't add points to your license.

Capital Recovery collects about 17 percent of the delinquent violations the city sends its way, said Craig Klein, the company's president. He said the national collection rate in civil cases such as these is less than 10 percent. "The only way to attack it is to file lawsuits," Klein said. But that would likely cost the city more than it's worth, said City Attorney Richard C. Pfeiffer. If the problem grows, he'll consider it. Speaks said city officials are discussing reporting scofflaws to credit agencies.

Stephanie Palmer, a victims advocate in Pfeiffer's office, has three unpaid tickets. Two offenses were captured by the camera at Livingston and Fairwood avenues. The tickets say Palmer didn't stop completely before turning on red. "I'm not sure if I didn't come to a complete stop," she said. "Usually I'm pretty good." In all, there are 169 individuals, companies and agencies with three or more outstanding citations, totaling close to 900 unpaid tickets.

The biggest offender is the holding company for Avis and Budget rental cars. That company is responsible for 144 unpaid tickets. University Area Commissioner Ahmed Ebady has five unpaid tickets. He said contractors who maintain his residential properties and drive vehicles registered in his name must be responsible. "If the city is going to come after me for a moving violation, let them come up with proof who was driving," Ebady said.

Speaks said the cameras reduce crashes. He said right-angle crashes have fallen by 73 percent at the 18 intersections where cameras have been installed. "The system works," he said.

Red-light cameras have become a nuisance for some motorists in the area of Interstate 25 and Lincoln Avenue in Lone Tree, Colorado.

Lone Tree Voice By Chris Michlewicz, Published: 02.12.10

Authorities expect the devices to reduce accidents and traffic congestion. Those who drive along Lincoln Avenue near the I-25 interchange might have seen the bright flashes of light coming from bulbs mounted on light poles at Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive and Lincoln and the highway’s northbound off-ramp, known as San Luis Street. The intersections were identified in a study as problem areas: Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive for congestion, and Lincoln and San Luis for frequent crashes. Lone Tree officials decided to correct the problem by enlisting the services of American Traffic Solutions, which installed and maintains the cameras, prepares violation notices, provides the software for violation approval and collects fines on behalf of the city’s police department.

Since the first set of cameras was placed at Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive in July 2008, Lone Tree has collected $218,000 in fines. That includes numbers from the second and third sets of cameras, which were installed in November. The cameras, however, have proven effective. There is less bottlenecking at the Lincoln and Park Meadows Drive intersection, an issue that caused major back-ups for eastbound and westbound traffic on Lincoln. Statistics on the number of accidents are not yet available, said Sgt. Scott Cavenah, traffic supervisor for the Lone Tree Police Department.

But some motorists are upset about what they call blinding flashes of light, even when there are no vehicles in the intersection. Parker resident David Wilson said he became aware of the cameras as he sat at a red light on westbound Lincoln last summer. While he applauds efforts to improve safety, Wilson believes the cameras could eventually end up causing an accident. “What I can’t understand is the random timing of the photos being taken,” he said. “I watched it flash twice when there was no one even violating the law.” A city spokesperson attributed the “random” flashes to the system “recalibrating” itself. Wilson said the flashes can be distracting to motorists, especially out-of-towners who might not be aware they are present.

The Lincoln and San Luis intersection was found to be a hotspot for regular violations. The study found a high accident rate, a large number of violations during the research period and significant congestion. Furthermore, officers could not effectively work the intersection because of its design. Cavenah has collected data on the intersection, but said the numbers are too preliminary to determine whether the red-light cameras have been effective. “A better comparison can be made once we get at least one-year’s worth of data to review,” he said in an update sent via e-mail. The annual expense to Lone Tree for all three cameras is $180,000. The city ultimately hopes to gain voluntary compliance with the traffic laws and maintain better traffic flow in the area.

Wilson would prefer to see the cameras removed, but expects to see more of them in the Denver metro area in the coming years. “Unfortunately, I think things are going that way,” he said. “They are the cops. They can pretty much do whatever they want.”

Naples News By BRENT BATTEN

A cynic’s view of government holds that, “If it moves, tax it.” And if it moves right on red? Tax it uniformly across the state.

A bill introduced in the state Legislature would bring consistency to the mishmash of local red-light camera programs operating in Florida cities and counties. It would also bring millions of dollars to the state treasury.

Rep. Ron Reagan of Sarasota is the primary sponsor of House Bill 325, the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Act. The bill would take the details of red-light camera use away from local jurisdictions and place them under state regulation. Cities and counties will decide for themselves whether to use the cameras and strike their own deals with vendors who provide them, but the amount of the fines will be set by the state, with the state receiving more than half the money generated.

Reagan says the purpose of the bill is not to raise money. It is named after a Sarasota resident killed by a red-light runner and Reagan said the goal is to enhance highway safety. “I don’t ignore the revenue side but I’m in it for safety first and foremost,” he said.

Using previous years’ volumes of red-light citations and assuming cameras will catch at least twice as many violators, he estimates the bill could mean an additional $80 million to $100 million to the state, adding, “I hope it’s zero.”

