Red Light Cameras

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I just saw this on the news and had to LAUGH!

 

You know those Red Light Cameras that are going up everywhere? Well there's a way to beat them now. You can make your license plates "invisible with a spray.

 

http://www.beatthecamera.com/washtimes.html

 

By Steve Sexton

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

Motorists have litigated against them, fired bullets at them and thrown garbage on them — all to get back at the traffic cameras that have caught them in the act of running a red light or speeding.

 

 

Now they have a new weapon in their arsenal, and it comes in a can for $29.99. A clear spray called Photoblocker can be applied to license plates to make them hyper-reflective and unreadable when the camera flashes.

 

The product, marketed by online merchant Beat The Camera (www.BeatTheCamera.com), defies laws that preclude motorists from placing covers over their license plates but have no provisions for a clear spray.

 

Joe Scott, the marketing director for Photoblocker, said he knows of no jurisdictions that ban the spray. Most states have laws against obscuring or distorting license plates, but Photoblocker obscures the license plate only in a photo, Mr. Scott said, making it legal or at least difficult for police to detect with the naked eye.

 

Capt. John Lamb of the Denver Police Department said a test of the spray proved effective at producing a glare over the license plate.

 

The District, Maryland and Virginia all have laws permitting the use of red-light cameras, and the Federal Highway Administration says 21 states have red-light or speed-detection cameras in place or are considering installing the devices.

 

 

Lt. Patrick Burke of the Metropolitan Police Department said the spray isn't banned by any laws in the District, but he has yet to see a spray that is effective.

 

 

The spray might slip through a loophole in state law, said Steve Kholer, a spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, who said he had not heard of the product. Citations in California can cost up to $275.

 

If the spray becomes a problem, Mr. Kholer said, the law will catch up with it.

 

Critics of traffic cameras say the devices violate privacy and enforce unfairly.

 

Mr. Scott says use of the cameras constitutes entrapment.

 

"Decent folks — law-abiding citizens — are getting penalized left and right for clearing intersections a little too late, or entering and then backing up," he said, adding that one client reported being ticketed for a red-light violation when he was part of a police-escorted funeral procession.

 

He said thousands of cans of Photoblocker have been sold.

 

"The cameras were put in place just to raise revenue and not to make things safer," Mr. Scott said.

 

The District has collected $21.6 million in fines since August 1999 from its 39 red-light cameras. An additional $29 million has been collected from speed cameras since their installation in August 2001.

 

Roy Reyer, a former police officer, operates his own website. He said anger with the "Big Brother attitude" of governments has fueled the innovation.

 

Clear license plate covers preceded the spray. They deflect light to make plates unreadable from the side and from above, but not from directly behind a car. Some jurisdictions that employ the camera-enforcement technology have banned these products.

 

In a game of innovation to stay ahead of traffic enforcement, the market has produced radar detectors and radar jammers — now banned in some states — as well as a license plate cover that deflects police radar.

 

Motorists aren't the only ones with clever tricks. Paradise Valley, Ariz., considered hiding its radar cameras in cactus plants along roadways, the Weekly Standard reported. Outrage from residents forced officials to reconsider.

 

http://www.beatthecamera.com/

 

I love it!

[v_seven 0]

Thanks for the tip!!! :lol:

[Takara_Soong 4]

We have red light camera here but they passed a law that it is illegal to use those devices so they will get you one way or the other. I personally support the use of the cameras. The only people who complain about them are the ones who run red lights. The cameras save lives and that is what is important.

[cptwright 1]

go with the spray. oh yeah. im for the old fashion ways, let a cop catch ya. this camer crap is just that crap.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

We have red light camera here but they passed a law that it is illegal to use those devices so they will get you one way or the other. I personally support the use of the cameras. The only people who complain about them are the ones who run red lights. The cameras save lives and that is what is important.

I don't run red lights but I don't support the cameras. It's the driver of the car (in the United States) that gets the ticket. Not the car itself.

 

About 2 years ago my mother got a ticket in the mail from Washington, D.C. for speeding. The day it happened she was at work 300 miles away from where the speeding crime took place.

 

Not only was she not there but the vehicle that was speeding was a White Pick-Up truck. My mother's car was a brown Dart (sedan).

 

If it had been a police officer that had physically pulled the truck over then my mother wouldn't have had the hassel of getting the whole thing straightened out.

 

Camera's are a bad idea. Like I said, it's the driver that breaks the law not the vehicle.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

We have red light camera here but they passed a law that it is illegal to use those devices so they will get you one way or the other. I personally support the use of the cameras. The only people who complain about them are the ones who run red lights. The cameras save lives and that is what is important.

