Charlotte NC speed cameras could unwittingly cost city $4.6 million
Peek Traffic Inc., the firm responsible for operating and monitoring the cameras had been receiving a whopping $35 out of every $50 for every ticket for blowing a red light, or $39 for those snapped speeding. The new ruling means that the city would have to shell out $30-$34 per ticket, something they obviously aren't keen to do. By this ruling, Charlotte now owes the school system $4.6 million dollars.
City council members are set to convene June 5 to figure out a way to get out of its contract with Peek Traffic, as well as figure out how to pay the $4.6 million dollars, provided officials don't take up the ruling with North Carolina's Supreme Court.
[Sources: TheNewspaper.com; Art by Andy Davey]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mike 6:40PM (5/29/2006)
The city I live in, High Point, NC is the city in North Carolina where the suit was originally filed over a year ago. When the original suit was won, High Point turned off their cameras first. Greensboro, NC which is right beside High Point turned their cameras as well. Just recently an appellate court upheld the ruling.
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060516/NEWSREC0101/60516003/-1/NEWSRECRSSARKIVE
"Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - RALEIGH - Guilford County Schools should receive nearly all the proceeds from High Point's red-light camera program, the state Court of Appeals decided today in a ruling that could keep the cameras shuttered for good in the city.
The appellate court upheld a Guilford judge's ruling last year giving the schools 90 percent of the proceeds from the camera program.
It was not immediately clear whether High Point plans to appeal. Based on the ruling, High Point owes up to $1.5 million to the schools.
Greensboro city leaders have already agreed to pay the school system about $3 million from its red-light camera program if High Point's appeals failed.
The N.C. League of Municipalities has expressed concern that such a ruling could hamper the ability of cities across the state to protect public safety.
High Point and Greensboro stopped using red-light cameras in March 2005 pending the outcome of the appeal.
Tuesday's ruling will be appealed, High Point City Attorney Fred Baggett said."
The quote from The N.C. League of Municipalities expressing concern that such a ruling could hamper the ability of cities across the state to protect public safety is hogwash. Study after study has shown that the cameras actually cause an increase in accidents at the intersections. The increase in rear end accidents go up more than the decrease in number of t-bone accidents. There was a red-light camera near my house that I went through everyday and I got rear ended there because of the camera. There was an accident there at least once a week. Since the camera was turned off I haven't seen any accidents. This intersection was a bad choice for having a camera because it was at the bottom of a long hill which made stopping short more difficult than normal.
Reply
Noah 6:41PM (5/29/2006)
Stupid. Red light cameras cause accidents not prevent them.
That said whoever signed that contract without doing the math should be flogged and have to pay the bill. If it's city counsil how about each of them pay their share from their pockets. That's so dumb. Didn't they see that the company was trying to milk them? Didn't they see it didn't add up? Stupid stupid stupid
--Noah
Reply
Mike 7:13PM (5/29/2006)
They city I live in High Point, NC was the city where the original law suit was filed over a year ago. When the suit was won, High Point immediately turned off their cameras. Greensboro, NC which is beside High Point shut their cameras off as well.
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060516/NEWSREC0101/60516003/-1/NEWSRECRSSARKIVE
"Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Court upholds judge's ruling in red-light camera program
Print this Article Print this article Email this Article Email this Article
From Staff Reports
RALEIGH - Guilford County Schools should receive nearly all the proceeds from High Point's red-light camera program, the state Court of Appeals decided today in a ruling that could keep the cameras shuttered for good in the city.
The appellate court upheld a Guilford judge's ruling last year giving the schools 90 percent of the proceeds from the camera program.
It was not immediately clear whether High Point plans to appeal. Based on the ruling, High Point owes up to $1.5 million to the schools.
Greensboro city leaders have already agreed to pay the school system about $3 million from its red-light camera program if High Point's appeals failed.
The N.C. League of Municipalities has expressed concern that such a ruling could hamper the ability of cities across the state to protect public safety.
High Point and Greensboro stopped using red-light cameras in March 2005 pending the outcome of the appeal.
Tuesday's ruling will be appealed, High Point City Attorney Fred Baggett said."
The quote from the N.C. League of Municipalities expresseing concern that such a ruling could hamper the ability of cities across the state to protect public safety is hogwash. Study after study has shown the red light cameras cause more accidents than they save. The increase in rear end accidents is more than the decrease in t-bone accidents.
