Cameras in Action
by The Panda Man · 09/08/2006 2:47 pmHouston’s red-light cameras went live on September 1st, and now some figures are coming out from the first week of operation.
Houston Police Sgt. Michael Muench said more than 600 incidents have been caught on camera at 10 intersections since the system began working Sept. 1, but about 70 were dismissed after review by officers.
Most of the incidents that were dismissed were triggered when a car turned right on red.
Officers also don’t cite vehicles the cameras catch entering intersections on yellow or coming to an abrupt stop just past the crosswalk, he said.
“In those instances, we go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt to the driver,” Muench said.
Actually, that would be the vehicle owner, as the camera system does not identify the driver. And given that officers have both video and photographic evidence to review, it seems rather odd that there would be any doubt to give. Entering an intersection on yellow is not a crime after all, and stopping on the crosswalk is certainly preferable to running the light. In any event, vehicle owners accused by the camera system will have the opportunity to review that video evidence online.
Also revealed in the Chronicle story is that the camera system measures speed.
The system also shows the speed of the car that runs the red light, but officers don’t issue speeding tickets based on camera evidence.
Yet? According to one HPD officer who reviews the photographic evidence the cameras are a success so far.
“It makes my job a lot easier,” Bailey said. The cameras allow him to cite many more offenders than he could from a patrol car, he said, and he’s been surprised at how many people blatantly ignore the red light.
We certainly don’t want officers out on the streets citing traffic offenders, chasing suspects, and generally fighting crime. Better to have them sitting at desks looking at pictures on a computer while the dollars roll in. Which brings us to that matter of potential revenue. The camera vendor suggests the city’s estimate of $6.7 million in fines is quite low.
The department projects the [eventual total of fifty] cameras will record about 360,000 violations annually or $27 million potential revenue. But the city expects only about a quarter of the violators to pay the fine, which would bring in $6.7 million. Tuton said that estimate is low, and most cities using ATS technology see a payment rate of 75 percent to 90 percent.
Well, eighty percent of a potential $27 million is a real $21 million a year. But remember, it’s all about “safety,” right?
Here in Houston we can realistically expect rear-end crashes to increase significantly as motorists become aware of the cameras, while angle crashes may or may not decrease enough to compensate. A Federal Highway Administration study looked at seven unnamed jurisdictions with cameras and found the following:
Jurisdiction 1:
Reduction in right-angle crashes: 40%
Increase in rear-end collisions: 21.3%
Net decrease in crashes: 18.7%
Jurisdiction 2:
Increase in right-angle crashes: .8%
Increase in rear-end crashes: 8.5%
Net increase in crashes: 9.3%
Jurisdiction 3:
Decrease in right-angle crashes: 14.3%
Increase in rear-end crashes: 15.1%
Net increase in crashes: .8%
Jurisdiction 4:
Decrease in right-angle crashes: 24.7%
Increase in rear-end crashes: 19.7%
Net decrease in crashes: 5%
Jurisdiction 5:
Decrease in right-angle crashes: 34.3%
Increase in rear-end crashes: 38.1%
Net increase in crashes: 3.8%
Jurisdiction 6:
Decrease in right-angle crashes: 26.1%
Increase in rear-end crashes: 12.7%
Net decrease in crashes: 13.4%
Jurisdiction 7:
Decrease in right-angle crashes: 24.4%
Increase in rear-end crashes: 7%
Net decrease in crashes: 17.4%
Five of the seven cities improved angle crashes by 24% or better, yet these improvements were significantly diminished or even wiped out by large increases in rear-end collisions. Three of the jurisdictions did manage decidedly modest net decreases in total crashes, but three others actually saw more crashes after cameras were installed. The remaining city recorded a near break-even net decrease in collisions of only 5%. Camera advocates like to tout crash reduction as justification for the devices, but the data suggests that collisions are moved from one category to another while the municipality and camera company rake in the dollars.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
40 Responses to “Cameras in Action”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Like we’ve said all along… it’s not about safety..it’s about revenue generation!
BTW… 1st I think!
