My elderly mother was recently issued a ticked for running a red light at Peachtree and Lenox in Atlanta. The picture definitely appears to be her tag but she never drives to Atlanta, no one uses her car and the car in question in no way resembles the one she drives. Could it be possible that the state of Georgia printed to identical tags?

The reason for the red light cameras is simple to see: just count the number of cars that run red lights at intersections near you. I have and it is about 30% of the time. Most of the time the runners are making a left turn after the light has long turned red. Many times multiple cars "follow the leader" and are in the intersection 10sec too long. I say keep the cameras and be very careful when you are the first car when the light turns green!

Red light cameras cause red light rear end accidents. It makes drivers afraid to pass up any yellow (caution) light. So they slam on the brakes and gets rear-ended. The guy behind gets to pay the fine (a ticket, higher insurance, a wrecked car, a lawsuit, and a possible injury). You need living officers to use judgment when catching traffic violators, not machines. It smacks of the "Orewelian State" That is why several states have outlawed these revenue (and accident) generators.

Fire the cops and keep the cameras if you must.
We could eliminate the number of police in this country by 50% and save billions of US tax dollars. The old adage of the police being there to serve and protect is long passe; they are there to serve themselves and to harrass the general public.
It is all about money and power.

As an employee at a DA's Office, my opinion is that these cameras wouldn't be available in every corner of the state, and those who choose to speed/drive recklessly will continue unless they attend a driver education course. although this would not be attended voluntarily, no one can dispute that knowledge of safe driving is important. I think that Clark Howard's option to waive the fine, in exchange for your attendance is reasonable, but I would prefer to still impose the court cost of the action. I mean you were speeding or driving through red lights after all.

I get really, really tired of sitting at a green light not able to move because a number of cars are driving through the red light. I find this is the case more than it is not. Often times, especially on a green arrow, the time is short and only a few cars get through the intersection. I believe I have heard there are statistics to show a reduction in accidents and fatalities. If people paid attention and drove the way they should (i.e. amber means caution / get ready to stop - not gun it and get off the phone), there would be very few accidents at intersections.

I notice the gentlemen states the cameras have reduced "T-bone" crashes, but in the state of Arizona (I believe) they quit using red light cameras because they found the accidents increased from the people slamming on their brakes at yellow lights and the car behind them would hit them and knock them into the intersection. They had cameras for 10 years and found they didn't work and got rid of them, so why are other places ignoring their experience and installing these cameras? It can only be for the revenue.

I walk my granddaughter to school every morning. Her school is not far from our house, but there is a 4 lane road road we have to cross to get there. In the mornings, the road is quite busy with lots of commuters heading to work at that time. The regular crossing guard has been sick so we have had to hope the substitute shows up on time. This morning there was no one. As the light changed from green to yellow to red and the crosswalk light changed from "wait" to "cross", a car came barreling thru the redlight without a care in the world. Fortunately we have learned to look for traffic before stepping into the street or today could have been a deadly situation for us both.

Please rethink your opposition to red light cameras. Think of the lives that could be saved if these red light runners would get tickets and heavy fines. Perhaps it would be a deterrent to future stupidity.

