Comments on: Senator Kastama vs. Traffic Safety Cameras

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:50:38 +0000

Well, if you’re robbing banks then I’m even more in favor of more cameras. It always seems to come down to, if you’ve got nothing to hide then you have no objection to cameras in public spaces.

By: Transit Guy

Transit Guy — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:37:39 +0000

We shouldn’t want the “same results” as a traffic camera, Adam. Reread my post. We need more enforcement everywhere, not just a few (or even many) red lights. I still ask, how many tickets would an officer have to write in order to “pay” for him or herself; that $121,000 that you allege? That figure works out to about $500 per workday, which I think is an achievable number.

By: John

John — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:54:57 +0000

I suspect some of our Metro drivers would say there are times when it makes more sense to run the light than to slam on the brakes, yes.

By: John

John — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:53:49 +0000

I think the evidence is pretty clear that, in Seattle at least, the cameras are having a positive impact. Kastama doesn’t dispute the positive – he seems to want to argue financial hardship on the part of the motorist who gets the citation.

By: J

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:38:49 +0000

There’s an awful lot of misinformation about red-light cameras that seems to get repeated around the web, mostly by people who don’t like them, and look for reasons to block them. I’d suggest checking suggested or insinuated “facts” here, first:

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html

By: J

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:33:20 +0000

Oh–so it’s okay to run a red light if you’re in a large bus or truck, and going too fast or not paying attention enough to anticipate the light change?

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:34:24 +0000

You can always comes up with a “but image this situation..” Good laws create systems to deal with these situations while ensuring that the integrity of the law is maintained.

By: Z

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:53:32 +0000

im not saying its OK to run a red light, however presume you ar driving a large bus or truck, you might not always want to slam on the brake to stop at a light… same goes for if you have someone tailgating you. i realize their insurance if they had any would pay for the damages but do you really want to go there?

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:57:00 +0000

New York was looking at using photo enforcement for bus lanes but the state government wouldn’t give them the authorization to do that.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:42:16 +0000

I narrowly avoided that fate myself in downtown Auburn a couple of years ago, T-boned by cross traffic. Fortunately she hit just far enough back that the pillar between the front and rear doors took the worst of the impact, and fortunately I didn’t have my children in the back seat. But she still hit me hard enough to shove my car sideways across a full lane of traffic and up against the curb; hard enough that the door pillar caved in until it touched my shoulder, and the door was pressed up against my elbow.

Red-light cameras are shown to dramatically reduce T-bone accidents, though they sometimes trigger a modest increase in less-severe rear-end accidents. Having lived through both, I’d rather be rear-ended by a cement truck than T-boned by a compact sedan.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:25:37 +0000

Red-light-camera tickets have no bearing on insurance rates.

They’re a vehicle violation, not a driver violation — the vehicle owner is being cited for allowing unsafe operation of the vehicle, but no driver is identified or cited, and no points are applied to anyone’s MVR.

Insurance companies support these cameras because of reduced claims, not increased premiums. If fewer cars get hit by scofflaws running lights, the insurance companies pay less in claims, and retain more money from existing premium levels.

Since insurance rates are both highly competitive and highly regulated, if the cameras work long-term, and produce a significant reduction in claims, they will eventually reduce insurance premiums, not increase them.

By: Jeff Welch

Jeff Welch — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:18:27 +0000

I’d like to see them at every intersection on 3rd Avenue from Stewart down to Cherry to nab all of the bus lane violators who ignore the “Do Not Enter” and “No Left Turn” signs during transit-only times. The city could make a mint.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:12:58 +0000

I’d sure like to see the “red light” cameras used for crosswalk enforcement. I understand the reason the tickets aren’t a moving violation because the camera doesn’t positively identify the driver but it would be nice to set up a few emphasis patrols with motorcycles that work in conjunction with the cameras just so people know they may be facing much more severe consequences for breaking the law.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 16:38:09 +0000

The cameras don’t attempt to identify the driver, just as a parking ticket doesn’t attempt to identify who parked it there. The basic principle is that if you own the vehicle, you’re responsible for it except for a few circumstances, and there are procedures for demonstrating you qualify for those circumstances.

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:15 +0000

I don’t think that companies that operate the systems keep 75% of the fines. Where did you find that?

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:36:25 +0000

From the report I linked to

It also is important to look at alternative means of enforcement. Even if the City were to increase the number of traffic and motorcycle officers devoted to enforcement of traffic laws, it would not be possible for officers to provide the 24/7 vigilance and enforcement of traffic laws that is possible with cameras. Each additional motorcycle officer in 2008 would cost approximately $121,000 a year, including equipment. Given that it would take six officers to provide 24/7 coverage at a single intersection over the course of a year, cameras are remarkably cost effective.

This is why you can’t just add a few more cops and get the same results.

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:31:34 +0000

Take a look at this.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/01/08/the-290000-speeding-ticket/

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:29:33 +0000

That is a good point.

By: Adam B. Parast

Adam B. Parast — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:28:20 +0000

The Senator’s legislation does nothing to modify how the companies that operate these cameras are reimbursed for their work.

By: Erik G.

Erik G. — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 08:56:54 +0000

Bravo Mark!

That last line is right on the money. Would love to know how many of 509′s kids are in the city of Seattle, north of Yesler and south of 50th tonight. And probably just because they are oh so slightly “different”.