Print 102 comment(s) - last by trailmixedup.. on Aug 2 at 7:44 PM

Traffic cops in one small Tenessee town have written a lot of traffic tickets so far this year using a new automated system. In total over 7,300 tickets have been issued.  (Source: Deadline Scotland)
Tennessee town of 17,000 has issued over 7,300 traffic tickets in half year since adopting system

The town of Farragut, Tennessee created quite a stir when it decided [PDF] back in 2006 to look at adopting an automated system to "watch" its town's drivers and automatically give them tickets for running red lights.  The system was finally contracted in 2009 to Redflex INC.  The system was completed in August 2009 with three cameras, and a fourth camera went online this summer.

The early statistics have been released by the town and they're either a staggering statement to how blatantly the town's population violates the law or how automated traffic enforcement systems may be much more active than expected.

In the first and second quarters, 7,168 and 7,213 incidents respectively were recorded by the cameras.  In total, 3,515 and 3,873 citations respectively were issued in the two quarters.  That's about 45 citations a day, or roughly 14 per camera per day (before the fourth camera came online).

To give a further breakdown, for the second quarter, 2,673 of the 7,213 incidents were rejected after review by an officer.  Another 662 incidents were not processed "due to technical issues or lack of information."  And the remaining incidents, as mentioned resulted in citations

Citizens have found it increasingly hard to argue their innocence in the face of glaring video evidence.  This is especially true in the case of rolling stops (slowing, but not fully stopping when turning at a red light).  Some citizens insisted their innocence, but when showed the video gave up their claims, according to the cops.

Perhaps the good thing for citizens is that the citation is merely a non-moving violation, which carries no points and thus does not raise drivers' insurance.  It weighs in at $50 USD per ticket.  The perhaps interesting part is that the language used by various towns in the state indicate that there's a lower standard of Constitutional protections with such systems.  Lawyers for the towns of Chattanooga and Red Bank (where a similar system is deployed) write, "[Drivers] are not entitled to a trial by jury, a presumption of innocence or a heightened burden of proof."

That's typical for civil offenses, which bear a lower burden of proof.  But its atypical for traffic violations, which often carry a presumption of innocence and allow citizens to request a trial by jury.  The shift is likely due to the light penalty associated with the ticket, but it's worrisome because that penalty could be bumped at some point to a full moving violation.

Two $10M USD suits about the system are pending.  However, these suits, which will be heard in court on September 20, seem unlikely to succeed.  After all, the Tennessee Court of Appeals recently denied complaints about Knoxville, Tennessee's similar camera system.

Another concern is the reliability of such systems.  Students in 2008 in Montgomery County, Maryland used fake license plates to spoof similar systems which gave speeding tickets.  The result was multiple people they pranked receiving traffic fines.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Maybe I missed them...
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/29/2010 10:07:58 AM , Rating: 5
I see the stats on the number of citation, incidents, dollar value of the citation. Surely there are statistics showing a decrease in auto accidents, pedestrian fatalities, something to back up the success of this system. I mean safety was the driving force behind implementing a system like this... right?

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By JasonMick on 7/29/2010 10:25:56 AM , Rating: 5
I see the stats on the number of citation, incidents, dollar value of the citation. Surely there are statistics showing a decrease in auto accidents, pedestrian fatalities, something to back up the success of this system. I mean safety was the driving force behind implementing a system like this... right?

::jedi hand wave::

Those aren't the statistics you're looking for. You don't need to question this traffic system. They can go about their business.

::jedi hand wave::

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By tallcool1 on 7/29/2010 12:23:53 PM , Rating: 3
Traffic cops in one small Tenessee town have written a lot of traffic tickets so far this year using a new automated system. In total over 7,300 tickets have been issued. (Source: Deadline Scotland)
Per "DragOnFire's" comment, Jason... why on earth do you have a picture of a policeman from Scotland giving a ticket, for an article about a small Tennessee town? You couldn't find a more relevant picture?

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By topkill on 7/29/2010 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah.....Jason, what is up with that picture? LOL Farragut is not Mayberry NC or something. It doesn't even have a "Main Street" or even a downtown area.

It's an area of rich (or at least semi-rich) suburbs that declared themselves independent of Knoxville about 25 years ago in a tax dispute. It's not really even a town.

Go Admirals! Hey, we always did have one of the top football teams in the state. :-)

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Mercury Joe on 7/29/2010 3:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
The really funny thing is that they put one of the camera sright in front of the Farragut High school entrance off of Kingston Pike.

LOTS of parents are going to get hit with fines on that right hand turn on red off of Kingston into the school entrance.

Can you say "Baiting the trap?". I can not wait to see it.

Of course, for like you said, this is an 'affluent' area. One call to the town center and the fine will of course be "misplaced".

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By clovell on 7/29/2010 1:42:22 PM , Rating: 4
Simple fix - destroy the cameras. If these things ever make it to my town, they'll get pellet-sniped at 3am.