There was a camera near my house and I went through it everyday. I was rear ended at this intercetion a few years ago because of the camera. At this intercetion there was at least one accident a week. Since the cameras have been turned off over a year ago I haven't seen one. This intercetion was a poor choice for the camera because it is at the bottom of a long hill where stopping short is even harder than normal.
Reply
Howard Kerr 8:09PM (5/29/2006)
Wow, I've NEVER heard of the company that sold/maintains(?) the stoplight camera systems EVER getting more than 50% of the fines...I agree, the dimwit that signed this contract should be hung by the thumb of his writing hand. I'm also very surprized that ANY judge is able to say where the fines collected from any traffic violations should go in a state.
THAT said, I wonder if cameras would be necessary if the stoplights in this country had uniform intervals for ALL THREE colors. Not that a yellow should be as long as a red, but that ALL yellow lights...EVERYWHERE should last for the same duration. I've noticed that YELLOW lights are currently little longer than a flicker between green and red in many places near here. It almost makes you wonder why they bother with yellow.
Reply
Mike 8:18PM (5/29/2006)
"I'm also very surprized that ANY judge is able to say where the fines collected from any traffic violations should go in a state."
North Carolina law says so. From the appellate court ruling.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2006/050571-1.htm
"Article IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution provides that “the clear proceeds of all penalties and forfeitures and of all fines collected in the several counties for any breach of the penal laws of the state, shall belong to and remain in the several counties, and shall be faithfully appropriated and used exclusively for maintaining free public schools.” N.C. Const. art. IX, § 7 (2003), amended by 2003 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 423, § 1 (effective Jan. 1, 2005). The present appeal requires us to determine whether this constitutional provision applies to penalties collected by the City of High Point under its red light camera program.
On motions for summary judgment, the superior court ruled that the Constitution was applicable to the program and that the ordinance failed to dispose of red light camera penalties in accordance with constitutional mandate, and ordered High Point to pay ninety percent of the penalties collected under the program tothe Guilford County Board of Education. For the reasons set forth herein, we uphold these rulings of the superior court.
The present case also raises an issue as to whether High Point should have been ordered to pay post-judgment interest. We conclude that the general statutory provision governing post- judgment interest is not applicable to the City and vacate the portion of the superior court's order requiring High Point to pay interest."
Reply
Ian 9:41PM (5/29/2006)
How can you get rear ended because of the camera? Someone is determined not to stop for it so they floor it and run into you? Or is it that you stopped for the red light as the law required and the person behind you did not and therefor hit you? Based on this you should be able to run red lights whenever you choose to avoid these alledgedly common rear-end collsion? Seriosuly, I'm not groking the reasoning here.
Reply
Tommy 10:35PM (5/29/2006)
I'm glad to see this ruling, and the after effects, i.e. turning off the cameras. I don't like the idea of traffic enforcement by camera, and to outsource it under a lucrative contract for the vendor is obscene.
To Ian, multiple studies have shown that red light cameras cause accidents. The problem is that people generally don't engage in a panic stop when the light is changing. If you are already committed to going, just because it changes to yellow you don't normally slam on the brakes. But in cities where the statistics have been compiled, after installing the cameras, people who would otherwise have smoothly driven on through the yellow lights are slamming on the brakes and being rear ended. These cases in Charlotte and High Point are a pretty clear indication that the cities aren't installing the cameras to increase public saftey...but to raise money.
Reply
Glenn 10:55PM (5/29/2006)
In Winnipeg, the city's own auditors said the cameras lost money and increased accidents and liability claims. The auditor was on their toes because the checked the cities numbers and when the city refused to disclose where they got their data on the cameras; the auditor when to the government insurance (Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation) to check their data.
Surprise -- not to me -- but the data did not corrolate; true accidents increased as the city stated, but they had continued to increase (including injuries and liability claims)well past the first year. The auditor recomments shutting the program down as it was just MPIC paying money to the city with the net cost being hugely negative to the government (granted one is city and the other provincial).
The city has come back by doubling the tickets -- which most are for speeding; which used to start at just over $100, so you get a minimum of $200 fine now.
Oh the auditor also said Winnipeg paids 250% more for the deal they signed up to -- compared to Edmonton and Calgary.
Reply
Koba 12:43AM (5/30/2006)
This is why I have no sympathy for local government, they do things under the guise of public safety to turn a profit! But then again, it's pretty much the same at the federal and state levels. The only question is, who calibrates these machines, and shouldn't that have to be proven in the court of law, I mean, that these machines work as expected. But then again, that would require the govt. to PROVE that I broke a law, and that's just way to much hassle compared to mailing me a freaking bill!
