Daily Nonpareil wrote:The Council Bluffs City Council Monday night gave the green light to install cameras at selected intersections to record drivers who run red lights.
The council approved the third reading of an ordinance that would allow cameras to capture red light violators as a way to reduce those numbers and thereby reduce accidents.
The vote was 3 to 1 in favor with Scott Belt in opposition. Councilman Chad Primmer was absent.
"It appears it can reduce accidents," Councilman Matt Walsh said of the cameras.
But, is it the best method?
That's what resident Ron Koontz wondered.
He suggested the council consider lengthening the time the lights are yellow as a way to reduce red light violators.
Koontz said in Fairfax County, Va., officials increased the yellow-light time at camera-enforced intersections from 4 seconds to 5.5 seconds and saw a decline in violations that were recorded by the cameras.
"I would like to see more research," Koontz suggested to the council.
The majority of the council, however, liked the camera idea.
"These cameras aren't going to cost any money," said Lynne Branigan.
Belt said he voted against the ordinance because he didn't "feel comfortable" approving something without a formal contract.
At the moment, the city has a letter of understanding with California-based Redflex Traffic Systems as the company it's interested in working with, according to City Engineer Greg Reeder.
A contract is expected after Redflex monitors 16 high-traffic intersections to determine which ones would be most suitable for the cameras.
About four or five intersections would then be selected for the cameras and a contract could then be signed, Reeder said.
Redflex would install and maintain the cameras and process the film and would get a share of the $65 civil fine for violations to repay its investment and work.
How big that share would be would depend on the number of intersections and how many tickets are written, Reeder said.
When asked at Monday's council study session how long the contract might be in force, Reeder said, "What's been discussed has been five years."
According to the ordinance, the vehicle owner, even if someone else is driving, shall be liable for a fine if police determined that a red light violation was committed.
The ordinance calls for a civil fine of $65, payable to the City Treasurer.
Man, if they put these in at 72nd and Dodge, we'd pay for the pedestrian bridge in no time!
I thought we already had those in Omaha? Hmm Well I'll just have to drive really fast so the image will be blurred. I think it's a waste of money to put cameras up. People are going to run lights. The only thing that would stop it is if there was a cop sitting there the whole time and that'd be a waste too.
It's also a hard thing to prosecute though. What if you honestly made a mistake and you were penalized for it? You wouldn't think it was so funny than. Than it starts to cost more with taking time out to fight the ticket in court and if that person loses and really makes an issue of it than everyone else who gets a ticket is going to try the same defense. There are much more important things to worry about than running lights. People should be more responsible but you can't police everything. Spend the money on the bridge CB.
Easily. But think about it. If you have kids and they're screaming and bothering you you can. I guess it also depends on how the lights work. I have heard of some that take pictures on red only and others that are in the yellow. Either way it's ulitmatley pointless and a waste of money.
That's no excuse for running a red light though, and it is still illegal. That's like an [expletive] driver on a cell phone that cuts you off to cause a wreck saying he isn't responsible because he was distracted with something else.
And this is more of a safety issue, not a government big brother thing just to put more money in the city coffers. High traffic or high speed intersections have major problems with people "gunning it on yellow" and it can cause some bad wrecks.
Last edited by DMRyan on Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's no excuse for running a red light though and is still illegal. That's like an [expletive] driver on a cell phone that cuts you off to cause a wreck saying he isn't responsible because he was distracted with something else.
And this is more of a safety issue, not a government big brother thing just to put more money in the city coffers. High traffic or high speed intersections have major problems with people "gunning it on yellow" and it can cause some bad wrecks.
To me this whole policing red light idea is like the cell phone one. Is it the best thing to do while driving? No. Are people still going to do it? Yes. There are way to many ways now that people are trying to police everything and it's many times unnecessary. I'm not saying this as a young driver, but as someone who realizes that this is pointless. That VA city was given as an example as another way to reduce red light runners. Also if CB doesn't have to "pay" for them and the cameras do well, how are they going to pay for them if no one is getting tix?
So when they are taling about light runners are they talking about people who are going when it was still yellow or people who were stopped and decide to go anyways? If the latter is the case than maybe I would agree with the cameras, but if it's for the former, it's still seems asinine to me. Everyone does it. Actually last Friday when I was up in Omaha (on Sorenson Pkwy) my aunt went through while the light was still yellow and she almost stopped because of a cop sitting in another lane. We went through and after words she was surpised by the other 5 cars behind us that blew through the light with the cop there. She's not from Omaha so she was surpised but if a cop is sitting there in plain view of everyone what is a camera going to do? Instead of trying to beat the light people will probably start trying to beat the camera. I bet the cameras work but they probably don't work all the time.
The camera records as soon as the light turns red. If you were already in the intersection (i.e. going through a yellow light, you will not be fined). But, if you were not, then you will get fined and the camera will have measured the time the light was red to the time your vehicle entered the intersection, making a tough fight in court. They even have powerful flashes and will catch offenders at night.
It does get worse, out here they have police cars sitting along the side of the road and they don't track you down for speeding, thus just have the cameras set up and mail you your ticket!