So, Mayor White, when can we start to expect a reduction in our property taxes and why are you trying to redefine Prop. 2 that the voters approved if all this revenue is coming into the system. Oh, I know all that new revenue will go to collection agencies to collect those fines. Oh well, easy come, easy go!!!!!!!
Thats great, set up cameras outside banks. When they get robbed the cop viewing the video can make a virtual arrest.
He can brag “Hey, I can make more arrests watching this monitor than I could in a day on the streets!”
We have gone insane.
Addition to #3:
How about carrying it one step further and arm those cameras with tasers so the cop watching can zap the criminal and they can easily arrest him without violating Chief Hurtt’s “chase policy”.
Let’s see, we have about 600 tickets over say 5 days, about 120 /day. If they dismiss about 10%, thats about 108 /day at $75 for 365 days which is close to $3,000,000. Looks like they’ll need more cameras…and I bet they are already ordered!
#3
Nice.
#4
Throw in a camera-mounted dart gun to pin a $75 citation to the perp’s butt while he lies drooling on the pavement after Tasering and you’ve got yourself a revenue generator-er, uh, I mean, crime fighting tool!
I feel soooooo much safer already!!!
Remember: theyre from the gubmint, how dare anyone actually question them!! And of course, they’re here to help you!!!
My only question is why it has taken so long for Chuck Rosenthal to endict Carol Avacoado??? Could it possibly be so the sheeple will conveniently forget?
PBFloyd
#7
We need to keep up the pressure with Rosenthal regarding Carol Avacado and Priscilla whatsername from TSU.
Ofcourse it sounds like cha-ching !!! Beside the obvious of whiplash increase and personal pain for the citizens, I wonder how much it will cost us for medical for the unisured drivers?????
I don’t figure why they only expect 1/4 to pay? I guess the other 3/4 are illegal and we know they don’t have pay fines or follow laws.
If my butt catches one, I will hauled to clinker if the fee is not paid.
I also wonder what does it cost us to have uniforms reviewing tapes? City of houston is discusting, I wish you guys would vote in some decent folks. I just get to pay taxes for the county but no say on the city a couple blocks away.
Jean
You do get it!
Uh, Jeremy, sorry to burst your bubble, but the study you site confirms both a net decrease in injuries and total collisions after installation of the cameras.
Thank you, drive through - unless the light is red, of course.
Maltboy, you still amaze me.
The only thing that matters is that Maltboy believes that the red-light running goes down. While that’s nice, the method, the potential for corruption, the fact that no matter what anybody says, it’s not about the safety, its about the revenue, the due process issues - all that matters nothing. Just less red-light running.
I guess I have a problem with your “the ends justify the means” standpoint…
This is such a controversial issue, but I can see where it is more dangerous to chase a driver down who ran a red light than it is to use a camera to penalize a driver who deliberately runs a red light being that we are short of police officers. It is also revenue generating for the City of Houston and I believe we should penalize drivers who deliberately run red lights and who more than likely are speeding when doing so. It is not a perfect system and this is not a perfect world.
In the interest of safety, adjustments were made to make the yellows shorter, except at the intersections where they were already short. Somewhere in the past, the mayorpolicechief’s Lieutenant Bag Lady said this. Now HPD can proudly say they have more cop bagmen than anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bag_Man
Am I reading that right? 70 vehicle owners whose vehicle made a legal right hand turn had to go through the trouble of a hearing to get the citations erroneously issued against their vehicles dismissed?
So these dingbat money machines cannot discern a legal turn on red from the illegal running of a red light?
Someone should be hanged for this, or at least fired.
#15 No, you are not reading it right. A police office reviews each and every picture to make sure the law was broken. Only then is a ticket issued. The officer threw the 70 out based on the evidence that they made legal turns. These folks will never see a ticket because none was issued.
The original article cited by Jeremy provides a little more detail.
#14 Ray
You claim:
Please provide some proof to back this up. Do you have a link or other solid evidence that proves the yellows have been shortened in any of the ten Houston intersections? This is news to me.
BTW - A week or so ago, I posted that League City had also installed RLCs, and that additional RLCs had been installed along Bay Area Blvd. I called the LCPD, and it turns out I was wrong. The smaller cameras mounted on top of the red light poles are actually used to detect emergency vehicle lights and turn the intersection “green” so they can get to where they’re needed faster. I hope the RLC haters can take solace in knowing that most of the cameras being installed really are “all about safety”.
