Opinion Talk

By Deborah

March 20, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this

I think the camaras are effective; however, I do agree that the State needs to spend more money improving the roads, synchronizing the traffice lights, etc. I believe a lot of the red light running would cease if traffic moved faster and you didn’t have to stop at every light or sit in horribly backed up traffic because the lights are out of synch.

Perhaps the red light camara money should be used for improving the traffic light system.

By harold

March 20, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this

There is one way to prevent these red light cameras from being perceived as revenue cameras:

Every red light camera intersection should have a countdown timer (like crosswalks are starting to have) for when the light will turn red.

With a timer, there would be no guessing at how long the yellow will last.

Why these intersections don’t already have countdown timers is beyond Harold.

Well, excluding of course the revenue motivation, but surely that CAN’T be it. Must’ve been a mistake not to put them there. Revenuers oops Engineers aren’t the most creative people on the planet.

Harold says IMMEDIATELY ban red light cameras that don’t have countdown timers, but if there is a countdown timer then then red light cameras are OK with Harold since there’s absolutely no excuse to get caught on a red accidentally (other than a Semi breathing down your neck but that would be pictured)

Harold says add countdown timers and then increase the fines to $500!!!!

By steve

March 20, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I was behind a large truck traveling west at Windy Hill and 41 with traffic stacked behind me and going with traffic when we entered the intersection and across the street. When I was about 10 of so feet past the balk line I could see the lite was now red but I could not stop and back up as there was a line of cars and I went ahead so as no to cause a traffic problem for the cars on 41 in a northerly direction. I went to court and there was no grey area only black and white and the fine was heavy. What was I supposed to do ???

By jgordon

March 20, 2007 8:38 AM | Link to this

I find it disturbing that so many people feel that they are above the law when it comes to driving. It is appalling to observe motorists who run stop signs in my neighborhood without even taking their foot off of the gas. Even more alarming is to see parents with their children in the car when they do this. How did motorists come to the conclusion that it is OK to run a red light?

By jgordon

March 20, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this

Steve, sorry you got a ticket, but you should allow yourself enough distance between you and the vehicle in front of you in order to see if the intersection is clear before entering it. I’ve had to change my commute route because so many motorists think nothing of blocking and intersection which only makes gridlock worse. Too bad there’s not a red light camera at the intersection of S. Cobb and Church Rd.

By Al

March 20, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this

Who do the Counties think they are fooling???? Those red light cameras are far more about revenue than about safety. And what’s worse is that citizens seem to be really quiet about the issue. How would anyone like to be charged with a crime they did not commit. The cameras don’t prove who was driving your car. Yet you (the owner) could be penalize for someone else’s crime. Welcome to the land of “presumed GUILTY before innocence”.

By Dan

March 20, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

Steve i have been in your situation and the fact is if you can’t see the light you are too close to the truck your fault 100%. Hey if the truck locked up its breaks and you hit him it would be your fault as well and you would have gotten a ticket even if you backed up, the law (usually) says you cannot enter an intersection when the light is red. I have yet to see one address when you leave the intersection. Bummer but it is what it is In reality it is amazing that we give any credibility to people complaining about the lights. Even if they are for rev if they are properly set up and only ticket those who run a light
So what your bad pay the fine and shut up

By CJ

March 20, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

I am fine with the traffic light cameras. I think it helps keep busy intersections clear of cars and keeps traffic moving when it would otherwise back up.

Drivers in Atlanta have little patience. They are used to wide country roads back home or where they live and get frustrated in town.

By Brad

March 20, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

I’m a defensive driving instructor. My pet peeve is red light runners, BUT I disagree with the implementation of these cameras. I’ve observed many cars coming to a screeching halt because of these cameras nearly causing an accident. Yes, the people that might rear end them would be at fault for following too close, but it’s ALL the circumstances that lead to the accident and that’s an actual consequence of these cameras.

They are simply revenue generators. Either put in Video cameras so the situation can be better determined (as opposed to a still camera) or get rid of them. They are a hazard in themselves in my opinion.

By Carlton Wyatt

March 20, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

If drivers would pay attention and not follow so closely, they wouldn’t get a fine or wouldn’t rear-end the car in front of them. The problem is drivers, not cameras.