Reply
Trenton Lipscomb 1:07AM (5/30/2006)
#6 said: How can you get rear ended because of the camera?
Drivers panic stopping at the first sniff of a yellow in an intersection with a traffic camera. They're too scared of getting a ticket to risk it. They no longer use judgement (the most important skill in driving), but instead have the decision made for them by the light.
By some measure, red light cameras have eliminated the the yellow light. Could you imagine how many rear-end collisions there would be if all yellow lights were eliminated and red came on in place of the yellow? Skkrreeeeeeeecch!!!!
Reply
gladiator 6:35AM (5/30/2006)
this service is exceptional,always something valuable
the picture info works better for me rather than asll the text
the free sites are not free, it should not say free
keep it up more good than bad??!!
Reply
H Sauls 9:18AM (5/30/2006)
Government by the people, “FOR” the people this ain’t! Which one of the founding fathers was it that said the country needs a revolution every few years? Our politicians need to remember why he said that.
Reply
CL2 10:10AM (5/30/2006)
Although I disagree with the use of cameras in general, something needs to be done about red light runners. This situation is getting out of hand.
But I have an even bigger complaint. Why do school systems (in general) continue to get the majority of the traffic fines in this country? The police do the majority of the work and the fat cat administrators get the money.
Reply
Corey 12:22PM (5/30/2006)
Wow, I can see the contract negotiations between High Point and the city go something like this:
HP: Let's do 80/20.
NC: No way, we've got to get a bit more than that.
HP: Ok ok fine. 78/22.
NC: Deal.
Reply
Brian 12:38PM (5/30/2006)
"I wonder if cameras would be necessary if the stoplights in this country had uniform intervals for ALL THREE colors. Not that a yellow should be as long as a red, but that ALL yellow lights...EVERYWHERE should last for the same duration. I've noticed that YELLOW lights are currently little longer than a flicker between green and red in many places near here. It almost makes you wonder why they bother with yellow."
Here in CA (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) the duration of yellow lights depends on the speed limit at the intersection. I'm not sure if I'm remembering corectly, but I think it's 1.5 seconds for every 10 mph.
Anyone know for sure?
Reply
mangum 1:52PM (5/30/2006)
Generally the companies that install the cameras and send the bill require the city to shorten the yellow time to maximize the number of tickets.
Reply
MacroEQ 2:21PM (5/30/2006)
The cartoon used for this article is of Gordon Brown (British Finance Minister) pludering the motorist. Should the pic have been him at the end of the road as a 'Road Block'?
M.
Reply
tekdemon 2:57PM (5/30/2006)
Oh come on people, we've had red light cameras in NYC (at random intersections not all of them) for years now, and I don't slam my brakes super hard as soon as I see yellow, lol. If I can make the yellow I'll keep going, because the cameras are usually timed well enough that if you were already in the intersection when it turned red it doesn't take a picture.
In NYC traffic is sometimes so bad that if you're trying to make a left turn you'll basically sit in an intersection until it turns red, and then make a left turn, so I'm pretty sure they just made it so that the camera only takes a pic if something enters the intersection after it's been red for a bit.
Seriously, if it causes more accidents because you got rear ended that means you should probably be looking in your rear view mirror and not just slamming your brakes as hard as you can all the time. lol
Reply
Mike 4:46PM (5/30/2006)
Let me say that when I got rear ended at a red light camera it wasn't me that did the panic stop. I was several cars back from the red light and the first person in line was the one to do a panic stop which caused each person further back to brake harder than the person in front of them. I was able to stop in time without hitting the person in front of me but the lady behind me couldn't.
#16 I heard the same thing about yellow lights being shortened in order to increase the amount of tickets generated. I've also read about the line that you have to cross to generate the ticket being moved because enough people weren't being caught. These kind of things prove that the red light cameras are just money grabs.
If cities really wanted to improve safety, they would increase the amount of time between one direction turning red and the other direction turning green. That would give all the red light runners time to get through before traffic moved from the other direction.
Reply
md 7:15PM (5/30/2006)
It's intersting that nobody is even upset over the fact that the gov't has set up cameras to monitor their citizens. It may just be red light cameras now, but how long before it becomes video surveillance at interections, then surveillance on most streets, then video surveillance everywhere.
It is a very slippery slope. . .
Reply