Biggest scam ever.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By roadhog1974 on 7/29/2010 7:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
law enforcement == scam

I like your thinking.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By sprockkets on 7/29/2010 10:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
Thought about that. But after finding out they take video all the time, I would be on camera as I shot them.

I just got a $114 parking ticket. That, is extortion.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Hyperion1400 on 7/29/2010 11:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
Aw, isn't that cute, he thinks $114 dollars is expensive. My first speeding ticket was over 200(!) dollars! I was doing 70 on a 4 lane divided highway that only has 3 traffic lights over the course of 15 miles and the cop decided that my offense was so egregious that he just HAD to power-slide through the median and into oncoming traffic to teach me a lesson; I shit you not! However, I may have crapped my pants just a little... :(

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By nuarbnellaffej on 7/30/2010 9:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but he said parking ticket not speeding ticket. ;)

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By walk2k on 7/30/2010 2:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's easy, just shoot it from behind. ;)

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Camikazi on 7/30/2010 3:24:09 PM , Rating: 1
Dark Clothing, on a roof, laying down, laser sight to blind the camera, make it quick and clean, no one but the camera gets hurt.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By leexgx on 7/30/2010 8:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
just an simple high powered hand laser is all you need all you need to do is hit glass once and it fries the cam or if you want to make it cost even more find the box that the cams connect to and make an hole in it and Fuel+match = very costly fix

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Samus on 7/29/2010 5:12:02 PM , Rating: 3
Here in Chicago I remember reading in the sun times or tribune about intersections with camera's have a 30% higher risk of rear-end collisions.

Rear-end collisions are much more dangerous than head on collisions/broadside collisions because generally it is a surprise impact.

Some of those intersections are considered the least safe in Chicago (now) but the city says they were unsafe before and putting camera's there was a move to improve the intersections safety.

I call BS. I hate the camera's and applaud everytime I drive by one with a coffee cup covering its lense.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By RaisedinUS on 7/29/2010 10:50:20 AM , Rating: 5
It's not really about safety, more about revenue.
I would have to look it up but I recall reading a few newspaper articles that show an increase of accidents, mostly rear end collisions.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By gamerk2 on 7/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Nutzo on 7/29/2010 11:01:56 AM , Rating: 5
It's all about the money. Red light camera have become a low cost income stream, since the camera companies pay for the installation & running them.

A simple timing change can eliminate most red light accidents. Just put a 2 second delay after the light turns red, before the opposing light turns green. That way if someone blows through the light, nobodies in the intersection yet.

Several studies out here in California have shown an INCREASE in accidents at intersections where they have installed red light cameras. This is due to people slamming on thier brakes to avoid the red light ticket, and getting rear-ended.

Also, over 85% of the "Red Light" tickets are for not making a complete stop before turning right. You need to stop for at least 3 seconds to be considered a legal stop.
Most of the reset are for people who get stuck in the intersection due to slowing traffic. Very few tickets are given out for people who actially go through the intersection after the light has turned red.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Wiggy Mcshades on 7/29/2010 11:05:03 AM , Rating: 5
I honestly would just prefer they set up checkpoints and rob you at gun point. It'd feel a tad bit more genuine that way.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is due to people slamming on thier brakes to avoid the red light ticket, and getting rear-ended.

This should have read:

This is due to people being too stupid to assess if they can make it through the intersection (while speeding) after being warned by the amber that it's about to turn red, and getting rear-ended.

I've driven up and down the PCH from San Francisco to San Diego where there are tons of red light cameras and every single one of the 6 incidents I have witnessed involved excess speed and stupidity.

If it's a stale green, be prepared to stop... what is so hard about that? Really?

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Kurz on 7/29/2010 12:03:02 PM , Rating: 4
Each light has a different timing... thats why.
Most people do not have a keen mental math to figure if they can make a light or not.

Plus many lights in the same speed limit have different timings from green to yellow to red.

Its not as black and white as you think Iaiken.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By lamerz4391 on 7/29/2010 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 4
Every light with a camera on it should be required to display a timer as well advising how many seconds are left before the light changes to yellow. Drivers would more accurately be able to judge whether they can make the light or not. Would that be so hard to implement? Hell, put it on all lights to improve safety for all. As stated by Kurz, there is NO consistency on how long green lights are between cities, or even within a city.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 12:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
Every light with a camera on it should be required to display a timer as well advising how many seconds are left before the light changes to yellow.

Most lights in Toronto already have this as part of the pedestrian signals and they are easily visible to through traffic.

When it hits 0 and the hand comes up then you have ~5 seconds before the amber, then ~3 seconds from amber to red.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By lamerz4391 on 7/29/2010 12:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
That's a good solution, and should be required for every single light with a camera.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By MikieTImT on 7/29/2010 1:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
It would be a good solution to any intersection, regardless of whether there is a camera. Most of the lights in NW Arkansas have been changed to LED anyway, so all that would be required is a little logic in the bulb circuits to display digits instead of having all LEDs always on, and the data uploaded from the computer at the corner of the intersection. It would be something trivial to implement even for a first year digital techniques student getting his computer or electrical engineering degree.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By menace on 7/29/2010 6:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
In my home town in the good ole US of A the crosswalk signals will flash and then have digital count down from 10 sec to the yellow light, with no delay. The light changes to yellow as soon as the count gets to zero.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 12:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
Its not as black and white as you think Iaiken.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. People are stupid, lazy and unwilling to learn how to operate their vehicles correctly and unwilling to learn the capabilities and limitations of their vehicles.