By Brad

March 20, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

I’m a defensive driving instructor. My pet peeve is red light runners, BUT I disagree with the implementation of these cameras. I’ve observed many cars coming to a screeching halt because of these cameras nearly causing an accident. Yes, the people that might rear end them would be at fault for following too close, but it’s ALL the circumstances that lead to the accident and that’s an actual consequence of these cameras.

They are simply revenue generators. Either put in Video cameras so the situation can be better determined (as opposed to a still camera) or get rid of them. They are a hazard in themselves in my opinion.

By Brad

March 20, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

I’m a defensive driving instructor. My pet peeve is red light runners, BUT I disagree with the implementation of these cameras. I’ve observed many cars coming to a screeching halt because of these cameras nearly causing an accident. Yes, the people that might rear end them would be at fault for following too close, but it’s ALL the circumstances that lead to the accident and that’s an actual consequence of these cameras.

They are simply revenue generators. Either put in Video cameras so the situation can be better determined (as opposed to a still camera) or get rid of them. They are a hazard in themselves in my opinion.

By David Lee

March 20, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

Glenn Richardson does not understand reality. Red light cameras are, OF COURSE, all about money AND that is not a bad thing! Driving is a privilege and anyone not wanting to obey the traffic laws should definitely pay for it. Call it an “after-the-fact” license to run red lights of which the cost should be raised to around $500.00 with each instance reported to the violater’s insurance company.

By jimbo

March 20, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

Al, come off the old whine of “someone else could have been driving my car.” How often do you allow other people to drive your car? Do you rent it out to strangers while you are at work? If it was your kid or your spouse you are going to have to pay the ticket anyway and you can have a coundeling session with them to remind them “don’t run red lights it is expensive.” If the red light cameras eliminate one accident they are worth it. If the camera has a picture of your car going through the intersection and the light is red, you ran the light, that is unless your car goes out on trips all by itself with no driver to make it behave.

By Temp

March 20, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this

By Rich

March 20, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Thanks Al. You are the only one so far who has seen the real problem. The citizens or “suspects” are guilty until they have proven themselves innocent, which is exactly the opposite of the protection we have been granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. We the people, are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but red light cameras take a picture of a license plate instead of the driver, and the burden of proof is now on the individual instead of the state. Completely unconstitutional. More and more of our freedoms are going away every day. This is just one of them. Are their any hard numbers that say these cameras reduce accidents? Where are the supporting statistics? I guess it is like the speed limit right, which reduces sooooo many accidents and makes the highways soooo much safer. What a joke. This a revenue generating machine…no need for officers to patrol and most people don’t want to spend the time fighting it. If every single citizen fought their ticket every single time, it would be a losing proposition for the state and this stupid citizen exploit law would go away.

By zeke

March 20, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

10-4

By wildbill

March 20, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Georgians drive too aggressively and are too impatient. These are the primary reasons for the fact that the vast majority of drivers speed up when the light changes instead of slowing to stop at the red light. I have seen too many near accidents because drivers are not willing to stop and wait for the light to turn green.

Red light cameras should be used as a tool to stop this behavior. The fines for failing to stop at the light should be increased and not decreased. The revenue gained from these fines should be split between the state and local entities to maintain the cameras and provide extra funds for road maintenance and construction.

By bboy

March 20, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Mr. Richardson don’t you understand that blasting a red light can kill people. Did you get a ticket from one of these cameras? I you can’t afford the time (or money) don’t do the crime.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Hey Jimbo,

I hope someone steals your gun and commits a crime and leaves the gun behind or their is video of your gun’s serial # and you are locked up for life b/c it was your gun. I will show up at your sentencing to tell you to quit whining. “If it was your wife or kid, you can call them collect and give them the counseling session to remind them that using your gun is very expensive.” If the camera has a picture of your gun committing a crime, you committed the crime, unless your gun goes out on trips all by itself with no person to make it behave.” You see the problem with law. If the burden of proof falls on the citizen, we are all in trouble…whether it is running red lights or committed a crime with a gun, etc.