DMRyan wrote:That's no excuse for running a red light though, and it is still illegal.
Unless, of course, you have a Lexus. Then you can gun it like a bandit out of heck. ;-) You know you do it all the time up there in Lauderdodge. No cop no stop, right? Or do they just have stop signs up there? Haha.
God created alcohol to keep the Irish from taking over the world!
I'm against them mostly because running a red is a habbit I have. One time in fact I was waiting at a red turn arrow with a cop right behind me. I was a little nervous fearing I would do something stupid in front of this cop. And I did. The cross traffic light turns green, but the turn arrow stays red, but I was looking at the cross traffic light and not my arrow, so I go right through a red turn arrow in front of a car. Oddly enough, the cop does not follow me. Instead he just waits there for it to change....so yea, it might be a good idea, but I won't personally endorse it.
I have to disagree with some of your arguments DTO. Try replacing "Red Light Camera" with the word "police" in some of your arguments, and then see how silly it sounds. "The POLICE can stop some of the crimes, but not all of them, so why have the POLICE around at all?" I am all for having red light cameras, and Nebraksa was ready to pass a bill untill Ernie Chambers killed it. (He didn't like Big brother looking over his shoulder--go figure.) Anyway, I am all for those cameras at heavy intersections watching the left turn lanes. People running the redlights on left turns has absolutley gotten out of hand. The other day I turned left on yellow and the light turned to red while I was in the middle of the intersection. 4 cars followed me through. By mistake? No way.
What I'd love to see is left turn cameras, especially up here (but definitely getting to be a problem in Omaha too!).
I was the FIRST car in line at a left green turn arrow, and so many idiots were turning left from my right *after* their light was red that I missed the green AND yellow arrows.
Daily Nonpareil wrote:Officials of Redflex Traffic Systems began monitoring drivers for red light violations Tuesday and could continue through next week, said City Engineer Greg Reeder.
The company is monitoring various intersections to determine where best to install cameras that would record drivers who run red lights.
The City Council Monday night approved an ordinance that would allow this to happen. The purpose is to reduce accidents resulting from someone running a red light. There were more than 200 of these accidents between 1999 and 2003.
The monitoring started on the South Expressway at the intersections of 32nd and 30th avenues, Reeder said.
One intersection that will most surely be monitored is North Broadway and Kanesville Boulevard, said Blake Redfield, traffic maintenance director.
That's considered the worst intersection for the number of severe crashes caused by red-light violations, Redfield said.
"Other intersections may have more crashes, but not as serious," he said.
Other intersections Redflex may monitor during this study include Valley View Drive and Iowa Highway 92, Sixth Street and Kanesville, Frank Street and Kanesville and 16th Street and West Broadway, Redfield said.
These are considered the worst intersections in the city in a list of 16 for having the most severe crashes from red-light violations, he said.
This comes from data compiled from the city's own records and that of the state's Transportation Research Center at Iowa State University, Redfield said.
After the monitoring is completed, Redflex will recommend to the city in a week or slightly longer where the cameras should be permanently installed, he said.
"Once the city gets the video results, we'll go through the contract negotiations," said Mark Etzbach, Redflex spokesman.
That takes about a month to complete on average, he said.
Once a contract is in place, Reflex will install and maintain the cameras and process the film for the Police Department to review for red-light violations.
The company's fee for this work will come out of the $65 fine violators will pay. Etzbach said the company will talk with the city about what amount that fee will be.
It may take 45 to 60 days to install all of the equipment, he said.
"If everything goes as planned, Council Bluffs should be operational by July 1," Etzbach said.
DTO Luv wrote:There are much more important things to worry about than running lights. People should be more responsible but you can't police everything. Spend the money on the bridge CB.
I think spending money on camera to prevent accidents from people running red lights is much more important than a bridge.
They were talking on the news to some CB people about and most of them weren't to thrilled about it. If you want to know a way to beat it just put mud on your license plate. They can't prosecute mother nature.
DTO Luv wrote:They were talking on the news to some CB people about and most of them weren't to thrilled about it. If you want to know a way to beat it just put mud on your license plate. They can't prosecute mother nature.
Uhhh, deliberately altering or obscuring your license plate is a violation as well. I would also imagine the "news" showed what they wanted to make it look as controversial as possible - most polls have shown people in favor of these cameras most everywhere.
Just curious DTO, do you wake up to Mellencamp's "Authority Song" every morning?
Daily Nonpareil wrote:Council Bluffs drivers don't have to worry about being photographed for red-light violations.
For the time being, that is.
The study of various intersections to determine where best to install the cameras to record red-light violators is now complete, City Engineer Greg Reeder said Monday.
The study was done by Redflex Traffic Systems of California.
Company officials installed cameras at 16 different intersections - a camera at eight different intersections one day and the same thing at eight other intersections the following day, recording eight hours of traffic flow at each site for 16 hours worth of study, Reeder said.
Intersections studied included Eighth Street and West Broadway, 16th Street and West Broadway, 35th Street and West Broadway, 25th Street and West Broadway North Broadway and Kanesville Boulevard, North Ave-nue and Kanesville, Frank Street and Kanesville and First and Pierce streets, Reeder said.
