Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dallas' Turns Off Red Light Cameras Because They're Working Too Well

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:17 PM
Original message
Dallas' Turns Off Red Light Cameras Because They're Working Too Well
Dallas' red light cameras may face changes as revenue estimate drops
Dallas' system works too well, eating into revenues, fueling possible changes

The Dallas Morning News
By DAVE LEVINTHAL
12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, March 15, 2008


Dallas City Hall has idled more than one-fourth of the 62 cameras that monitor busy intersections because many of them are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their operational costs, according to city documents. Initial gross revenue estimates for the red light camera system during Dallas' 2007-08 fiscal year were $14.8 million, according to city records. The latest estimate? About $6.2 million. City Manager Mary Suhm on Friday estimated net revenue will fall $4.1 million under initial estimates.

That leaves Dallas government with a conundrum. Its red-light camera system has been an effective deterrent to motorists running red lights – some monitored intersections have experienced a more than 50 percent reduction. But decreased revenue from red light-running violations means significantly less revenue to maintain the camera program and otherwise fuel the city's general fund.

Exacerbating the drain is a new state law requiring that municipalities send half of their net red-light-running camera revenue to Austin and post signs alerting drivers of upcoming camera installations. Also, city records indicate Dallas has lengthened yellow-light intervals on 12 of its 62 monitored traffic signals, giving motorists more time to beat a red light.

City transportation officials say they're brainstorming potential changes to the red-light camera program, which is financed by the general fund, before a planned update to the City Council next month on the program's status. "We did not anticipate having such success so early with the number of people not running red lights," said Zaida Basora, Dallas' assistant director of public works and transportation. "If you have success in safety, you don't have a lot of success in revenue. The other side is the people will go back to what they were doing before without the cameras."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-redlights_15met.ART.North.Edition1.468120d.html">MORE

- The dummies should have used dummy cameras if "safety" was their real concern.....
========================================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. how expensive is it to maintain a few cameras?
fucking ass-backward dallas. go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. They're pretty sophisticated installations
They sound a lot more simplistic than they actually are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Probably another no-bid contract to Halliburton... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. These cameras are a total friggin' scam
I got a red light ticket once when a motorist stopped in front of me, and I was "caught" in the intersection.

The traffic judge explained -- in pretty frank terms -- that in most cases, he wasn't "allowed" to reduce fines, even if he could see what was going on, since a certain amount of $$ had to be generated for upkeep of the camera maintenance contract! (These were installed by Lockheed, I think...)

In other words, the judge was admitting these were self-perpetuating systems, with little to do about actual "violations," traffic laws, etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Well, I've always wondered....
...about the "right to face your accuser" when it comes to these cameras. I mean, how do you cross-examine a camera and ask how it was feeling that day. Or, did it have a smudge on its lens that morning and "maybe" got confused???

- You know, that sort of thing......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. exactly -- so they decide the cameras are infallible, and you aren't
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. "Resistance if futile" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. "If you have success in safety, you don't have a lot of success in revenue."
Money trumps safety? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. When US soldiers....
...have to gerry-rig their vehicles to protect themselves from roadside bombs because some asshat in the Pentagon isn't worried about their safety? At least not until they start to get pilloried even in the MSM about it?

- Yeah money always trumps safety.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. The police in the town of Clinton, Massachusetts are experts at running ticket-mills.
They set-up ad hoc half-assed "do not enter" zones for "safety" reasons that are really designed to ensnare drivers into violating them,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kick for the sheer stupidity of it all
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I just wish we could kick them....
...for their stupidity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
here_is_to_hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. *snicker!* n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. Wow, a large portion of the population follows the laws. Who could have guessed?
Next time anyone out there wants to waste millions, call me. I will save you some money and embarrassment.

:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Follow the laws, yes....
...but we're all still "persons of interest."

- Their interested in our cash....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
9. The Police State back firing on itself. Wait a minute there isn't enough cash coming in, DOH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. ....
"But I think I've made a difference...."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. they are to make $$$ not save lives - ever expanding government bloat nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
15. Red light cameras decrease side-impact collisions but increase rear-end collisions.
People see a yellow light, jam on their brakes (afraid to get a ticket) and get rear-ended more often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Aren't side impacts more dangerous, though?
That's what I've always heard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Unless you hit a motorcycle. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elidor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
17. Let me see if I have this straight
It's not about safety, it's all about the money. If the cameras can't generate enough revenue, then a few more people will just have to be injured, maimed or even killed, and that's just tough. Is that it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NutmegYankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
23. Oh wow, Dallas didn't follow the California Model.
And shorten rather than lengthen the yellow lights to screw more drivers over.

Good to see they actually had a conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
24. My uncle told me about the first traffic lights.
Folks thought it was a ridiculous idea.
"Who the hell is gonna stop just because there's a little red light on?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC