If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Allllll righty then

Surprisingly, the red light camera bill we passed did not have a provision exempting current contracts. Awwwww! What a shame! It seems when the current cameras have to abide by the same laws and rules as new cameras the revenue has dropped by 75%.

But it was never about revenue.

KPD Capt. Gordon Catlett, who oversees the photo enforcement program, said violations decreased from 4,826 in June to 1,308 in July.

Catlett said KPD officers continue issuing violations for drivers captured on camera running straight through a red light or improperly turning left.

Only right turns on red are exempted from the cameras' $50 gaze.

"The real story is going to be in about four months when people realize they don't have to stop before making a right turn and we see an increase in rear-end collisions," Catlett said.

In Farragut, Traffic Enforcement Manager Ben Harkins deemed the new statute "a bad law." Farragut also ceased July 1 issuing $50 right-turn-on-red violations based on camera evidence.

Records show Farragut issued 2,504 red light camera violations in April, May and June, an average of more than 800 violations a month. Farragut has a contract with RedFlex Traffic Systems to provide eight cameras at four intersections.

"We're still sending out more than 300 violations a month on the left turn and straight-through violations," Harkins said Tuesday.

"We have reduced the number of people running red lights," Harkins said. "Now that the public knows we have to have an officer out there to enforce (stopping for righthand turns), we're going to be less safe.


Now that the revenue argument is decreased we will see how long the cameras last....For safety.

2 comments:

  1. "We have reduced the number of people running red lights," Harkins said. "Now that the public knows we have to have an officer out there to enforce (stopping for righthand turns), we're going to be less safe.

    Well boo f---ing hoo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is pretty humorous. Catlett has argued the presence of the camera$ at those intersections makes people break the law. If the presence of camera$ improve safety - and all those "really dangerous" intersections were chosen to begin with based on accidents, then all those other intersections with no camera$ (or officers apparently?) where, according to Catlett, "you don't have to stop before making a right turn" should already be chock full of rear-end accidents, right? Notice that the right-on-red turns are still happening - and they always were. Where are all the crashes? Should be a piece of cake to document with all those "free" camera$.

    Obviously, if safety is really the concern, then the right thing to do is remove the camera$, so people will have to stop before making a right turn.

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1