Redflex officials are now processing the recordings and studying where violations occurred most often to determine where best to install cameras on a permanent basis, he said.
The City Council last week approved an ordinance that would allow cameras to be installed at selected sites as a way to reduce accidents caused by red-light violations.
Reeder said he probably won't get the recommendations from Redflex on where to install the cameras until the end of the month or in early April. It's been suggested that four or five intersections would be chosen for installation of the permanent cameras.
More than likely, one camera will be installed at the chosen sites, Reeder said.
"Most likely, the monitoring will be done in one direction," he said. "Not all directions have problems, though there could be two (cameras) at some sites. It depends on the history of the intersection and what they (Redflex) find in their monitoring."
After the recommendations came back, city and Redflex officials will sit down and hammer out a contract for the company's services. Redflex will install and maintain the cameras and process the film to allow Council Bluffs police to identify those who need to be ticketed.
A ticket will cost the registered owner of the vehicle $65. Redflex will receive a portion of the fine for its services, with the exact amount determined during the contract negotiations, Reeder said.
The length of the contract, possibly five years, will also need to be finalized.
The permanent cameras should be ready to record sometime in late summer, Reeder said.
I do wish Omaha had the cameras. I remember Ernie Chambers throwing a fit a few years ago when the proposal came up. Red light runners have rights too. Especially if you are running from the police.
Good luck to CB, I hope this program gets amazing results, then is brought to Omaha. Sounds like they have a fair system in place, with officers reviewing the photos to make sure an actual violation has taken place. I also saw on the news that they are using Nikon D70's for taking pictures. A 6mp digital slr is a great choice for imaging, and should remove any doubt that a license plate could be misread.
So what happens if you let your mother-in-law borrow your car to go to the grocery store, she just happens to run a red-light in your car, shouldn't she as the driver get the ticket? With red-light cameras, the vehicle owner will get the ticket, which seems like it would not hold up in court too well.
Isn't that why police officers pull you over for speeding, then make you sign the ticket.....so they can prove in court that it was really you???
If your vehicle was not in your "custody, care or control at the time of infraction" you must complete an affidavit and "provide the name, address and driver's license number of the person operating your vehicle" at the time the ticket was issued. It must be signed and notarized. Thus, the responsible party gets the ticket. However, if you have someone who drove your vehicle but is not willing to admit it or provide said information, I assume there will be a little battle in the courts.
For DTO and all others concerned, there are companies that sell products that block license plates from red light cameras. The spray on reflective material really works.
Fortunately, for those stupid enough to let someone else drive your vehicle, running these red lights will only be a civil fine, which means it won't go on your driving record and reported to the insurance companies, which at least will be some consolation for the stooopuds out there.
DMRyan wrote:For DTO and all others concerned, there are companies that sell products that block license plates from red light cameras. The spray on reflective material really works.
What? You didn't think I don't have a garage full of that stuff? It's illegal to by in all of the states that touch us, but thankfully South Dakota isn't on the list. Thank you for your mailing address South dakota family.
Looks like the red light cameras have been pretty successful so far....in catching violators.
Since Aug. 4, when police began writing red-light citations after a two-week warning period, 2,258 citations have been issued, according to the police department.
At $65 a pop, that's almost $150,000, or to look at it another way, more than $2500 a day. Even split 50/50, it isn't going to take the camera company long to recoup their costs. Now we'll just have to wait and see if the accidents actually decrease at these intersections.
There have been a couple jurisdictions elsewhere in the state where these types of cameras have been found to be in violation of state law(s), but so far, not in CB:
It appears a judge's ruling in Des Moines will not put a stop to the red-light camera operation in Council Bluffs, according to city officials.
"We'll continue what we're doing because we figure what we're doing is correct," Mayor Tom Hanafan said.
Polk County Magistrate Jeffrey Lipman ruled this week that the red-light cameras being used in Clive, a Des Moines suburb, violate state law. Lipman ruled that Clive couldn't use two different fines for the same traffic offense. . .
He also mentioned that a magistrate made the Clive ruling, not a district judge who has higher authority. It was a district judge who upheld the Council Bluffs ordinance after it was challenged by a citizen, Bauermeister said.
"Until we get a judge saying that we can't do it, we'll continue it," he said.
"The reason we're doing it is to eliminate problems at corners, and it has worked well," Hanafan said. "We've eliminated lots of accidents, and people are more alert about red light running. I think it is working."
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."
Mayor Tom Hanafan is steaming over the Iowa Senate's narrow passage Monday of an amendment to ban red-light traffic cameras, saying he's sick of losing control over local issues to lawmakers in Des Moines.
"Each January, people in Iowa shutter when their Legislature goes into session," he said. "I've got no idea why we've got local government any more."
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."
Well I'll just have to drive really fast so the image will be blurred. I think it's a waste of money to put cameras up. People are going to run lights. The only thing that would stop it is if there was a cop sitting there the whole time and that'd be a waste too.