I know:

How much distance I need to stop from every speed 10mph from 100mph.
The distance and time it takes me to accelerate up to highway speed.
How rain, sleet, snow and ice affect that stopping distance.
How the above affects my acceleration and steering.
How big my friggen car is.

I got all of this experience from driver training and road rally events. Consequently, I've never run a red, never rolled a stop and avoided numerous accidents with people who invaded my lane.

Driving is about paying attention (100% focused on what is going on around your vehicle), being prudent, patient, predictable and prioritizing where you need to look.

Unfortunately, most people see driving as a right and not the privilege that it actually is. Frankly, it is in my interest to support any action that takes licenses out of the hands of people who are too stupid to pilot a vehicle safely.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By zmatt on 7/29/2010 1:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, unfortunately there are maybe 10% of people who think this way and the rest are too busy text, talking, eating or doing whatever else to care. I've been hit as a pedestrian twice by people not obeying the rules of the road, luckily there were no major damages either time and I'm not the suing type. It's very unlikely but a major overhaul of the way driving is taught and handled in this country is needed.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By tmouse on 7/29/2010 1:05:43 PM , Rating: 3
I know: How much distance I need to stop from every speed 10mph from 100mph

I have to call BS on that statement. I'm sure you can calculate it but I seriously doubt you KNOW EVERY distance at EVERY speed including alterations in EVERY road condition, which you claim in the next sentence. I seriously doubt you know the EXACT speed you are going unless you have a digital speedometer and even then you would be looking at that instead of the intersection which dosen't qualify as 100% focused.

Keep in mind yellow light durations vary considerably, where I live its 8-10 seconds, where I work its 2-3 seconds. How do you know the durations in areas you have never been in? There are times where accidents could be avoided by NOT suddenly stopping, even IF you are driving "100% focused" you CANNOT control the guy behind you, you can be dead right and stil end up just as dead when they hit you. I do not defend running lights but things are most certainly NOT black and white as you feel.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By fic2 on 7/29/2010 3:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
He also implies that he always knows the exact distance he is to every intersection.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 3:23:23 PM , Rating: 3
YOU can play with literalism all you want if it makes you happy.

I've got a pretty good idea how far 250ft is and that I need every foot of it to bring my car to a complete stop from 100mph on dry pavement.

I'm not talking about stupid classroom theory crap, I am talking hour after hour on a skid-pad with some pylons in the summer, rain(simulated) and winter.

As for the guy behind you, I have avoided getting rear ended by using my rear view mirror while I brake. On one instance, I wound up sitting in the crosswalk in front of the car to my left so that the idiot behind me could run the red.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By tmouse on 7/30/2010 8:06:55 AM , Rating: 3
It's not a question of literalism, YOU said "I KNOW" every this and every that. Ok so you’re a safe driver but you statements make you come off as a "holier than tho" self righteous total prig. Are there a lot of really poor drivers, sure, I drive 120 miles per day so I have seen REALLY STUPID driving, I could write a book. Even in your lower posts you use generalizations, 3 sec on dry pavement is meaningless unless you state your speed. You use the term "pretty good" now but above you said you "KNOW, at EVERY speed between 10-100". While I agree with your sentiments in numerous posts you appear to be calling the vast majority fools while proclaiming your excellence. While I consider myself a reasonably safe driver (over 1.5 million miles with only one under 5mph bump and 1 speeding ticket) I have done a few things that were shall we say less than smart at the time, ANYONE who drives a lot has.

Your rearview mirror retort is equally lame, "use the rearview mirror" I do. As a matter of fact the one "accident" I had I was stopped in the left turn lane waiting for the light, I hear breaks squeal and guess what happened? Just using a mirror is FAR from an assured way to avoid that kind of an accident. In your own example you were lucky the guy on your left had stopped on time so you could be in front of him, if he was already stopped (as in a left turn lane) then you must have pulled into the intersection and been a potential hazard to the oncoming cross traffic. IF you were in the right lane would you have jumped the curb or shifted into the left lane? What would have happened if there was someone crossing the crosswalk or entering the intersection? Fact is rarely in those cases do you have ANY control of what goes down.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By mindless1 on 7/30/2010 10:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
You've been caught in a lie, just accept that. Any driver who has a fair amount of time behind the wheel of the same car has a rough idea how far it will take them to stop, how long to get up to speed... you were trying to pretend you have some extra special super powers instead.

Hour after hour on a skid-pad doesn't do anything to help you deal with dissimilar situations where the main problem is other people doing unpredictable things. You act as though maneuvering the pad matters then concede you went out of bounds to avoid being rear-ended. Clear contradiction, and pretty darn selfish if someone happened to be jogging along and you didn't see them because you were looking in your rear view mirror so you plowed into them trying to save your precious car.