The fine for a red-light violation under the bill, which has a Senate companion version, would be $155. Of that, $75 would go to the local jurisdiction, $55 would go to the state general fund and $25 would go to the Health Administration Trust Fund, with biggest share of that set aside for trauma centers and emergency rooms.

Whatever local jurisdictions pay to private companies to supply, maintain and operate the systems would have to come out of their $75 cut.

The new arrangement would potentially boost Collier County’s receipts from its red-light camera program. First time violators here now pay a $62.50 fine, with the vendor, American Traffic Solutions of Arizona, getting $47.50 of that. But second- and third-time offenders pay fines of $75 and $100, with the county keeping a larger share. There’s no graduated fine schedule in the state law. Other places, like Orlando where the fine is $125, would stand to lose money.

While the question is not addressed in the bill as written, Reagan said language may be added to take on the most controversial aspect of the cameras -- the preponderance of tickets written to drivers turning right on red. “I’m working on that. I don’t have an answer yet,” he said.

One approach would be to follow the example set in Orlando, where they don’t issue tickets if a driver turns right on red at less than 5 mph and there are no pedestrians at the intersection. Another is to waive fines if drivers hesitate before turning right on red and a third is to ticket all drivers turning right unless they follow the letter of the law. The latter approach sends a signal that the program is about raising revenue, Reagan conceded. On the other hand, “We can’t tell people, ‘You can break the law.’”

When Reagan first introduced legislation governing red-light cameras in the state five years ago, only one city was using them. Now there are 64 cities and counties using cameras, making the case for uniform standards more compelling. “I have all the confidence in the world we’ll get this through,” he said.

We frequently receive emails from drivers who ask us if they will receive a ticket in a blizzard, rain storm or during poor weather conditions. These drivers usually plead that they couldn't stop safely before the intersection because of ice or water on the road. It is our understanding that police officers don't suspend red light cameras during bad weather, however, someone does review videos of each infraction and evaluates whether a ticket should be issued. Officers will take into consideration if the driver made a legitimate attempt to stop and didn't stop at the line.

If you think you may have received an unjustified ticket sometimes a successful defense some have used in court is the 'out of necessity' defense for running the red light. This defense basically brings the idea of a dangerous situation at hand. When you tried to come to a stop, your car began to slide on ice or water and you had no choice but to run the red light. You could go on to say that by going through the red light, it was actually safer to have done so as opposed to sliding uncontrollably into traffic, stopped vehicles or pedestrians. Pictures would go a long way here. It is recommended to drive back to the scene as soon as possible and return with a camera. Take pictures of the icy or wet road and anything else that could boost your stories credibility.

We would appreciate hearing stories from drivers below in the comments section of the blog who received a ticket during poor weather conditions and contested the ticket.

The city of Scottsdale, Arizona may take it a step further and is considering using its photo enforced cameras to enforce distracted driver laws. Photo enforcement cameras in Scottsdale are capable of detecting behavior such as text messaging or other “distracted driving” behavior, in addition to capturing speeders and red-light runners. But whether Scottsdale pursues such enforcement as part of a proposed text-messaging and distracted driving law remains to be seen. “We’re able to see people clearly on their cell phones,” said Josh Weiss, spokesman for American Traffic Solutions, the company that operates the fixed cameras and camera-equipped vans on Scottsdale surface streets.

On September 24th, 2008 the Governor of California , Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 28 (SB 28) in to law. The new bill “Prohibits a person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication." The new bill will impose a fine of $20 for the first offense and $50 for subsequent offenses starting January 1, 2009. No violation points will be given as a result of the offense and there are exceptions for emergency personnel.

The bill requires motorists to use hands-free devices while talking on a mobile phone when driving a motor vehicle. California motorists using cell phones have been required to use hands-free devices since July, and drivers under age 18 can't use any electronic devices. Seven other states and the District of Columbia ban text-messaging or the use of hand-held phones while driving, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Supporters of red light cameras say…

• According to the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), drivers who run red lights account for 22% of all traffic accidents in the United States.
• An IIHS study in Oxnard, California showed that red light running violations dropped 42% after red light cameras was introduced. A similar study in Fairfax, Virginia showed violations declined 40% after one year after.
• Publicity of red light cameras deters violations.
• Red light cameras don’t have biases and therefore drivers cannot be unfairly profiled.
• Privacy issues are null because of the public setting. Also, only people violating the law are photographed.
• They make lots of money for cities in need of the revenue.

Those who oppose the use of red light cameras say . . . 

• The owner might not have been driving the car, yet they are mailed owner the ticket.
• Cameras increase other types of accidents, such as rear ending collisions, when people notice the camera and make hasty decisions to avoid ticketing. A Virginia Transportation Research Council study shows an increase of accidents with the installment of red light cameras.
• Longer yellow lights can make intersections much safer, in an easy and inexpensive way (check out the findings of the Texas Transportation Institute)
• There is no standardization of yellow light duration and several cities have been caught shortening them around a red light camera to increase revenue.
• Insurance companies (including IIHS) support red light cameras because more tickets mean they can raise insurance rates
• The accused receive notification weeks after the violation and there are no human witnesses to analyze the whole situation.
  