On a more humorous note, someone took the time to add an additional sign underneath the RLC warning sign at Bay Area and El Camino. It’s big, day-glow orange, and reads “Warning - Big Brother is watching you!” They’ve even added a pair of suspicious eyes for dramatic effect. I like it!
Jeremy, have you been making mischief?
18: I’m pretty sure those aren’t really “cameras.” They detect strobe lights flashing at a certain frequency, which gives a green light. But I don’t think they take a photographic or video image.
I agree that red light camers are mainly a revenue tool. IF and that is a BIG if, the money was allocated for other police use that could help get more officers on the street for more serious crimes. I do agree with the argument that the only picture taken, is of the license plate and that only proves the car went through the intersection and not who was driving the car. We could be like Europe and take a picture of the front seat with the driver (and passenger) and send it to the owner of the car. There have been a few times where the driver of the car did not want to be pictured with his mistress in the passenger seat and have his wife open the mail. Along with other privacy issues. But the system with just the license plate steps up our privacy a LITTLE bit. As for the desk cops reviewing the pictures, how many traffic cops does it take to bring in 6 million plus per year. It is not a perfect sysyem but the city does have to make it’s money somewhere and if it were to add to street cops it would easier for me to support.
#20
Matt, my point is that LC and Houston are both spending some big money on those emergency light detection systems in the name of public safety, and they won’t get a dime out of them. They deserve credit for doing the right thing.
I worked downtown and saw wrecks caused by idiots who ran red lights. Do folks around here endorse Houstonians obeying only the laws they want to?
I thought conservatives were supposed to believe in law and order. Libs are the ones who think truth is relative and we shouldn’t punish lawbreakers.
HPD should paint the cameras DayGlo orange — and then mount empty DayGlo orange boxes at the intersections without cameras.
Addendum: Over on the thread about the raped 11-year-old, a commentator wrote
>>
Seems some here think Houston drivers should be able to do whatever they want and not be held accountable. Unless a patrolman happens to see them do it.
For reasons unknown to me, the comment I pasted did not materialize. It said, “OK then so who is responsible for the mentality that ‘I can do whatever I want and not be held accountable.’ It is not the conservatives in this country.”
It’s strange that there is only a single mention of “Big Brother” in all of the preceeding posts. It is a very small step from red light cameras to neighborhood street cameras which is a chilling prospect. Cameras all over the city manned by government entities is a serious threat to our freedoms as citizens. We should be very concerned and very worried about the future.
Private cameras protecting private property, unerstandable. Government cameras watching private citizens, a real cause for concern!
#12 jimb
Yes, I’m convinced that red light cameras will result in safer driving habits. Jeremy’s data proves as much (check out the spillover stats). I could care less if the city makes money in the process because I won’t be contributing. They also make lots of money writing speeding and parking tickets. I don’t hear anybody complaining about the motivation behind those. Regarding due process, If a camera takes a picture showing that the light was clearly red before your car entered the intersection, and then takes another picture showing that your car clearly ran the red light, and then a police officer reviews the pictures to verify that you weren’t forced to run the light by an emergency vehicle, then your car ran the friggin’ light. End of story. Anybody with enough gall to challenge indisputable video proof deserves to suffer as much inconvenience as humanly possible. And if it wasn’t the owner driving the car, then they can sign an affidavit to transfer the ticket to the perp to let them deal with it.
You don’t like the cameras because you think they’re only about revenue, corruption, and due process violations. Cool. All anyone has to do to completely subvert the city’s alleged scheme is take personable accountability for how they drive, and exercise the minimum amount of care not to run red lights. If it is really about the money, then the cameras will be gone in short order if everybody does that. When that happens, I will come on this blog and admit to you and everyone else that I was wrong all along. But we all know the ugly truth, which is conveniently ignored by the camera opponents, is that irresponsible people will continue to ignore the law, and will put their convenience above their accountability, and in doing so, they willingly put our lives in danger. I have ZERO sympathy for these folks, and I hope the city gets bloody stinking rich off of their voluntary contributions to the general fund. I’ll just think of it as a “stuck on stupid” tax.