Maybe you should just go back to driving school and focus on the basics.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By menace on 7/29/2010 6:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
He is the Rain Man of the DMV

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By mindless1 on 7/30/2010 10:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
You are either lying or ignorant.

You do not know the distance you need to stop from ANY distance, NONE. It varies per tire temperature, road grade, road surface, road surface contamination, tire inflation, weight your vehicle is loaded to, etc.

You do not know the distance and time to accelerate. Similar to above it depends on several factors including vehicle loading, air temperature, fuel blend (you do not test every gallon you pump before driving away from a gas station do you?), road grade, etc.

You do not know how rain sleet snow or ice effect that distance - you can only make a guess extrapolated from one specific set of test data that will not apply to any other scenario.

I'm sure you pretend you can whip out a pocket calculator and take all these factors into account in the fractions of a second you have to respond while driving.

How about the truth? How about accepting that your overconfidence makes you more likely to get into trouble on the road - not less.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Suntan on 7/29/2010 1:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Each light has a different timing... thats why.

If you see the light turn yellow, slow down and prepare to stop. It really *isn't* that hard.

It is the people that start pondering in their head if they are "going to make it" that end up rolling through as the light turns red.


RE: Maybe I missed them...
By sviola on 7/29/2010 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah...people forget a basic concept about the yellow light: it means to slow down so poeple can manage to stop on the red. Not, red is coming, lets speed up.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Kurz on 7/29/2010 8:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
>.> so 30 Feet from the Intersection I should Slam on my brakes?

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By MaDS on 7/30/2010 2:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
Seeing as how 30 feet at 30mph will not even take a full second, I don't see why you would want to slam your brakes. If the light turns yellow when you're at 30 feet, you just drive on.

Here in Europe (well, at least in Belgium) yellow means: "stop if you can". So for a given speed you decide on a point where you can't stop anymore. If you're past it and it turns yellow, you drive. If you're not past it, you stop. Easy enough.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By fic2 on 7/29/2010 3:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
Some friends and I were emailing about red light cameras earlier in the week. One of them said that a show of CBS looked at the timings of yellow lights and there seemed to be a correlation with shorter yellow lights and the installation of a red light camera.

My solution to red light runners was to have tire spikes pop up as soon as the light turns red. That would tell you instantly when you tried to run a red light. It would also "encourage" people not to.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By sviola on 7/29/2010 11:39:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if there have been a lot of rear end accidents, I think, people need to be reeducated n maintaining distance from the car in front (even in the case of people slamming on their brakes, the driver behind should keep the enough distance to be able to stop without hiting the front car).

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 12:55:35 PM , Rating: 4
Nope, sorry, that would make too much sense for the land of Fruits & Nuts to comprehend.

Maintaining the same following distance in California as I do in Ontario just leads to other people cutting me off or clogging up the lane in front of me (with a tailgater behind).

For my safe following distance I typically use:

3 seconds in dry weather
6 seconds in the rain
10 seconds in snow and ice

The ONLY valid excuse for hitting the car in front of you is if you were hit first from behind by someone else. Anything else means that you were following too closely or driving too fast for the conditions.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Dr of crap on 7/29/2010 3:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
Could we implement this on the freeways as well??
I can't tell you how many times we'll be rolling along and out of nowhere the traffic decides it's time to come to an immediate stop. Now even if I was 20 car lengths behind, that is a hard one to react to. I have not hit anyone, yet!

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 3:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
"A simple timing change can eliminate most red light accidents. Just put a 2 second delay after the light turns red, before the opposing light turns green. That way if someone blows through the light, nobodies in the intersection yet."

This works for a brief period until get to know that light, then they adjust their habits accordingly.

The problems overall can be called "creep", the tendency to attempt to cheat a little bit more over time until the accident or the ticket happens, and frankly the ticket is much better.

By Performance Fanboi on 7/29/2010 1:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yep - $afety i$ the purpo$e of the$e $y$tem$.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By chaos386 on 7/29/2010 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
This might be a crazy thought, but maybe it'll take more than six months for this to affect any safety metrics?

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2010 7:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
They are nothing but a cash cow. And Unconstitutional and illegal one at that.

You have the right to face your accuser in court, even traffic court. Who is your accuser? A camera, a mechanical device that cannot offer testimony or answer questioning etc etc.

Case closed. Get rid of these goddamn things.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By techtacktoe on 7/30/2010 1:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
How are they unconstitutional and illegal?? When you face your accuser, you face the officer that signed off on and issued the citation. Seems like the case isn't closed after all. I can't understand why you want to give people more opportunity to break the law.

RE: Maybe I missed them...
By tng on 7/30/2010 8:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
Surely there are statistics showing a decrease in auto accidents, pedestrian fatalities, something to back up the success of this system.....
I would think that the only stats that they are have checked on is how many $ they have collected...

