Red-light cameras catch on

Red-light cameras catch on

There are 96 comments on the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin story from Mar 30, 2008, titled Red-light cameras catch on. In it, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports that:

They are growing in number. Technical, automated marvels that freeze crystal-clear images of 3-inch figures from 100 feet at 60 mph, then magically generate a $400 payment demand mailed directly to your home.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
John Lyons RC

United States

#1 Mar 31, 2008
I have 3 daughters two of them drive cars in my name. I get the red light tickets in the mail & parking tickets. The parking tickets I pay because that would not be against my CDL. The red light tickets I go to court on every one I have to see the judge to have them dismissed. I have a nice picture of some one else. I did have one judge ask if I new who was driving. I explained to him people get paid for doing police work the have union contract they have benifts. I asked are you offering me a job. He dismissed the case. Every time I am in court there are many other fighting the Red Light Cameras. Most of them are dismissed. There are a number of defenses that work. I not going to tell what they are because I would like you to not run red lights. If the State would allow me to pay the tickets with out charging my CDL in some cases it would be easier to just send a check.
nomore

Covina, CA

#2 Mar 31, 2008
John Lyons has 2 daughters who need to learn how to drive before they kill somebody. And if they continue to get tickets, John needs to turn them in to teach them a lesson.
BRIAN

Lytle Creek, CA

#3 Mar 31, 2008
I refuse to shop and spend my money in any city that employs the use of these cameras. When such city removes the cameras, I will then return as a shopper in that community.
John Lyons RC

United States

#4 Mar 31, 2008
nomore wrote:
John Lyons has 2 daughters who need to learn how to drive before they kill somebody. And if they continue to get tickets, John needs to turn them in to teach them a lesson.
Most of the tickets are left hand turn right hand turns and boyfriend driving the car. I told them I do not want any more. You can not turn them in that process is with a camera & a computer. You may have read about the attorney in San Diego who got a red light camera ticket. You can see the camera flash. He hired some one with a camera to film the light and the car. It turned out the company had advanced the camera to get extra tickets. San Diego had to refund 4 million dollars.
Mark

United States

#5 Apr 1, 2008
I have yet to receive a ticket... like Brian from Pomona, I don't shop in those cities with red light cameras.
AREADER

United States

#6 Apr 1, 2008
Truthfully, there are few "positives" to red-light cameras. The only real truth is that your city politicians see them as a money maker. Why not, at $400 a ticket they should be, but this is not the case. The same politicians are not really concerned with the general public safety. According to them they are losing money, yet want to invest in more cameras. Something doesn't sound kosher to this policy.

One city not far from Riverside/SB,(for the public safety of course), installed a red-light camera at the city's nearly if not THE busiest intersection. In that intersection, since JAN 2004 (to about AUG 2006) there were 8 accidents- only ONE was signal related.

The city's should release the actual numbers relating only to signal offenses to the public if they are to argue safety... they have not. They have not released the revenue numbers either (as of FEB 1, 2008) I suspect because the numbers look bad for them as relating to why they were installed. They are required by law to release those numbers, but when the local newspaper asked, they gave them the run around. It's virtually impossible to get truthful facts from governments when you're a regular citizen.

Another city, also close by, has been having financial problems for some time. If you have ever been in the military and studied the method used for setting up a minefield, you will see that this city has done a remarkable job of doing just that with only three red-light cameras. Even considering the enormous cost of these cameras, rather than adding to their police department because of an increase in crime, the option is thought to be to add more cameras. The cost of the cameras are well over $100,000, plus $12,000 to $18,000 per month to maintain each one.
People avoid the intersections where they are located, it's bad for business.

Some facts to consider:
Very few violators purposely intend to break the law, and no camera made can stop a 4000 lb. vehicle.
These cameras are a blessing for drunk drivers, as the driver gets a $400 fine, no jail time, and back to the bar.
A vehicle can race through an intersection at 100 MPH and it's a freebie as long as the light is green.

One minor infraction in forty years by turning right on a red if safe to do so, that causes no danger to anyone, can up your insurance bill as much as $400-$500 a year for the next ten years while a pedestrian inadvertently stepping off a curb in a cars path causing an accident and getting a free ride is justice?
John Lyons RC

Apache Junction, AZ

#7 Apr 1, 2008
In Rancho Cucamonga some of the business around the red light camera are closing. I never though of that as a cause. Other people should be looking in there city to see if business around the camera are closing. These are the kind of things the Government is never even going to notice. Talk to the business around the cameras ask the owners what they think.
AREADER

United States

#8 Apr 1, 2008
CALIFORNIA LAW SAYS:
"Lawful Turns on Red Lights
Drivers may make a right turn at an intersection on a red light if there is no sign prohibiting 'right on red', and if it is safe to do so under the circumstances."

Who is to say when it is safe? My interpretation is that the driver of the vehicle is the one to determine that. If no accident is incurred, it was safe!!
However, if seen by a camera you are guilty with no recourse. Reasoning must be done and a camera is not capable to determine this safety argument.

Now, If the law were changed to read, "A right turn may NOT be executed at any intersection against a red light", the law is clear as to what should be done, and a camera could determine that.