Clark,
Red light cameras save consumers money (!yes they do!) by making a serious traffic infraction an automatic ticket. This allows police to do more of what they ought to be doing, which is being visible and active in the community and available when needed. To enforce the intersections AND do what they need to be doing, would require 24/7 presence at each dangerous intersection plus others on patrol elsewhere. Each po-lice vehicle costs around $75,000 with all the bells and whistles, computers, speed equipment, etc plus one officer with benefits, equipment and training costs another $75,000 to 100,000 per year! Add it up! This is why the task of catching people who endanger other people's lives and property by running red lights should be automated. It saves lives, pain, and money- for all but the guilty. In other words, it is FAIR TAXATION! C'mon Clark, you know this is true, in your gut.
Now, as for the issue of government invasion of your privacy and diminishment of your rights as an American citizen- this is happening all around us but many are distracted by big hoopla over minor stuff like this which is actually an improvement over the old way of law enforcement. What we need to be paying more attention to is corporate polluters, white collar scam artists inflating earnings and hiding losses, lobbyists writing laws and paying into campaigns for unethical public officials, and multi-billion dollar military contracts going to single-source bidders with political connections. Major things like that are where our government is either not paying enough attention or is actively encouraging problematic behavior. This is the true definition of Big Brother- when you can't really know what your government is doing or tell who your government is actually working for, but you can sense that it might not be you. A couple more issues and things that police are spending too much time on: Hunting for small amounts of lightweight drugs and making arrests which are tearing families apart and enriching certain sectors of the business world (think mandatory sentences and for-profit prisons) while delivering dubious, at best, public benefits. Another trumped-up concern is prostitution. It would be far better to make both these activities legal, safe, victimless, and collect taxes on them as business activities. Again, police should have much better things to do with their time than sniffing for marijuana or "cracking down" on whores and johns.
In conclusion, these cameras are one of the better ideas to come out of government and law enforcement, they make perfect financial and public-safety sense, and they do not trample on anyone's rights except law-breakers, while freeing up police resources to focus on other, more difficult-to-solve crimes. It's about time.

Clark has said he worries about more rear-end accidents. If people are following so closely, something (cameras?) needs to keep them back. People dislike cameras because without a policeman in evidence,they think they got away with something illegal, and then they find out they didn't. You can't "entrap" a person who isn't doing something wrong :0)

I see self-centered, "my time is more valuable than your safety" people run red lights every day. It's extremely dangerous. There aren't enough police officers to ticket them all, so red light cameras are a reasonable alternative. If red light runners don't like it, tough. I doubt that bank robbers like the law invading their privacy either when bank cameras catch them in the act.

The red light cameras are revenue generators first, and safety second. In fact, if traffic safety were the primary goal cities could simply set traffic lights at intersections to be red in all directions for a second or two. The delay would be small, but the effects the same or even better than red light cameras. At least one city in Southern California has removed its red light cameras because they didn't significantly reduce accidents, and they cost the city more than it made in revenue.

I have gotten a ticket from a red light camera. Even so, I am very much in favor of them. I have been almost broadsided twice by people running red lights, and my son's car was totaled by a young woman who ran a red light and lied about it. Witnesses did not stay and provide their info, so a red light camera would have saved us much time and grief. I feel that red light cameras have had a positive impact on behavior at dangerous intersections that I use frequently.

I think both sides of this issue are for safe driving and having the laws enforced. Some folks are hung up one detail while others are opposed on principle. I myself am opposed based on not being able to verify the driver. The car/tag gets the citation. No actual points against the owners license was merely done as a legislative compromise.

If the states and local municipalities wished to enforce motor vehicle laws, they could do so by shifting resources and legislation. Not to go off on a tangent, but we spend how much on the war on Drugs and other law enformemnet programs with minimal success.

Law enforcement is just like every other governmental department / agency. They have to justify their existance. I see many small police departments patrol certain sections of highways and a majority of their time is spent issuing citations, while the rest of the community, they are suppose to protect and serve, is not even being watched. The locals are happy as long as law enformencemnt goes after someone else but them.

Making big brother bigger is not the answer. This country has more critical issues as we move forward. I mean, how many laws, regulations, and ordinances do we need? It is just crazy. The world is a dangerous place and it's not going to get better with a camera.

After a number of pedestrians got hit in crosswalks in our capitol, they set a person discretely with a camera and a calculator at an intersection downtown. They found an obvious red light runner every 63 seconds during rush hour times! It's because of drivers like this that they program the lights to allow only one of the 4 directions to go at a time. I've seen raw data that shows that cuts down on crashes 75%+, at least around here. Red light runners have killed a number of people in this city the last 4 years. So how much do you want to be taxed to replace cameras with officers to get the same results? My experience is that US drivers are about the worst drivers of the "developed" nations of the world. The number of people hurt in crashes each year is staggering. Red light cameras are the easiest to set up properly but its up to the state/city to set the standards, not just follow what the vendor wants. If the equipment was bought and run by the police department I would feel better about it vs a private contractor. It's all about the proper setup to keep it fair and honest. This really is not any different than using security cam footage to track down a law breaker.

people need to STOP at red lights and pay attention.
I'm sick and tired of seeing drivers go thru red lights with impunity

Don't break the law and you will not have to worry about these cameras. That seems like an easy fix.
Germany had these in 1997 when I was stationed there and they drive SO much better them Americans.