I don't run red lights but I don't support the cameras. It's the driver of the car (in the United States) that gets the ticket. Not the car itself.

 

About 2 years ago my mother got a ticket in the mail from Washington, D.C. for speeding. The day it happened she was at work 300 miles away from where the speeding crime took place.

 

Not only was she not there but the vehicle that was speeding was a White Pick-Up truck. My mother's car was a brown Dart (sedan).

 

If it had been a police officer that had physically pulled the truck over then my mother wouldn't have had the hassel of getting the whole thing straightened out.

 

Camera's are a bad idea. Like I said, it's the driver that breaks the law not the vehicle.

I agree on all points. :lol:

[RikerChick 5]

I'm with Takara. I fully support the cameras.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I'm with Takara. I fully support the cameras.

I just don't believe Law Enforcement should be automated. What happens if I loan my car to a friend and my friend is speeding or goes through a red light. Then 2 weeks later I get a ticket mailed to me. It's me that has to take care of that ticket, not the person that broke the law.

 

I'm also someone that doesn't trust the government. Photo's can be doctored.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

I'm also someone that doesn't trust the government.

I trust the government, just not the people running it. :lol:

[hangon 3]

I hate them camares but i guess they are there to save

peoples lives,here in holland you can buy what they call

a"BACK FLASH"when a speed cam takes a photo of your

number plate a sensor on the back of your car emits a

strong flash which blurs the speed cams photo!!!!!!!!!!!

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I hate them camares but i guess they are there to save

peoples lives,here in holland you can buy what they call

a"BACK FLASH"when a speed cam takes a photo of your

number plate a sensor on the back of your car emits a

strong flash which blurs the speed cams photo!!!!!!!!!!!

But they don't save lives, they are simply income generators for local and State governments.

[hangon 3]

But they don't save lives, they are simply income generators for local and State governments.

Hmm good point.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Just how is a "red light camera" gonna stop the car from running a red light? :lol: Personally, I'd rather have a patrol officer at a busy intersection than a camera. :lol:

[Nemesis 0]

Well if people slowed down on yellow lights like they are suppossed to then this wouldn't happen, its simple as that.

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Well if people slowed down on yellow lights like they are suppossed to then this wouldn't happen, its simple as that.

Yes, but people who like to break the law aren't gonna be stopped by some camera.

 

Also, what if you don't have time to slow down and the light changes red while you are in the intersection and you get your pic taken? :blink:

Edited February 20, 2004 by Captain Jean-Luc Picard

[A l t e r E g o 9]

I consider myself to be one of the safest drivers on the road (and I could get a printout from the DMV to prove it) but there are times when I miss a light by fractions of a second (and so has every driver on the road.) That has never caused me to be an any kind of an accident but now thanks to RLC those moments will become a $250 ticket and what about insurance rates? VBG is right; it has nothing to do with safety but only stuffing city coffers! To those who are for RLC, I wonder if you will feel the same when your first ticket arrives, or your second or your third, how many will it take before you become outraged enough to see it for what it is?

[Nemesis 0]

Just how is a "red light camera" gonna stop the car from running a red light? :blink: Personally, I'd rather have a patrol officer at a busy intersection than a camera.

Thats ideal, but people are whining about paying tickets and so on. Why would they pay higher taxes to get more police officers? You'll have the exact some compliants so why even bother?

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Just how is a "red light camera" gonna stop the car from running a red light? :blink: Personally, I'd rather have a patrol officer at a busy intersection than a camera.

Thats ideal, but people are whining about paying tickets and so on. Why would they pay higher taxes to get more police officers? You'll have the exact some compliants so why even bother?

Camers malfunction, police officers do not.

[Nemesis 0]

Just how is a "red light camera" gonna stop the car from running a red light? :blink: Personally, I'd rather have a patrol officer at a busy intersection than a camera.

Thats ideal, but people are whining about paying tickets and so on. Why would they pay higher taxes to get more police officers? You'll have the exact some compliants so why even bother?

Camers malfunction, police officers do not.

Ha, police are people, we are broken as soon as we come out of the box. Filled with personal bias and judgements.

[Takara_Soong 4]

But they don't save lives, they are simply income generators for local and State governments.

Actually VBG, there have been a number of studies conducted that show that red light cameras do save lives. Here are some statistics for various cities that have red light cameras.

 

Six months after the red light camera program began in San Francisco, the San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) reported that the number of red light runners dropped by 42% at photo enforced intersections. The San Francisco DPT also announced on April 7, 1998 that collisions caused by red light running decreased by approximately 10% citywide. An estimated 125 injuries have been prevented in San Francisco as a result of red light cameras, according to the State Wide Traffic Reporting System (SWITRS).