That being said there is allot of room for abuse on these types of systems. I recall that in Phoenix, that after one driver got a ticket for running a red light, he went out and did a scientific comparison of lights with cameras and lights without. He found that yellow lights with the cameras were ~50% shorter than lights with cameras. He presented this in court to a judge and the judge did his own study and then declared that the city had to refund over 80,000 red light violations it had given in since the system had been installed.

Lost in translation...
By Amiga500 on 7/29/2010 10:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
I guess it is an American term I just am not understanding, but could someone explain the following to me:

This is especially true in the case of rolling stops (slowing, but not fully stopping when turning at a red light)

Does that mean slowing down at a red light, and then proceeding to slowly crawl through across the junction?

RE: Lost in translation...
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/29/2010 10:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
In the US, you are usually permitted turn right on a red light. However, you're supposed to come to a complete stop, before doing so. In reality, everyone treats it as a yield sign rather than a stop sign, and just slows to a slow roll while checking to see if its safe to turn.

RE: Lost in translation...
By Amiga500 on 7/29/2010 11:02:43 AM , Rating: 2
In the US, you are usually permitted turn right on a red light.

Ahh, right, I see now.

That is definitely not the case here. A red is a red.

If there is a sliproad to the left (which is our equivalent of your right) with a give-way sign, then you can proceed - providing no traffic is oncoming.

But there is definitely no legal way of going through a red light here - hence my confusion.

RE: Lost in translation...
By Drag0nFire on 7/29/2010 11:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you were also confused by the picture of the Scottish police officer.

Lol, is it that hard to look at the second and third google image results before picking the image for the article?

RE: Lost in translation...
By tmouse on 7/29/2010 1:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's not permitted everywhere, most if not all major cities have their own traffic codes so in NY there is on average 10 second yellows and right on red after a complete stop "if it is safe to do so" (ie no on comming traffic although thats often ignored), however in NYC you cannot even enter an intersection on a yellow which is usually only 2-5 seconds long and NO right on red unless there is a specific sign allowing it. MANY of these automated lights yield the most money in slow moving intersections, you have about 3 feet into the intersection stop line and even if you stopped you get a ticket for "blocking the intersection".

RE: Lost in translation...
By menace on 7/29/2010 6:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
10 sec yellows? LOL, that's a long time. If I was a tourist, I would probably come to a complete stop, wait 5 sec, and then punch thru after deciding that the lights must be malfunctioning.

RE: Lost in translation...
By Dr of crap on 7/29/2010 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
There is no LEGAL way here either.
You have to stop first. No one completely stops. I really could careless if they stop or not as long as no one gets hit.
But to your point, the law here says STOP, look if it's ok to proceed, and then turn on red.

RE: Lost in translation...
By cochy on 7/29/2010 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but only on a right turn. You're allowed to turn right on most red lights, but you must stop first as though it were a stop sign.

RE: Lost in translation...
By tastyratz on 7/29/2010 10:13:29 AM , Rating: 1
The best way to explain it? stop means yield. A rolling stop is when your car never actually comes to complete rest, you stop...ish. Technically a stop doesn't count till the nose of your car lifts here.

It's a great way to nab people on a technical foul crap violation if they come to a near stop and creep to look. Personally I think a stop should be constituted as slowing down below 2mph - 2mph to a complete stop is negligible at best, and a complete stop is beyond un-necessary in most applications.

RE: Lost in translation...
By superunknown98 on 7/29/2010 11:12:58 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with you. A complete stop is not necessary, only a slow roll to maybe 2 or 3 mph. Honestly it takes less than a second to assess any surrounding traffic. If you can't determine the road is clear without stopping for 5 seconds, you probably shouldn't be driving.

I concede certain situations might necessitate a complete stop, but for an average right turn on red or two way stop sign, I just don't see it.

RE: Lost in translation...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 11:25:22 AM , Rating: 1
A complete stop is not necessary, only a slow roll to maybe 2 or 3 mph.

The problem with that attitude is that once you concede 2-3mph over the current full stop, it becomes hard to gauge and enforce. Then soon that 2-3mph cautious creep becomes 9-10mph with a passing glance to a 25-35mph merge with no running ramp (which are shockingly commonplace in Toronto and LA).

Each complete stop will add maybe an extra two seconds to your trip. If you're worried about the tiny bit of extra gas it takes you to get moving after a full stop, buy a hybrid. :P

Personally, when I am allowed to proceed after the stop, I always come to a complete stop, let the weight of the car come back on itself and then creep up to the corner to make my turn while assessing oncoming traffic.

RE: Lost in translation...
By tmouse on 7/29/2010 1:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
If its a empty country road with no one comming I would agree, but many people do not realize in many states the law also reads "if it is safe to do so" so technically even if you COULD make it, if another car is comming and hits you you will be ticketed for illegally entering an intersection even if you stopped completely (the accident itself is acceptable legal evidence that it was NOT safe to do so). So it has to be at least a full stop since people already ignore the part where its not permitted to make a right on red if there is on comming traffic and the person with the right of way now has to judge whether the other guy is going to jump out in front of them.