Sorry, Clark, but the right to confront and cross-examine one's accuser is too basicly embedded in the Constitution/ByLaws. Until AI is perfected, machines that accuse have no place in the courtroom. What a blatant violation of 'due process.'

I'm all for red light cameras, but I want a law that says the city has to pay for and run them. Several times I have heard of a city farming the lights out to a private company and the company gets part of the fine money. Some of those companies have set the lights to stay amber a shorter time to catch someone in the intersection.

When a driver has points taken away they shouldn't get them back until they loose ALL their points. The way it is now a driver can start getting tickets the first day they get a license and keep getting them forever and not loose their license as long as they don't get enough points off.

When they start loosing points they shouldn't get any back. If all the points are gone the license is lost. When they get it back it is with 1/2 the points, and their license shows how many times they have lost their license by the license number. For example, the letter "A" could be put in front of the number to show no loss. A letter "B" would mean lost once, etc.

Initially I was against the cameras but realize now that drivers actually stop instead of speeding up when they know a camera is taking pictures of violators.

In my city, the red light camera program is administered by a profit-making 3rd party. To me, where there is a profit incentive to catch people, the public good is not served. Some of the lights in Raleigh are 3-4 minutes long and the left turn signal is only long enough to accommodate 3-5 cars. Way too short to make sense for someone to wait through another light rotation. So, if I'm in a rush, I'll make the left just as the yellow is turning to red. In this economic environment, idling our cars and wasting all that gas isn't fair to drivers when the city is too lax in adjusting their lights so the traffic flows fairly.

If I DO violate the light and get caught by a camera, I want the city to get all the revenue, not some for profit company who is not working in the best interests of drivers... only their own bottom lines.

If you lived in central Florida you would see people running red lights all of the time except where they have installed cameras. I don't want somebody excersing their rights to run a red light and killing or injuring me and my family.

My problem with red light cameras is that the "CAR" gets the ticket not the driver. The camera does not have a driver's liscense to give a ticket to. The point of tickets for running a red light is supposedly to teach teh driver to not run the red light. Does a ticket to a car that might have many drivers teach anyone a lesson? The owner of the car may get penalized butt hat might not be the driver.

It is my opinion that red light cameras are for income enhancement only. The powers that be claim that they are for “safety” reasons. I question their sincerity. If safety was an issue, why not make the fine steep enough to make people think twice about running a light or speeding or whatever. If I had to pay a $1000 fine for running a light the first time and forfeiting my automobile the second time, I am going to pay a lot of attention to my driving habits. Many will say that they cannot afford a $1000 fine – then don’t run the light! Some say that we need to pay our law enforcement officers. Agreed, but if fewer people are breaking the law then fewer officers are needed, therefore less revenue is needed. It seems to me that people think that the answer to every problem is more money. I think that the answer may require people to be more responsible for their actions.

It is a matter of personal freedom and individual rights. If I don't want to stop for the red light I shouldn't have to. Hopefully those with the right to proceed are not in any hurry and go when their light turns green. It's their bad luck if they are in the intersection as I'm cruising through. Red light cameras interfere with my right to violate the law if I see fit. Why should I be fined for exercising my basic rights.

In South Florida where they have installed red light cameras, I have noticed an improvement in the way people drive. They do save lives.

Are there investigation techniques that are used to determine that running a red light caused an accident???

Well, who would expect this from CowTown County, Riverdale (sigh)? At least this saves Barney from taking Opie for a ride around the town to actually try and catch dem real criminals.

Give me a break.

I'm not listening to the travel deal segment anymore, because I can NEVER find the travel deal discussed on the show. It's soooo frustrating, and a big tease!