#18/#20
For those worried about those little cameras mounted above the signal masts - Those are traffic CONTROL, not traffic ENFORCEMENT. They rarely are used for emergency vehicles, as a system called Opticon is used for that (And only on Fire Engines and Ambulances, not police vehicles). More details from the Missouri Department of Transportation:
http://www.modot.org/stlouis/links/signalcameras.htm
For all of those challenging Jeremy’s statistics, let me provide some backup data:
Washington (D.C.) Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844_pf.html
Texas House of Representitives: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/hrofr/focus/redlight79-15.pdf
Federal Highway Administration: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/
And finally, a website exposing the failures of Red Light Camera enforcement: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/
The WP “study” has been peer reviewed and determined to be severely flawed.. It was refuted as junk science on this blog after it was cited by Jeremy last week. It’s nothing more than sensationalistic tripe from a liberal rag. Gee, what a surprise!
The Texas Legislature link provided a compendium of other state’s experiences with RLC programs. The majority of states that discontinued their use did so due to legal concerns related to state laws, and not because they didn’t work. All the states that elected to continue their use experienced positive results. What else were we suppose do glean from this?
The third is the same one Jeremy cites in his original post on this subject, and indicates there’s a net decrease in total injuries, total collisions, and a positive spillover effect from RLCs. ‘Nuf said.
The last one is just a rogue site from a bunch of malcontents who would rather protest than take personal responsibility for their own actions. I don’t know about you, but I don’t think this kind of drivel is worth the electrons used to transmit the html code, much less worthy of consideration to support the RLC debate.
Maltboy, you keep insisting that my (and other’s here) disagreement with red-light cameras are due to our liberal leanings or our desire to avoid responsibilty. Lemme clue you in: I don’t run red lights, so this isn’t a problem for me.
It’s interesting, as well, that every thing we throw out to challenge RLC’s are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”, and your “lies, damned lies, and statistics” that you use are to be taken as gospel.
Like Carlin says - “ever notice how everyone else’s stuff is s**t and your s**t is always just stuff”?
Maltboy -
I’m from Missouri originally (don’t know why it took me so long to move to Texas) - and as they say up there - “Show Me”.
I don’t buy the “hype” of the Washington Post story, and despite some recent missteps by the Main-Stream-Media, this does state the fact that the state of Virginia has terminated it’s 10-year “experiment” with RLC’s, citing privacy concerns. You say the report is flawed - where’s the data to back that statement up?
The Texas House report is dated July 31, 2006, so the data is very current, and I would suspect will be used in hearings in the upcoming legislative session in Austin. It also points out issues in other states that the lawmakers might encounter here. Things like Privacy, “Guilty until proven innocent”, where the revenue goes, Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights, Miranda Rights and others.
The final link actually points out serious flaws in California RLC’s, where they are considered a criminal offense (with the associated points on your license), unlike here in Houston, where it is a civil offense. It points out that departments will go on “phishing” expeditions, sending a notice of violation to the automobile owner, saying this is not a fine, but asking you to incriminate the driver (usually the driver’s photo is unclear in these cases), shortened yellow light times, false triggers and much more information that could eventually affect a RLC system in any city, not just California.
I come from the belief that random enforcement is a much better safety measure than a fixed enforcement. The cameras will eventually wake up citizens to their location, and they will drive safely in those areas. But it may not improve their overall driving habits. A cop sitting on the side of the road at random places puts an unpredictability level into the calculation, and drivers wisen up and become more aware of their habits in general, not knowing when the rolling enforcement rolls up on them.
Again, I now put the burden of proof on you to show why you were trying to debunk my earlier statements.
jimb
I’d like to point out that the subject of this post is a study referenced by Jeremy, not me. So that’s his source, not mine. Unfortunately for RLC opponents, the data he cites supports my argument that RLCs reduce total crashes and injuries, while creating a positive spillover effect.
No research is sacrosanct, but any “study” done by a newspaper or third party that does not undergo peer review should be treated with a great deal of skepticism. The IIHS reviews of the WP article and the Burkey study are good examples why this is true.