RE: Lost in translation...
By tmouse on 7/29/2010 1:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is people do "creep the allowance" so where do you draw a line? We have a major interstate I drive daily, when the speed limit was 55 people went 65-70 on average now its 65 and people are doing 75-80 while driving close which is plain stupid. I'm always having to slow down when the distance I like to leave get reduced to zero by someone who is doing 85+ and weaving in and out of the traffic while the guy behind me is so close all I can see is his windshield.

RE: Lost in translation...
By Briliu on 7/29/2010 10:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
At a red light, usually it's only done in the right turning lane (Right being the one you don't have to wait for the light for in the majority of intersections in the US, since we drive on the right).

So, someone would come up to the red light, blinker on, in right lane, see no cross traffic as they rolled slowly up to the line, then just continue on. Without actually stopping forward movement.

People also do it at all way stops with stop signs. Roll up to the line, see no other traffic, continue on through.

Hopefully that makes sense. It's "slightly" different than just straight up running the red light. In that your not cutting across flowing traffic. It's still illegal though. If an officer sees you do it you can get pulled over depending on how lazy he is. If it's on video, there's almost no effort, so you get fined.

RE: Lost in translation...
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 11:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
Basically, stop signs (and rights on reds) have become "stoptional" in that the drivers treat it like a yield. So they slow down almost to a stop, look around and then back on the gas to make a right or proceed through a stop sign.

I find it funny that when I mention it to friends who engage in the practice, many of them are either in denial about it or simply don't know what "a complete stop" is. I'm certain they are just playing dumb.

only a matter of time
By tastyratz on 7/29/2010 10:08:34 AM , Rating: 3
Running a red light a non moving violation?
This must be a ploy during testing to increase adoption and decrease consumer resistance. You can be damn sure the poor underpaid under appreciated insurance lobbyists will change that after some more adoption.

RE: only a matter of time
By Blood1 on 7/29/2010 10:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
It will never be points on your license.
They can't make it points on your license because they system doesn't know who was driving the car so there's no points towards your license.
The system just sends ticket to registered owner of the lic plate #.

RE: only a matter of time
By sviola on 7/29/2010 11:47:17 AM , Rating: 2
Here in Brazil, the points would go to the owner of the vehicle.

If he was not driving when the ticket is issued, he has two weeks to fill a form requesting to move the point to the person who was driving (and collect copies of license of the person who was driving and his signature on the form). Then the points are moved to the one who was driving.

RE: only a matter of time
By Kurz on 7/29/2010 12:06:12 PM , Rating: 1
I rather have the ability to show up in court.
Another reason I dislike Brazil.

RE: only a matter of time
By sviola on 7/29/2010 1:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, here we don't need to go to court to have everything solved. It takes 10 minutes to fill a form, 10s to photocopy the drivers license and 5s for him to sign the agreement that he was driving the car. The you go to any administration office in town and deliver the form. In a few days the points are moved to the rightful "owner".

Btw, what are the reasons you dislike Brazil? Have you even been there?

RE: only a matter of time
By xsilver on 7/30/2010 12:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well its not only in brazil - its the same here in australia too.
Even easier as you dont need to photocopy the drivers license at fault, just a signed paper and mail it off to the infringement office.

RE: only a matter of time
By tmouse on 7/29/2010 2:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Of course that only works if the person cooperates, what happens if they deny they were driving? Sure you would never let them use the car again (unless you were stupid) but wouldn't the driver still be on the hook unless the other guy basically confesses?

RE: only a matter of time
By tastyratz on 8/2/2010 11:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
It will never be points on your license. until it is like many many other countries


How long is the question here in the usa. It will never be usually pre-dates talks of orweillian concepts like consumer vehicle black box's or acta treaty but look where we are.

Are you saying the insurance industry cant lobby and sway that into law? If you are I have a bridge you might be interested in buying...

What a money racket
By stilltrying on 7/29/2010 10:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
"The system was finally contracted in 2009 to Redflex INC."

Policing has been contracted out to corporations. It is nothing more than a money making scheme. Your town is a corporation. The state police is a corporation. What is a corporations sole responsibility? to make profit. It has nothing to do with right or wrong but only about money. A fleecing of the sheep.

RE: What a money racket
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 7/29/2010 11:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
The camera system was contracted out, but each video is reviewed by a police officer before a citation is issued, as alluded to in the article. The system is just collecting evidence.

American drivers make an average of one citable traffic offense for every 4 blocks travelled. This is an easy gain, but if no one was making citable offenses, then no revenue could be gained by this system. So, you have to commit a wrong before you can be fleeced.

RE: What a money racket
By Iaiken on 7/29/2010 11:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
So, you have to commit a wrong before you can be fleeced.


Don't want a ticket, don't break the law.

Don't want a citation for your car, don't lend it to people who break the law.

Holy crap! It's just so easy, too bad peoples judgment is often impaired by their "me first, gotta be there 10-minutes ago" attitudes.

RE: What a money racket
By Invane on 7/29/2010 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point. The argument here is that the system of law, put into place to protect us, is instead being subverted for corporate interest in order to create profit. Does this system improve public safety? If the answer to that question is no, or even uncertainty, then why is Redflex being allowed to profit off the citizenry?