 

A study done in 1997 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety took place in Oxnard, California. The study found that the red light violation rate was reduced 40% several months after the enforcement program began.

 

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, New York City reported a 62% reduction in violations since their program began in 1992 at eighteen photo enforced intersections that were monitored.

 

A study conducted in Victoria, Australia found a 32 percent decrease in right-angle collisions and a 10 percent reduction in injuries after the cameras were installed in 1983.

[ddillard 2]

I have to agree with VBG on this one. I don't think that the way of ticketing based on the cameras is fair. A person should not recieve a ticket in the mail because his/her car ran a stop light. In the US it is common place for people to loan their car to someone now and them, or for all of the cars in the family to be registerred under one persons name. Therefore it is not fair to ticket the cars owner as there is no way to guarentee that it was them driving and not a friend, spouse, child, parent, etc.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

Actually Dill I think red light runners (that is: cars ENTERING the intersection AFTER the light turns red) should get the ticket but I want the technology to be able to discern whether or not the car was ALREADY IN the intersection before the light went red.

 

The same system doing the detecting could also work to hold a yellow open for a second more and help that driver who was in the intersection before the red get through safety. Getting a ticket for having a rear bumper in the intersection is not fair imo.

[ensign_ro 0]

i dont think such products should be allowed.. if you get a ticket from a camera its your fault! you should have been obeying the law. it punishment for breaking the rules and you should have to pay that ticket. and if you loan the car to some one, too bad pay it or make them pay it. if you dont want tickets from some one else running lights in your car then dont loan the car out.

Edited February 21, 2004 by ensign_ro

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Actually VBG, there have been a number of studies conducted that show that red light cameras do save lives. Here are some statistics for various cities that have red light cameras.

I have no doubt there are many "studies" that show this. I also have no doubt that there are likely just as many "studies" that could show that the Easter Bunny exists. The question I have is this, who commissioned the studies? The city? The State (or Province)? Or maybe the company that manufactures and maintains the camera equipment?

 

Studies can be made of any issue and can be shown to come out any number of ways. The fact of the matter though is that in the United States it is the criminal that is punished, not the property owner (unless the property is the criminal). Explain to me how it would save lives if I loaned you my car, you ran a red light and got zapped by a camera doing it and a month later I got a ticket in the mail?

 

Over 800 people were improperly cited with photo radar tickets in Beaverton, OR in 1995. Over 20,000 motorists unfairly received RLV tickets in Washington DC before police stopped the camera in May, 2000.

 

That's almost 30,000 wrongly cited tickets in one State and one City. And those are the ones that were caught, how many were there that the person just said "to heck with it" and paid it?

 

Engineering, not enforcement, has the greatest effect on compliance and safety. In Detroit, Michigan, AAA funded the reengineering of four dangerous intersections, including adding more yellow interval time. The cost: $35,000 per intersection, or less than one ineffective camera. After 27 months, crashes declined by 47 percent, injuries by 50 percent, and RLVs by 50 percent. Programs in Omaha and San Francisco accomplished equivalent positive results.

 

Look at that stat, Crashes declined by 47% and injuries by 50% just by adding a second or 2 to the yellow light. No camera's needed.

 

 

They were put up, we were told, to save lives and keep people from running red lights. If saving lives was the concern of our local leaders, a wiser and more effective measure would've been adding one second to the yellow lights, which studies have shown reduces intersection crashes by more than 50 percent.

 

Ah, but that would not bring in the money. Generating revenue is the main reason for red-light and, in the near future, speeding cameras.

 

That last line is the key. Camera's don't save lives, they generate income for the state, city or province and for the camera's makers.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next step is Global Positioning Satellite devices on our automobiles that issue tickets every time we exceed the speed limit, run a red light or stop sign, and so on, and then automatically deduct the charge from our credit card.

 

 

 

In the negative column would be a flagrant disregard for the U.S. Constitution, or more precisely, the 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

 

Want to really cut down on speeding or red light running? Have a patrol car out there. Have a police officer do his or her job. How many people will run a red light when they see those red and blue flashing lights? How many people will speed when they see them?

 

i dont think such products should be allowed.. if you get a ticket from a camera its your fault! you should have been obeying the law. it punishment for breaking the rules and you should have to pay that ticket. and if you loan the car to some one, too bad pay it or make them pay it. if you dont want tickets from some one else running lights in your car then dont loan the car out.

Fortunately we have a Constitution here in the United States that protects the citizens from this kind of "law enforcement".

 

How was my mother's Red Light ticket her fault? She didn't own the truck that she was ticket for, she wasn't driving it and she was 300 miles away from the city when the crime took place. Yet she was still ticketed and still had to go take care of the bogus ticket.

