Comments on: Red Light Cams Go Live Sun.;To Bring In $200k In 1st Year?

By: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against 19 Washington Cities, Including Burien, Over Red Light Camera Fines | The B-Town (Burien) Blog | Burien News, Events, Entertainment & More, Updated Daily.

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:49:34 +0000

[...] we’ve previously reported, Burien currently sends out a $101 fine for red light infractions, with five cameras operating at [...]

By: enigmaforever

enigmaforever — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:19:31 +0000

these cameras tape 24/7 every car that passes, and can pull up exactly where you were and when by simply putting your plate # into their computer. Why?
Yes they will move the yellow time down to the lowest allowed by law. The speed cameras will come a short distance after the speed sign to decrease, not even giving you time to slow down,The company has already proved they will forge documents to get the results they want.
Kiss you freedoms to privacy good bye folks they will have so many cameras you can't count them.
From Arizona, invaded by and taken over bye redflex, triple A declares the state of Arizona a speed trap because of redflex.
Come to sunny Arizona, I can assure you that it will cost you a whole lot more than you planned while driving here.

By: Henry

Henry — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:34:02 +0000

How to make sure the cameras don't end up being just about money:

Make the fine for rolling right turns, or left turns, much lower than for a straight thru violation. $20 is enuf to drive home the point about these relatively much-less-dangerous turning offenses. If, instead, the fine for turning is the same (substantial) amount as for a straight thru violation, then it's about money.

Have a grace period, that is, no ticket unless you're more than 1/2 sec. late. If no grace, it's about money.

Set the yellow lights for left turns at 4.0 sec. If they're left at 3.0, like in California, that triples the # of violations & it's about money.

The contract with the vendor running the cameras must be changed to a genuine flat-rate. If the vendor is paid so-much-a-ticket, or a % of the fine revenue, or more money is there's more tickets (as in the present contract), it's about money.

Set a solid cap on the max. fine, including all surcharges. Otherwise, as soon as the govt. needs more money, it will rise to $400+, like in California, & it's about money.

It may be too late to change the contract. It's been signed. Although there may be an escape clause the city can use. But it is not too late to reduce the amount of the fines for turns, or institute a grace period, or lengthen the yellow on lefts.

By: Burienite

Burienite — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:49:27 +0000

"The City pays Redflex a flat monthly amount. The fixed fee ranges from $4,870 to $6,870 per month depending on the number of violations."

… what definition of "flat monthly amount" and "fixed fee" are they using, exactly?

By: PhotoRadarScam

PhotoRadarScam — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:09:24 +0000

If these are supposed to improve safety, I wonder if they did any research outside of what the vendor told them? Most good independent research shows that these cameras INCREASE accdident! Just read www.motorists.org/PictureOfFraud.pdf And doesn't it concern anyone that they created a contract that increases payout based on number of citations? Does it concern anyone that this company (Redflex) has been found guilty of falsifying court documents, among other things? http://PhotoRadarScam.com/trust.php