It is the duty of every citizen in the US to look at our government and judicial system critically and to protest when they believe that that system is failing.

The simple blanket 'Don't break the law' response to a rather questionable system is ignorant and will lead to a slow and inevitable loss of our freedom and legal rights.

Criticize the law. Make them explain why that law or system is necessary and improves our lives.

With that said, I do not believe people should run red lights. However, a system that feeds Redflex and the government our money with no improvement to our safety in return (and possibly causing more accidents) is irresponsible and negligent as well as possibly immoral.

RE: What a money racket
By dwalton on 7/29/2010 1:58:30 PM , Rating: 3
Cameras and police officers aren't suppose to determine guilt, thats the job of judges and juries.

Elderly citizen of Mega-City One: (talking to grandson while pointing at Judge Dredd)

"See that motherf#%^er right there, this all started with them motherf#%^ing traffic cameras!!!"

RE: What a money racket
By tmouse on 7/29/2010 1:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
each video is reviewed by a police officer before a citation is issued, as alluded to in the article

Maybe in that small town, but thats not the case in the major cities. Its supposed to be but in fact its not. All of the tapes for the city are sent to at most a couple of sites and if they are watched its certainly not closely.

RE: What a money racket
By gamerk2 on 7/29/2010 11:35:06 AM , Rating: 2
Its called the "Free Market". Police are a fundamentally Socalist concept, and Socalism is bad, m'kay?


More needed
By InvertMe on 7/29/2010 10:18:42 AM , Rating: 4
My home town needs this. Every time I visit home I have to remember not to take off quickly at green lights because 3 or 4 people will blow through the red lights at 10-20 mph over the speed limit because waiting for 2 minutes for the next green light just doesn't work for their sense of personal importance.

The city would be rich on no time. As a responsible driver - I welcome these!

RE: More needed
By clovell on 7/29/2010 1:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
For me, in Illinois, there are a lot of lights where left turns can be done on an arrow or a standard green light. Most folks here will pull into the intersection because the breaks in traffic are usually quick, so saving the extra couple seconds will let them get through.

Yellow generally means to clear the intersection, but the guys waiting to turn left have to be sure that oncoming traffic stops before doing so. They also have to pull through once it does stop, otherwise they'll be in the middle of the intersection for cross-traffic.

So, that guy in the sports car that buzzes through the intersection on a yellow light puts the guy waiting to safely turn left in a pickle when there's a red light camera involved.

Drivers are different across the country.

RE: More needed
By Dr of crap on 7/29/2010 3:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you don't do as the sports car driver does, then you are the minority.
I do this, every one does, and if that's a ticket with this system it's wrong, and the police are making money the wrong way!

Great stuff
By wiz220 on 7/29/2010 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 3
We have plenty of these cameras where I live and honestly, I wish there was one at every intersection. I can't stand the jackasses that are still turning left in front of me when my light is green. Although it doesn't seem to be a problem at the intersections with cameras.

RE: Great stuff
By fleshconsumed on 7/29/2010 11:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
I would be fine if these cameras were used as intended, i.e. to reduce traffic accidents by catching people who systematically enter intersection on red light. There was an intersection like that at my previous job location just before the highway ramp where people would make a left turn on red in front of me for good 2-4 seconds after my light turned green. However, those cameras are used to catch people who either do a rolling stop while turning right or enter intersection while the light is yellow but can't clear it before the light turns red. Both latter scenarios are bullshit. So until those cameras are used for their intended purpose (at least as it is pitched to us) I'm vehemently against them.

RE: Great stuff
By walk2k on 7/30/2010 2:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
Except you wouldn't get a ticket if you entered the intersection when the light was green, or yellow. I know several intersections where you wouldn't be able to turn left EVER unless you waited in the middle until the light turned yellow/red and the oncoming traffic stopped. This is in fact perfectly legal. Your green light only means you MAY move thru the intersection, taking into respect all traffic and pedestrians that may be in the way. It doesn't mean you can floor the loud pedal and smash into anyone in front of you..

Anyway a redlight camera wouldn't even detect such a situation, it only detects if you crossed the line after it turned red.

Like the article says, the vast majority of these are for people turning right that don't completely stop. You'd have to be an idiot to argue that slowing to .01 mph and looking in all directions, making sure there are no cars or pedestrians, then slowly and carefully turning right, is in ANY way dangerous or deserving of a ticket.

Yet a robo-camera doesn't make any distinction between that and someone who blows thru the intersection at 50mph while talking on the phone and putting on her makeup.

This is why ACUTAL HUMAN BEINGS should be the ones pulling people over and issuing tickets, for things that they SEE driver doing that are ACTUALLY dangerous, not robo-controlled cameras issuing robo-tickets to anyone who stops .00001 inches over the line.

By croc on 7/29/2010 7:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Our driving regulator (the RTS, not that any of you care) prints out a nice rules & regulations handbook. No where in that manual is a 'rolling stop' ever mentioned, let alone made legal.