• They are expensive to operate and service the tickets in our court system.
  
• There are not stands to the fines through the U.S. which range from $50-$400.

Thank you to our friends at Beat The Traffic Blog for putting together this info . . .

5 Studies have shown that red light cameras increase accidents. I have always contented that driving through an intersection that has a red light camera changes your behavior. It makes you more hesitant to go through the intersection if you sense the light is going to change and also makes you want to speed up if you think you might be on the long side of a yellow light. Nervous driving does not create a safer driving environment for everyone.

Studies throughout the U.S. show accidents actually increase after red light cameras are installed. From what I read there are fewer "T-bone" crashes and more occurrences rear end "fender benders". Here are a few cities and their reported increases:

Greensboro, N.C. -- 40 percent increase
Anne Arundel County, Md. -- 41 percent increase
Marietta,Ga. -- 51 percent increase
Ontario, Canada -- 15 percent increase
Winnipeg, Candada -- 58 percent increase

More than 850 people die and and about 170,000 are injured each year in crashes caused by drivers running red lights, the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration says. The Philadelphia study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an industry group, examined red light violations using a two-step approach. First, researchers found that violations dropped by 36% after yellow lights were extended to give drivers more warning that the light was about to turn red. After red light cameras were added, remaining violations dropped by 96%. The popularity of the cameras is growing rapidly despite oppostion that centers on constitutional grounds. About 250 communities around the USA use the devices, according to the Insurance Institute. Just 10 years ago, only New York and San Francisco had them.

Red light cameras are going up all over north Texas, and hundreds of motorists are getting citations in the mail each month for running red lights, but one intersection in Plano has seen a significant minor accidents increase in the past 6 months as people slam on their brakes. This is fairly consistent around the country when camearas are installed.

San Diego reduces half a second to one tenth of a second to help prevent collisions at intersections resulting from drivers running red lights. The city council claims they could have issued 65% more ticktes if the time was reduced. Is this a saftey issue or business issue? Shortening the time will generate the city $191,000 annually in added revenue, city staff told the council. The program is slated to generate $1.52 million in total revenues in fiscal year 2007. The city's red-light camera program was first initiated in 1998, but halted in 2001 after lawsuits were brought over the way the program was run. The city restarted the program in 2003.

Redflex - 1494 Cameras with $50M in Revenue 2008, Redflex Traffic Systems is the longest consistently-operating company in the photo enforcement industry. The company, with operations based in Arizona USA and Australia. http://www.redflex.com As the industry leader, Redflex has more contracts in more states than any other vendor. Public safety programs range from those in smaller cities with only a few camera installations to larger cities where red light or speed-enforcement cameras are employed at dozens of intersections. The REDFLEXred® and REDFLEXspeed® photo enforcement technology innovated at Redflex provide unsurpassed accuracy in reducing red light- and speed- related traffic collisions. Statistics in most Redflex-protected cities show significant reductions in most collisions, injuries and costs associated with unlawful driving.

ATS - 1000 Cameras with $40M in Revenue 2008. American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (ATS) is a leading provider of technology and business solutions for photo traffic safety and electronic toll enforcement programs worldwide. Our President and CEO, James Tuton, pioneered the automated photo traffic enforcement industry in the United States, with the first speed-camera program implemented in Paradise Valley, Arizona in 1987. The red-light camera industry followed nearly 10 years later. As the market has matured and grown, so has ATS. ATS has grown more than 500% since 2003 and is now the largest provider of traffic enforcement programs to America’s big cities including: New York City, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.; St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri; San Diego, California; Seattle, Washington; Houston, Fort Worth, Irving and Arlington, Texas; New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa, Glendale and Scottsdale, Arizona. ATS also provides Canada’s largest digital red-light camera and speed enforcement program in Calgary, Alberta. ATS serves more than 125 municipalities and government agencies (both large and small) with red-light and speed camera enforcement programs. We have installed nearly 1,000 cameras around the country, with hundreds more in various planning stages.

Nestor - 400 Cameras
ACS - 300 Cameras

RedSpeed - 300 Cameras
Laser Craft - 250 Cameras

Gatso - 250 Cameras and big in Europe

Traffipax -
Transol -
Peek Traffic -

Red-light cameras were first installed in New York City in 1993. Since then, their popularity has grown dramatically and it is estimated that more than 100 communities use the technology. Research on the issue of red-light cameras and accidents showed generally positive outcomes. Starting in 2001, the U.S. Department of Transportation funded research in seven jurisdictions with data from before and after installation, as well as at reference and control sites. Research has shown a significant decrease in right-angle crashes (379 fewer crashes). However, it also showed a significant increase in rear-end crashes (375 additional crashes) as people slammed on their brakes to avoid a ticket. As for injuries, the red-light cameras reduced injuries in right-angle crashes by 55 and increased injuries in rear-end crashes by 32.

Red light runners are most likely to be younger than 30, have multiple speeding convictions and are less likely to use seat belts than other drivers. Fatally injured red light runners are six times more likely to have a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more than other drivers in such crashes, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.