By My POV

March 20, 2007 9:28 AM | Link to this

Speaker Richardson is an idiot. What will a $10 fine do to curtail red-light runners??? Driving is a privilige and there are laws. If you’re tail gaiting, and slam on your brakes and get rear ended… you deserve a ticket… if you run a red light, you deserve a ticket. Come on… what’s happened to common sense?

By Rich

March 20, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Unfortunetely, these fear campaigns work very well on the uneducated and uninformed. Without some critical thinking skills, it is easy to believe that the government is trying to make the streets safer and not make a dollar. These types of campaigns are used every day in our legislative and judicial systems to fool the general public.

By slim

March 20, 2007 9:31 AM | Link to this

Jimbo is right. There’s not going to be any kind of DNA testing confirmation of who was in your car. The photo of the license plate is adequate. If a family member was driving, then you are still responsible. If a friend was driving, then the friend will have no problem with paying the fine and any insurance increases you incur.

By KA

March 20, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

I love the red light cameras and wish that there was one at every major intersection! I used to see or be delayed by accidents at the intersection I cross, but not since the red light camera was installed.

By Road Scholar

March 20, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

If someone commits an infraction, they should be held accountable, since they are responsible for operating the vehicle. They are driving a “weapon” which leads to 40,000 traffic deaths a year in the U.S. (Makes Iraq look like a field trip…and no one notices!)

Also the penalty should be substantial enough to modify behavior. When your child misacts, is the only penalty a pat on the back so they repeat it again? I hope not. Maybe the fee paid should not go to the County’s/City’s General fund, but to signal maintenance and interconnectability to ensure maximum efficiency in the system. The Lord knows the COA and Fulton County can use the money this way! Their traffic signals are never in synch. Cobb and Dekalb do pretty well, but still could use the revenue for roadway maintenance, and sign and pavement marking replacement and upgrades.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Slim,

The problem is that a picture of a license plate is “not” sufficient in a court of law. It is sufficient enought to fool the general public, but not sufficient enough to hold up in a court of law. Like I said before, the burden of proof should be on the state…and with a lawyer it would be….but most people just simply mail their hard earned money in and never question it, much less hire an attorney. If everyone fought this ticket, the cameras woudl go away b/c the state cannot convict you of running a red light with a picture of your license plate…it is that simple.

By cad

March 20, 2007 9:40 AM | Link to this

Didn’t the nuber of rear-end accidents go up at the Cobb Parkway/Windy Hill intersection once the cameras were intalled? They don’t elimininate accidents, they just change the type of accident that happens. Now you get rear-ended instead of T-boned. That’s safer? I guess if you look at the severity of the accidents, you can say a rear end collision is ‘safer’. But how many of these citations are issued to someone who is going thru the intersection once traffic has begun to move for the other direction? Plus, you ever notice how the duration of the yellow light gets shorter at red light camera intersections?? Puts the odd in the house’s favor that we will catch someone with every light change. It’s all about the money!

By Grob Hahn

March 20, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

The next thing we need is a device that records and photographs anyone driving by with an illegal exhaust. Every Spring my quite little county is shaken by the roar of large motorcycles with clearly illegal exhaust systems. Apparently peace is also something we’ll have to enforce. Think about that when you decide to remove your baffles from that hog, nobody but YOU wants to hear it!

By Gaylene

March 20, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

I think the red-light cameras are a good thing. No matter what you do people will run the lights. Timers won’t change anything. I think the only thing that will change the problem is to charge more for the ticket. Stop making allowances for people who break the law. Use the money to hire more police officers for protection against murders and bank robbers. Come on people, STOP enabling the law breakers.

By jgordon

March 20, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

cad, I don’t know about shorter yellow’s, but I think Harold’s idea of a timer is excellent. Make it where the yellow flashes a specific number of times and then stays solid for X number of seconds before turning red. I’m still amazed about the mindset that doesn’t stop on red but would rather b**ch about the burden of proof. Also, Rich, your analogy regarding using a stolen gun isn’t comparing apples to apples. Someone steals your car and I’ll bet you report it pretty fast.