So, for instance, you come up to a 'right turn on red, after stop'. at a camera controlled intersection, failure to do that WILL be caught by the camera. $250 fine plus three points. Failure to yield, another $250, another three points. Cause a car to have to take evasive action, well add reckless endangerment on top... $500 and six points. And a visit to jail, then a trip to see the judge (because you just lost all of your points) who may or may not increase your fines.

By xsilver on 7/30/2010 12:31:28 AM , Rating: 2
In VIC, AUS, A local council here has taken the same approach we have had huge uproar over it as well. We dont have the rolling stop rule but the cameras were placed in a main street shopping district.
When cars stop to wait for another car to leave and park, apparently you are not allowed to wait more than 20 seconds, so heaps of people were getting tickets just for stopping to let a car out.
Tickets were even given 3/4 cars back when someone has stopped in the middle of the road for 20 seconds looking around for somebody or looking for a park.

All for it
By colforbin78 on 7/29/2010 1:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, you would think the people of this community get get a bit wiser and try to change up how they drive a bit. Not that hard to not run a light.

By Lord 666 on 7/29/2010 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
Doing a family road trip and Google maps had me driving through this town and area.

Definitely going to avoid now. Based on my NJ driving skills, wouldn't be surprised to find a mailbox full of tickets.

Forget downtown
By DoeBoy on 7/29/2010 10:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
If I got a ticket for one of those rolling stop dealio's where u slow down to almost nothing but not quite then I would just not ever drive where the cameras are. Plus if they fined me that would be 50 dollars I wouldn't be buying anything downtown to help the merchants. I dont think cops are suffering like most of the rest of business is. I find that troublesome.

Short Yellow light
By Potem on 7/29/2010 11:44:35 AM , Rating: 2
In my city when they put in camera's for red light running they lowered the yellow light time by 2 seconds to the state minimum. One block away the yellow time is 5 seconds but light with camera has only 3 seconds. Purely a profit move as shorter yellow lights increase accidents.

By cubujffalo on 7/29/2010 3:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Holly smokes thats alot of tickets. I bet some driving habits have changes

best kind of enforcement
By flowerpower88 on 7/29/2010 4:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
people make it sound like the red light cameras are creating these 7,000 and some driving violations. no it is people getting caught! the sheer number of violations being caught on camera reinforces the need for the cameras in the first place

By TD1982 on 7/29/2010 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
Cameras might not always be popular, but they are quite effective. Cities that have used them have shown significant safety benefits, benefits that help everyone who is on the streets.

By tortrefno on 7/29/2010 4:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yea first of all weird photo to put with this. Threw me off at first hah. Second, people really need to learn to slow down and ease off while driving. Where are you going in such a rush? I guarantee all of those tickets are rightly earned and I see no problem with the cameras continuing to force LAWS.

Camera Enforcement
By Walter448 on 7/29/2010 6:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
One factor that isn't evident in the article is the number of violators who aren't residents of Farragut. Quite often, a red-light camera is placed at an intersection on a main highway through a small town. The result is that many of the violations are by non-residents driving through. I recently saw an article where 80% of the violations at an intersection were by non-residents. A town may be small, but the safety of its drivers and pedestrians is a concern and trying to get drivers passing through to slow down and not run red lights is a valid pro-safety measure.

No Problem!
By yogilives on 7/29/2010 6:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why is the issue with the number of citations issued and not with the quality of the driving? Obviously there is some terrible driving going on and to me THAT is the story. That these reckless drivers are finally getting caught because of traffic cameras is a good thing!

Big problem
By sufficientgrace on 7/29/2010 8:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
With the number of infractions being reported there is obviously a major driving problem. Maybe everyone who gets a citation should have to take the driving test over. At least after the second violation. I love that these cameras are catching these drivers and bringing much need attention to the poor driving on our roads.

simple question
By FXi on 7/30/2010 12:38:45 AM , Rating: 2
How many of the Town's officers and town personnel have ever received, and more importantly, paid such tickets from this system. You'll never find out, but I'd bet it's a perfect zero. This is a revenue generating system. Law enforcement is purely a convenient excuse.

Did they lay off any officers because clearly there are less of them needed because the streets are now so safe? Probably not.

Uh oh
By BirdWatcher on 7/30/2010 1:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
One ticket per citizen, obviously there is a problem on the road that needs to be fixed. I'm looking at all of us drivers here.

simple thing
By misslillybell on 7/30/2010 4:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
If you don’t want a ticket don’t break the law. It’s really just that simple.

Love them cameras!
By trailmixedup on 8/2/2010 7:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously running lights is a problem- a couple tickets and everyone should start obeying laws.

What would be interesting
By YashBudini on 7/29/2010 3:49:02 PM , Rating: 1
People can complain all they want about the article and the tactics, but the arguments aren't complete until the insurance rates for the people in that town come out, as well as the accident rates.

If you drive cautiously and your rates go down do you really have anything to complain about?

Red light tickets have always been an arse fine, best kind of fine there is.

"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki