Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum Redlight camera in Montgomery

1. The state gets no revenue from the cameras
2. The cities that got the legislature to allow cameras in their cities get a smaller percentage of the money collected than the camera company.
3. They don't lease the cameras. They allow the company to place them for a small percentage of the monies collected. The company still owns and operates the camera.
4. When you receive one of these tickets do you pay the fine to the city or the company? That is all you need to know about them.

Since you asked, I was the head of the Traffic Division and as such was the statutory Traffic Engineer. I know all about the operations of red lights and can see way to many issues to make the cameras fool proof. Anytime a private company profits from the enforcement of laws, the potential for abuse is there. Ethics dictate that we should avoid the appearance of impropriety before we have to deal with corruption later.

If the system is so perfect, explain how a whole funeral procession being waved through the light by a uniformed deputy all got tickets? I know some of them got it straightened out, on their time, but I wonder how many paid? This happened in Selma BTW and my MIL is one of the ones in the procession.

Dang, A lawman AND a "statutory Traffic Engineer"??

Barney, you are da-man!!

I'm gonna start taking pictures of people texting and driving. Email them to them to the police department and demand a bounty.

That's what she said.

The cities could get all the revenue if they bought the cameras outright. But due to expense it's cheaper to give a small percentage to the vendor. I'm sure all towns are different. I can only speak from experience. The only ticket I got was mailed from the city not the vendor. It had the reviewing officer's name and photo on the ticket. It was paid to the city NOT the vendor. All potential tickets in my area are monitored by the vendor and if they deemed it as potential then a police officer reviews it and has final say if it was a ticketable offence. As far as a funeral procession goes the camera does not discriminate. Any vehicle that crosses the stop bar after red will have a photo and video taken. The reviewing officer's should have thrown it out and if contested it would have been thrown out.the only reason a city would take in less than the vendor is due to the fines being distributed. The camera vendor akes much less than the other divisions of the pie. They also have to maintain,install and monitor the cameras. Would you pay 80000 out of your pocket for free? It saves the municipalities up front incurred cost plus maintenance plus monitoring plus the software for the monitoring. But since you're a "traffic engineer" you should know this. It there are that many tickets generated then there is a red light running problem. I bet under your law enforcement hat you have no problem with video surveillance being used to identify robbers, assailants or any other crime or do you?

Right off the top of my head I would say no, I have no problem with a camera identifying a person committing a crime. And when the red light cameras identify the person driving the vehicle I may change my opinion. Then it can become criminal. Now, the person whose name the tag is in gets a fine. So they're guilty until proven innocent. I'm not playing that game.

A vehicle pulling a trailer? If they can get the trailer tag #, will they use it? I have 3 trailers with tags and hardly a week goes by that someone isn't borrowing one of my trailers. Not that it matters because I'm not paying one anyway until they get a picture of me as the driver.

Can't say about a trailer but there is another plus they have the capability of identifying any vehicle tag that goes through the intersection where the camera is covering. For example an amber alert with a known vehicle tag.
I do agree a front shot should be done but you can thank Montgomery for that. Seems like a certain individual high up got caught with his girlfriend and his wife was unaware. So they wouldn't allow front photos. At least that's what we were told.

I got a ticket in Selma, a few years ago, because I was making way for an ambulance.
I stopped at the light, with a line of traffic beside me, then I heard the ambulance and saw it in my mirror. I looked both ways and pulled slowly through the red light to make a hole for the ambulance. Two weeks later, got a ticket in the mail.
I'm pretty sure no officer would have given me a ticket for that. But the camera does not have the ability to reason.

Yeah c'mon! That and throwing cig butts out window. Just gotta be quick on that!

I don't know about other municipalities vendors or their plan they picked. I can only speak of the municipalities I know of. The ones I know of are reviewed by an officer after the vendor sends a list of violations. The officer reviews the still shots and video clip to determine if it is indeed a true violation. Did they throw it out?

The bottom line is that traffic violation procedures are supposed to follow criminal law procedures in Alabama. There is no way to do this with cameras so they are trying to back door that law. In doing so innocent people are being fined. All in the name of raising revenue. This has nothing to do with making anything safer. It is strictly about taking money from peoples pockets.

What happens to those that don't pay? Nothing. So who pays their tickets? Honest people. Who profits from violation of what is first and foremost a criminal law? A private company, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

According to 300gr, Selma is getting screwed because the company keeps the lion's share of the fine and handles all the billing etc. The only involvement from the city is that a police officer, whom I used to supervise, is SUPPOSED to review every ticket. I supervised this guy for 9+ years. That isn't happening as evidenced by the funeral procession incident. What do you think happens when everyone remembers where the cameras are and avoids those intersections? Is the company going to accept that? No, they will find a way to maintain profits. That is my concern. When profits are involved for people, ethics will go out the window. That is the exact reason police officers don't get a cut of every ticket they write. Enforcing the law and making money should be kept separate. Period. My ethics do not allow for any gray area in that.

I never said Selma is getting screwed. Never insinuated that.Didnt you realize the costs of the systems? Nobody is going to give it to you for free! Answer me this jawbone did the vehicles that have their picture taken deliberately run the light? If an officer was present would it deserve a ticket or would you just let them all go? If it makes a few hundred people more conscious about running the lights at problematic intersections then I'm fine with it. I've seen far too many wrecks because of idiots running the lights. I've have been hit by one.
I'm not talking about the funeral procession or ambulance occurrences which are by far much less than the ones that just decide I'm not going to stop.
Depending on the vendor and what plan was selected decided the vendors percentage. One of the vendors Gatso had less than one third of the ticket ( last time I checked that's not the majority of 100%)and are responsible for all aspects. I don't know who Selma uses but I'd guess redflex or ATS. All vendors are not the same as far as contracts and percentages they get. Like I said if the municipalities buy the system then they get all the revenue except for the others such as the county. But this requires a huge upfront investment.I guess you would still have a problem if the fines went 100% in the trash can and were burned so nobody got anything.Just where do fines from other tickets go? Aren't the cities profiting from them? Tickets from parking violations,speeding,running lights,stop signs etc.

I'm guessing 300gr must be in the red light camera business. Only people profiting from it can find a loophole to defend it.
Bottom line, it's unconstitutional. That SHOULD be the end of the debate.

fact

Totally incorrect. Im not in the red light camera business. Through the legislative action it is legal. I can't help if you think it's fine to run the red light. That sounds like what your proposing. There are certain intersections where studies were conducted that had thousands of violations during the test period. Now they are much less. So bitch and moan all you want the proof is in the reduction if violators which translates to fewer potential deaths.

Then why is it LEGAL? And it is through legislative action. Maybe all violations should be done away with. All stop sign,speeding,red lights,etc since fines are being paid. To who? So get off your high horse about fines being paid. Did you pay cash for your house or finance. It's the same principal. In order for towns to afford the expensive technology they most often opt to "finance" so to speak. When they do the vendor does receive a small, not large portion of the paid fines unless otherwise agreed on in the type of plan chosen. I know it has dramatically lowered the violations at the intersections since installation. It could have saved your wife,kids,parents etc from an idiot running the light. Chew on that

A state legislature has no authority to trample our constitutional rights.
I am not opposed to safer intersections. (I too have been T-Boned by a lunatic running a stop sign.)
But I am opposed to having my rights STOLEN by forked tongue profiteers.

So a shot identifying the person doing the crime is possible? Instead, its been decided to just fine someone, innocent or guilty, just for the revenue. And that comes across as the American way? I'm not paying one. What they going to do? Now if a cop witnesses it AND the culprit, then unlike the camera, the person can be IDed.