I agree with Clark. Red Light Trafficing is just that trafficing for MONEY. This is just another way for local PD and courts to pad their pants. I like how advocates of these devices will say it improves safety. No it improves payoffs and propogates corruption. Don't you think there are enough corrupt officials and laws in the "Land of the Free." Come on give us a break.

When the State of NC decided that the red light and speeding camera generated revenue had to be turned over to the school systems, oddly enough, this indispensable "safety" program was abruptly halted (at least in Charlotte NC).

I call BS on anyone that says the police depts. aren't interested in the bottom line. Shame on them all!

My, and possibly the public, objection to red light cameras is not about human rights and following the letter of the law. A human has a right to do what they want if they don't infringe on the exactly equal rights of others. If I am at a light at 3:00 am on a motorcycle too lightweight to trigger the signal to change, and I run the red light so I can proceed with my journey without any other human within a mile of me, I should not have to go to court to plead my case. Even if I'm n a car and there is nobody within a mile of me, running the light does not infringe on any other humans rights. I would assert that municipalities do not have the right to enforce laws simply for the purpose of enforcement. They should only enforce that we not infringe on any other human's rights. The camera does not know that there is not another human within a mile. The camera has no rights. The camera is stupid and inhumane.

WDRev

Traffic cameras/ redlight cameras are a cost effective way to reduce the number of traffic officers while reducing traffic fatillities. The cameras are unbiased.
Some people complain that they are an invasion of privacy. You have no reasonable expatation of privacy on the public street.

If you do not run red lights, then you have nothing to fear from these cameras.

Any municipality that installs red light cameras, needs to have a cherry picker on standby. Let me explain: The traffic camera is the "accuser." The US Constitution allows us to "face and cross examine our accusers." Therefore, if I am ever ticketed by a red light camera, I will insist that the camera be brought into court so that I may cross examine it.

According to Georgia Code 40-6-20, Red Light Camera Fines are considered CIVIL penalties and one CAN'T be changed in excess of $70.00.

If you do receive a Red Light Camera Fine in excess of $70.00 you NEED to fight it as per the language of the code - "The driver of a motor vehicle shall be liable for a civil monetary penalty of not more than $70.00 if such vehicle is found, as evidenced by recorded images produced by a traffic-control signal monitoring device, to have been operated in disregard or disobedience of a CIRCULAR RED or RED ARROW signal in violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and such disregard or disobedience was not otherwise authorized by law." Additionally, the AMBER must be no less than 4 seconds in length. This allows for plenty of time to STOP if you AREN'T SPEEDING!!!

I'm sure you'd agree there would be no maximum amount set for Red Light Camera Fines if this was a "PURE" revenue generation module. Unlike other citations, there is a cap that each city/county could charge for this violation vs. being able to charge whatever they wanted for other types of infraction/regular traffic tickets written by peace officers.

Maybe reevaluating ones own driving habits will save time, money and frustration when it comes to the DEBATE on Red Light Camera Fines.

In the Cleveland, OH area the officers show up since they have a second chance. You're arraigned(?) first to claim guilty or not, THEN the judge sets a date. This date is sent to the officer. By the way, traffic court is attched to the police department, not city hall. The judge kind of intimidates asking you if you're actually not guilty and that you'd better not be wasting the court's time. While I see his point, something seems wrong about doing that.

isn't it interesting that government is always crying that there are never enough police. but yet the police have plenty of time to sit on the side of the road holding a radar gun to nab someone driving a few miles over the limit.
Instead of fighting real crime such as robberies, muggings, assualts or drug dealing and locking these people away for extended periods, the police under pressure from politicians chase the almighty dollar. Why pursue real crime (which costs real money to convict and incarcarate criminals) when you can sit on the side of the road and write tickets all day long and just collect money from hapless drivers?
Everyone needs to do what i do. I rarely get a ticket, but if you do you have to contest it. Never admit liability to the officer and always, always, always contest the ticket with a court appearance-even if you know 100% for certain you committed it. Set a court date and subpeona the officer and and all his records. Once government finds out that it will cost them as much money in police overtime and court costs to pursue the almighty dollar of minor traffic offenses they might change the enforcement method of spending an inordinate amount of police time writing minor traffic violations to actually chase and incarcarating real criminals. By the way, did you know that statistically you have about a 30-40% chance of having your ticket thrown out by the judge just because the officer never shows up in court. It doesn't matter whether you are guilty or not. You have a right to face your accuser..but you have to subpeona the officer, an easy thing to do. try it, because it works..it did for me on a minor traffic stop.