M.W.Jones
The WP article was garbage, and the study and additional article I posted earlier this week explain why.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4009.pdf see page 7
Here’s what happens when junk science meets peer review:
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4001.pdf see page 6
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1034.pdf
Regarding the Texas Report, you point to legal flaws and scams in other states. While this may be interesting, it’s a red herring because it does nothing to refute my argument that RLCs create safer drivers. The legal issues and questionable practices associated with RLC programs in other states have no bearing on whether RLCs work. Their laws and programs are different than ours anyway, so you can’t necessarily apply those arguments here.
In the first week of RLC operation in Houston, over 500 violations were confirmed at only ten intersections. What does that tell you about random enforcement? It doesn’t work. If it did, those numbers would be much lower.
M.W.Jones
The WP article was garbage, and the study and additional article I posted earlier this week explain why.
http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4009.pdf see page 7
Regarding the Texas Report, you point to legal flaws and scams in other states. While this may be interesting, it’s a red herring because it does nothing to refute my argument that RLCs create safer drivers. The legal issues and questionable practices associated with RLC programs in other states have no bearing on whether RLCs work. Their laws and programs are different than ours anyway, so you can’t necessarily apply those arguments here.
In the first week of RLC operation in Houston, over 500 violations were confirmed at only ten intersections. What does that tell you about random enforcement? It doesn’t work. If it did, those numbers would be much lower.
M.W.Jones
Here’s what happens when junk science meets peer review:
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1034.pdf
Maltboy -
I don’t have time to continue this arguement, but I will end it with this quote from the bottom of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s report that you referred to in #33:
“The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an
independent, nonprofit, scientific and educational
organization dedicated to reducing the losses —
deaths, injuries, and property damage — from
crashes on the nation’s highways. The Institute
is wholly supported by auto insurers”
In other words - The IIHS is the Insurance Companies’ LOBBYING GROUP - and is known to be powerful on Capitol Hill at getting laws changed all in the name of safety. While some of those changes are good (Seat Belt Usage, Air Bags, etc.), they have had their missteps as well. That is the reason I disregard their data in these instances - their data is flawed, and they’re bending the truth to pass it off.
M.W.
Thank you for making my argument all the more compelling by pointing out that the group most affected by RLCs also backs them 100%. Are you actually suggesting that the insurance companies would support RLCs if they increased injury and collision claims? As my daughter would say, what-ever!
Maltboy - if you’re willing to give up just a bit more of your constitutional rights for something as small as a fractional improvement in red light safety, then that’s all I need to know.
I, for one, am not willing to give up rights over a few percentage points reduction in crashes.
That’s a truly disgusting approach. RLC’s create safer drivers so it’s all OK. I believe the idea proposed early on to put laser guided Tasers in the cameras or whatever would likely have an impact as well, it doesn’t make it right.
It just change the facts that total surveilance in public is counter to what has been American ideaology. It’s certainly counter to my Texan way of thinking.
It’s another way for the system to try and feed off me. It’s starting to really get under my skin. Somehow all these layers of government federal-state-city have forgotten that we are the masters and they are the servants. Police departments have forgotten that the power of arrest resides with the People and is granted to them by us.
But then again most of the People have forgotten that too.
RLC’s have nothing really to do with insurance companies or anything else. It’s all simply a way to make money.
It’s surveilance against you without writ or warrant made out to be OK because you are in public.
It’s all disgusting to me, no matter how much someone might try to justify it.
Liberty is lost inches at a time, but it adds up, and in the end you are less free that you were before, which is all that really matters.
#39 Regarding erosion of civil liberties, how do fifty RLCs deprive you of your privacy any more than the tens-of-thousands of cameras used to monitor toll booths, highways, banks, stores, and parking lots? Yours is a tired argument based more on a lack of personal accountability than anything as noble as civil rights. People have very limited right to privacy when in public, and this has always been true. The case against cameras in public places has been argued in court many times and has lost resoundingly.
I would also have to guess that you don’t have a driver’s license since they require thumb prints that go into the Big Brother database.
You have no constitutional right to run red lights and not have your picture taken. I don’t care how much it disgusts you. Deal with it.