 

I've said it before and I don't know how the laws in Canada (or other countries) work but in the United States it's the person that breaks the law, not the vehicle.

 

Maybe when you begin driving and having to deal with violations of your rights you will understand.

[ddillard 2]

i dont think such products should be allowed.. if you get a ticket from a camera its your fault! you should have been obeying the law. it punishment for breaking the rules and you should have to pay that ticket. and if you loan the car to some one, too bad pay it or make them pay it. if you dont want tickets from some one else running lights in your car then dont loan the car out.

Okay, so if I understand you correctly you are saying that the following example would be my fault and I should be the one to be punished.

 

My father who is nearly 65 years old and is unemployed due to circumstances that are out of his control. He lives with my brother and his wife but has not transportation of his own if he needs to go someplace. I have a second cheap vehicle that I have bought for his use so that he can come to visit me or the rest of our family, or go to the store if he wants. I have the car in my name so that I can pay for the insurance that covers both of us. So he misses a goes through a light shorly after it turns red for whatever the reason and a camera takes a picture, but since the car is in my name I am mailed a ticket, have to pay a fine, recieve points against my license, my insurance rates are raised and I am disqualified for some jobs that I may choose to apply for that require a clean driving record all because I chose to help my father to have a way around as a way of showing my appreciation for the sacrifices that he made for me when I was growing up, even though the crime would be taking place 125 miles from where I am at?

 

I am sorry but I severely disagree with this. What is next saying that if someone breaks into my house and used one of my knives from the kitchen to kill my roommate that I will go to prison for murder because it was my knife used to commit the crime?

[VaBeachGuy 12]

You know, what it boils down to is "innocent until proven guilty". If I am mailed a ticket and it wasn't me then I have to prove I am innocent. That's not how the American legal system is supposed to work. The State must prove I am guilty, and a photograph isn't always proof.

 

I also have the right to confront my accuser, how do I confront a camera?

[Takara_Soong 4]

Actually Dill I think red light runners (that is: cars ENTERING the intersection AFTER the light turns red) should get the ticket but I want the technology to be able to discern whether or not the car was ALREADY IN the intersection before the light went red.

 

The same system doing the detecting could also work to hold a yellow open for a second more and help that driver who was in the intersection before the red get through safety. Getting a ticket for having a rear bumper in the intersection is not fair imo.

That technology does exist AE. A car that is already in the intersection before the light is red shouldn't get a ticket. The camera is activated when a car enters the intersection after the light turns red.

 

Dill, I'm not sure why you are named in the insurance for the car that your father is the primary driver. I'm sorry that I couldn't feel sympathy for you in that situation. Too many people register cars for family members to get cheaper rates which I don't agree with.

 

VBG and I have had many discussions about the differences between Canada and the States. To simplify it greatly, Americans seem to emphasize individual rights while Canadians seem to take the view of the rights of society as a whole being more important than individual rights.

 

As for the figures that I used in my post, some were ones that were released by the jurisdictions however the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent organization. As most people feel insurance companies are only interested in profits, then their support of the red light cameras must mean they work. Less accidents means more profits for the insurance companies. (Is that cynical or what!)

[VaBeachGuy 12]

VBG and I have had many discussions about the differences between Canada and the States. To simplify it greatly, Americans seem to emphasize individual rights while Canadians seem to take the view of the rights of society as a whole being more important than individual rights.

 

As for the figures that I used in my post, some were ones that were released by the jurisdictions however the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is an independent organization. As most people feel insurance companies are only interested in profits, then their support of the red light cameras must mean they work. Less accidents means more profits for the insurance companies. (Is that cynical or what!)

You're right, Most Americans do feel that the Individual's rights out weigh governmental rights. The government only derives it's rights that the individuals as a whole give to them.

 

Again, I am ignorant to Canadian law but in the US everyone is "Innocent until proven Guilty" and everyone has the right to "Confront their Accuser". If we allow our rights to erode then soon we will have none.

[ddillard 2]

Dill, I'm not sure why you are named in the insurance for the car that your father is the primary driver. I'm sorry that I couldn't feel sympathy for you in that situation. Too many people register cars for family members to get cheaper rates which I don't agree with.

The insurance is in my name because the car belongs to me. In the state where I live you must own, or be in the process of pruchasing the car in order to insure the vehicle. Therefore since the car belongs to me I have to carry the insurance, it is also the only way that I can pay for my father to have insurance as he does not have the money so I provide him with the car and pay for the insurance.

 

But in the example, since I own the car I would get the ticket and reguardless of who was paying for the insurance it would be my rates going up as the ticket would be issued to me as the owner of the car not my father who was driving.