In North Carolina they cannot do this because the ticket is not a traffic citation, it is a civil citation similar to a parking ticket. Only properly sworn officers can give traffic tickets and the camera is not a sworn officer.

Also the cameras were removed in my city because in the law authorizing the cameras it said 90% of the money collected had to go to the local school system. The city was only sending 90% of their share instead of 90% of the total and they ended up stopping the program as it was not financially viable for them to continue.

------------------

Better still, on the second offense, automatically suspend licences for 6 months. Now, THAT would be an honest way to deter those who ignore traffic laws.

I approve of them, sort of. I think the concept is great! But, so many people either "speed up" to miss the camera or slow down so fast, you end up hitting them. That said, I have mixed feelings.

I approve them as I do not wish to be killed by someone running the lights.

Obviously the people opposed to the red light cameras are the ones who run them!! I have almost been hit by someone running a red light! Thank goodness I saw them before it was too late! I am one of the rare ones who actually slow down for the amber light and ready to stop for the red! It is stopping potential fatal accidents. The insurance companies and the traffic and safety organizations have a lists of the worst intersections in the country. So grow up people and pay your fines! This is for yours and my safety. Get over it and pay your fines!!

don't change the yellow light in half a second

If the cameras "significantly reduced accidents and fatalities", what are we paying the police to do? I guess this means we need fewer police.

Hello Clark,

Great show.

The real bust of the "safety/revenue" debate is the fact that the installer/manufacturers who partner with the municipalities have a "yellow light duration" clause in most contracts. The proven method for lowering accidents at high risk intersections is to lengthen the duration of the yellow and even delay the green. The manufacturers will not allow the city to exceed a certain yellow light timing duration as it will reduce the ticketing revenues to a mere trickle and will not allow them to cover costs. It renders the safety argument pretty weak.

FYI, Patrick Bedard of "Car and Driver" is one of the most astute authorities on this subject, I highly recommend him as a guest if you cover the subject again.

Some jurisdictions play with the timing of the light changes in order to generate a ticket. There is an article about this out there-I just can't find it.

Recently, a large California city changed the position of a camera at a busy-intersections --one that is well known for T-bone crashes due to red-light runners. It was repositioned to capture and ticket those who do not come to a complete stop on a right turn at that intersection. Tickets went up from 50-70/mo. to over 600! So much for the "t-bone safety" argument.

When you hear someone taking money from your wallet with one hand while placing the other on your shoulder telling you that it's for everyone's benefit, don't buy a word of it.

City/county managers - attention: PROVE to me that it's not about the cash. Force red-light offenders to spend an 8-hour day in Traffic School instead of picking our pocket. PROVE TO ME THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. Better still, on the second offense, automatically suspend licences for 6 months. Now, THAT would be an honest way to deter those who ignore traffic laws.

By the way, we prefer seeing offenders stopped by an officer because we know how embarassing it is, and how bad behavior can be easily and quickly corrected using societal pressures such as this. (Punishment must be swift, certain and severe for any real change to occur.) Morons and sociopaths try BS'ing their way out of a ticket, and it usually fails. Getting a ticket in the mail does NOTHING to correct abhorrent behavior; it only enriches government and angers the citizenry who would much rather see traffic law enforcement in action before their very eyes. How many times have you muttered, "I wish a cop were around!" when someone pulls a stupid stunt on the road? We want to SEE authority in action to keep order on our roads instead of hearing about how much money Government is making off of scoflaws.