The city could do a lot to reduce red light accidents and "red light running" including reconfiguring intersections and adding 1 second to the yellow. These will not generate profits for the city so they are not discussed by the city. People need to get educated before they vote so they stop voting for the people who are just interested in running the government and not representing the people.

Generating fines simply to make profits for the cities is simply WRONG!

20 reasons to oppose photo radar:

Web Link


camerafraud.com

Personally, I'd support public floggings for people who run red lights. It's not a minor thing. People die in these accidents, and for what? So some idiot doesn't have to wait a minute or two for the light to turn green again.

It's a serious public safety risk, and I'd rather my taxpayer dollars go for a red light camera than to pay for an officer to sit at an intersection all day and all night.

Having grown up in a smaller community, the driving habits of folks on the Peninsula appear suggestive of a callous disregard for the safety of others, not to mention a wide disrespect for the rule of law. A large percentage of drivers here seem only concerned with getting away with as much as possible, and then artfully complaining when they get caught pushing their luck. The red light camera controversy is a red herring given the driving environment as a whole.

The cameras - at least the ones downtown - don't seem to work right. Spend a few minutes standing at the intersection of El Camino Real and Ravenswood, and watch the cameras happily photograph nothing in particular when there is no red light violation. I hope people aren't getting tickets for that.

With the problem with RLC is that your typical RLV Crash is PLUS 5 INTO RED. Yet most violations are under a second that a camera cite. Yet when longer yellow lights are put in place the violations disappear. RLC are a SCAM. It is pretty obvious too. Go look at Norcross, GA which DROPPED RLC because the longer yellow light required by HB 77 killed the profits.

RLC were never intended as a safety device. Just using the "safety mantra" to whack people for technical fouls that in this case a longer yellow light WOULD STOP.

But that is something the city and the vendor DONT WANT. They count on having a number of violations per day. One of the many reasons RLC will fail long term.

Don't believe me, than why did 2007 V-Dot show more wrecks (even more t-bones despite the camera in their restate).

Stephen -

Perhaps I'm alone with this comment, but I barely understood anything you said and what may be meaningful data is totally lost.

Is there some reason you are using codes and abbreviations that no one knows in your post?

10-4.

POGO-
While I'm not any sort of inside expert, I'll try to translate the comment above because it makes some important points. Commenter Stephen appears to be citing information that is widely known, but not much advertised in communities that use the red light cameras. It's true that while the cameras are installed under the guise of safety, they are primarily a huge revenue stream. Most red light accidents don't happen at the very start of a red light, they happen because the driver failed to notice the intersection and blazes through at high speed- a few seconds into the light. The cameras give tickets to people that barely miss the yellow signal- resulting in higher accident rates at these intersections in many cases. People see yellow and learn to slam on the brakes too soon to avoid a ticket. There are communities that couple the cameras with shorter yellow signals to increase profits. When Menlo Park was considering installing them, a city just across the bridge was finalizing some sort of lawsuit for this behavior. It's not surprising that longer yellow lights have a bigger impact on red light violation accidents than cameras do. They give people the chance to slow and stop safely, plus the longer yellow time reminds one that it's time to get stopped asap. I don't think it's ever acceptable to run a red light, not even a nice "fresh" red light, and wouldn't defend the practice. However, it's simplistic to think that increasing tickets in the first moments of a red light really reduces serious accidents- as other cars are certainly not making jack-rabbit starts from their freshly green lights. The cameras are what they are: a new revenue stream for our city. As long as the city plays by the rules and keeps the yellow signals at an acceptable and legal minimum length, I guess we should welcome them. We should also beware of fender benders at those intersections during the yellow signals.

A couple of things stand out:

1) The number of accidents at the Willow/Bayfront intersection haven't been reduced since installation of the cameras. That tells you plain-as-day that they aren't working if, as we've been led to believe, this is all about "safety".

2) The cameras are obviously "working" from a revenue enhancement standpoint, however, in the fact that over 9000 citations have been issued, bringing in over $300,000 per year to the city per the article. That's hardly "chump change" and thus our politicans will shamelessly continue to insist it's all about "safety" despite all evidence to the contrary.

3) There is no discussion of the cameras on El Camino - and with good reason, I suspect. Even at the "notoriously dangerous Willow/Bayfront intersection", the total number of accidents per year is stated to be just 12, with just one of those being a major injury accident. I dare say that at the El Camino locations, those figures are much, much lower - probably just a couple of non-injury accidents each year (which, again, may or may not be due to red-light running). And any concerns there could easily be eliminated by adding an extra second to the yellow light as suggested by "Guest" above

Bottom-Line: It's all about the $$$ (as usual).

Two things not mentioned in the article:

1. In the last 3 months there's been three appeal decisions (Bullock, Lopez, Schmidt) about the cameras in San Mateo County. The appeal dept. thinks that the contracts in Redwood City, Menlo Park, San Mateo, Millbrae, Daly City and South San Francisco are illegal. As a result, if you take your camera ticket all the way to a not guilty trial, it will be dismissed. For more info go to highwayrobbery.net.

2. Drivers in California need to know about Snitch Tickets, which are fake/phishing red light camera tickets sent out by some CA police departments to fool the registered owner into ID'ing the actual driver of the car. (Local cities known to be using them are Daly City, Elk Grove, Emeryville, Fairfield, Marysville, Millbrae, Modesto, Newark, Redding, Rocklin, San Leandro, San Mateo, Stockton and Union City.) Snitch Tickets haven't been filed with the court so they don't say "Notice to Appear," don't have the court's address, and say (on the back, in small letters), "Do not contact the court." Since they have NOT been filed with the court, they have no legal weight. You can ignore a Snitch Ticket. If in doubt, Google the term.

Does the camera at Ravenswood x El Camino only work for cars on El Camino? I was starting to turn left from Ravenswood onto El Camino when the camera start flashing like crazy. Mine was the only car in the intersection.