Red Light cameras truly are installed to add money to the coffers of cities with no interest in public safety whatsoever.
Been there done that

Del Mar, CA

#9 Apr 2, 2008
John Lyons RC wrote:
In Rancho Cucamonga some of the business around the red light camera are closing. I never though of that as a cause. Other people should be looking in there city to see if business around the camera are closing. These are the kind of things the Government is never even going to notice. Talk to the business around the cameras ask the owners what they think.
That's a stupid correlation. But everyone will notice when your daughters run a red light and kill someone.

“Search Engine Marketing”

Since: Dec 07

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#10 Apr 2, 2008
Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude

The report was published this month in the Florida Public Health Review, the online journal of the college and the Florida Public Health Association.

“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.

“Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”

Get the whole story http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/...
nomore

Covina, CA

#11 Apr 2, 2008
EdShea: Thanks for the link. While the article does not address the issue of accidents versus fatalities, it does provide some good information.
Grzhim-TWC

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#12 Apr 4, 2008
can someone give me some information on starting a petition? if there is a way to get these cameras taken down, i want to work towards it. i want to start a petition and include business owners near the area of the lights, shoppers who live near the lights, and some local politicians, maybe if someone does something about the lights, maybe there will be change. our government cant be entirely corrupt.
A good person

United States

#14 Apr 4, 2008
i think that Grzhim-twc i right.

Since: Mar 08

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#15 Apr 9, 2008
These lights only bother the ones who run them. Obey the traffic laws, and we wouldn't have any need for them. I see people run red lights here in Rancho, at least 5 times a day, everyday! Pretty simple solution!
Grzhim-TWC

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#16 Apr 9, 2008
I have never ran one of the lights with cameras, but while driving, if i start to come up to one of those cameras, i start to feel the fear. and why should making a mistake like that cost so much money, and on top of that, most rcpd just sit there and camp out next to those lights, waiting to double the profit off 1 light run. so no, the lights dont only bother the ones who run them, seeing as i have never ran a red light.

Since: Mar 08

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#17 Apr 9, 2008
Grzhim-TWC wrote:
I have never ran one of the lights with cameras, but while driving, if i start to come up to one of those cameras, i start to feel the fear. and why should making a mistake like that cost so much money, and on top of that, most rcpd just sit there and camp out next to those lights, waiting to double the profit off 1 light run. so no, the lights dont only bother the ones who run them, seeing as i have never ran a red light.
Why would you feel fear? If you never run red lights, what would you possibly have to worry about? I have never seen RCPD "camped out" next to the cameras, never. That defeats the purpose of the cameras. How could they "double the profit" off the same offense? That would be illegal, and thrown out in court! Not to mention, the reason they have them in place in intersections with large offenses, is so the Police don't waste man power writing tickets. Sorry you have such a fear of these cameras. I don't run red lights either, and feel no fear as I approach them.

Since: Mar 08

Fontana, CA

#18 Apr 9, 2008
Driving around Rancho I don't really run into the cameras. When I do I notice them and normally drive on by. If I have to stop I stop, Theres no difference for those who drive normally. I prefer the lights being around banks though, just my opinion.

Yet the Cameras in Upland are not always set up properly because as I've witnessed some cars get flashed while making a legal and safe right turn on a red light so there's your down side.
David Reed

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#19 Apr 9, 2008
I have noticed that after red-light cameras have been installed the amber light goes from six seconds to three. I have never received a red-light ticket yet but it is a matter of time until everyone gets one, which brings up my biggest concern,ā€¯ EVERYONE" What happens when The Mayor City Counsel Members,Judges,Off Duty Police,and a host of others including family members of these privlaged people when they run a photo enforced redlight? If a city is going to have them no one should be treated with favoritism and records should be made public
John Lyons RC

South Gate, CA

#20 Apr 10, 2008
David Reed wrote:
I have noticed that after red-light cameras have been installed the amber light goes from six seconds to three. I have never received a red-light ticket yet but it is a matter of time until everyone gets one, which brings up my biggest concern,ā€¯ EVERYONE" What happens when The Mayor City Counsel Members,Judges,Off Duty Police,and a host of others including family members of these privlaged people when they run a photo enforced redlight? If a city is going to have them no one should be treated with favoritism and records should be made public
Tickets are public record. You have to know the name and go to SB courts. It gives all criminal records. You should run your own name.

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#21 Apr 10, 2008
John Lyons RC wrote:
<quoted text>Tickets are public record. You have to know the name and go to SB courts. It gives all criminal records. You should run your own name.
Yes John All Tickets are public record but you need to receive one first.Whats wrong with making the records of all violators of Photo Enforcement public, just because someone violates the law dose not necessarily mean they receive a ticket.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rancho Cucamonga Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bickmore Family 1852 (Apr '11) 1 hr suzy cyr 6
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 1 hr Swallos Me Rods 35,582
News La Verne special needs teachera s aid accused o... 22 hr Wow 9
Is SkimmingWorld real??? (Feb '17) Thu matt302 27
News Colton gang member sentenced in 2007 slaying (Apr '09) Feb 21 M-C lived in G-T 51
Zac Efron's phone number and e-mail address (Oct '07) Feb 20 vicki kent 204
Review: Malinda Hurley Feb 19 malinda 1

Rancho Cucamonga Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rancho Cucamonga Mortgages