By pete

March 20, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this

The only problem with red light cameras is there is not enough of them. People are conditioned to being able to run a red light and unless there is an accident or the rare case that a police officer sees them and chooses to write a citation, they got away with it. With more red light cameras, people would return to stopping appropriately at all lights.

On the issue of guilty until proven innocent, the red light fine has no impact on your driver’s license, only on your wallet. This is the same as a parking ticket. You don’t get points on your license, you get a fine regardless of who was driving and parked the car iliegally.

Short answer, if you are obeying the law, your are fine. If not, pay the fine and go on. I do agree that some of the funding generated by the fines should go to setting up more comprehensive trauma centers.

By NoCameras

March 20, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

I am not sure what the statistics are for Atlanta, but in Washington D.C. three independent agencies analyzed the metro crash statistics and concluded that red light cameras do not improve safety. The number of CITATIONS at intersections with cameras has decreased, but the number of ACCIDENTS at intersections with cameras has actually increased significantly. Well, if the goal is to reduce the number of people who are actually caught running red lights, then the cameras are a good thing, but if the objective is to make the roads safer, then the cameras are not effective.

By The Law

March 20, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Al’s argument against red light cameras ignores the reality of Georgia law. If the owner wasn’t driving the car at the time it was ticketed for running the light, all he needs to do is show up in court and say so or submit a notarized signed statement that says he wasn’t driving.

By a monotti

March 20, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

**I have no problem with red light cameras as long as there are signs indicating they are there.

I have trouble with sneaking them in like the one in Snellville at 78 and 124 highway. There is no signs anywhere.

They just rip off citizens for money in the coffers.

The ones that complain the most though are the police and fire vehicles that constantly run them and then cannot prove they are on a emergency call. They hate when that happens. **

By Rich

March 20, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this

Pete: You are wrong. If you are obeying the law, you may not be fine. You may get a ticket for allegedly running a redlight, although you did not. You missed the whole point!!!

JGordon: Our rights are the same whether you are committing crimes punished by small fines or lengthy prison sentences. Me reporting whether my car was stolen or not has nothing to do with the arguement. The point is it is the state’s responsibility to prove I was the one who committed the crime (redlight or robbery) and you cannot do that just be vehicle registration, same as gun registration, which is an Apples to Apples comparison you communist supporting dumb blonde. You don’t get your ticket in the mail until weeks after the incident, so once again, I must keep a detailed log of who was driving the car and when just so I can “prove” my innocence in a court system that is supposed to protect me.

This law is unconstitution, whether there needs to steaper penalties or not for running red lights. Period!

By KA

March 20, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

monotti, Stop running red lights and you won’t get fined!

By Chris

March 20, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

I have a similar issue with these cameras (mine was the intersection of Ronald Reagan and Hwy 124 in Snellville). I was the 3rd car in the left turn lane. The first car proceeded with the green arrow - no problem - but the car in front of me was driving sporadically. Eventually it moves on, but I’m out in the middle of the turn (the camera shows me as traveling at 19 mph when the picture was taken) and I got nabbed for $70 contribution to the city coffers. Maybe there should be some smart traffic management software used in conjunction with these lights so that folks aren’t victimized like this…

By pete

March 20, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

a monotti @10:05 - there are signs at 124 and 78 in Snellville. They are relatively small on on the side but they are there. I think they should be more prominent, maybe on the overhead variable lane lights.

Rich @10:11 - I did not miss anything other than your apparent misunderstanding of what I said and what the GA law says. It is an administrative fine like a parking ticket, not a license points violation. If I don’t run the light, I don’t get a ticket. If someone runs the light driving my car, the fine gets mailed to me and I make them pay it. My driver’s license is not impacted in any way. How exactly is this a problem? You sound like you have been caught by a red light camera and don’t like it!

By jgordon

March 20, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

Rich, if your car is stolen and the punk runs a red light and you get a ticket, do you honestly think you are going to have to pay that fine? btw, I’m a facist, not a communist.

By Bob

March 20, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Dear monotti - there are signs all over the 78/124 intersection.

Maybe you didn’t see them just like you don’t see the light turn yellow - which means PREPARE TO STOP, not run the light.

If you can’t stop you are either driving too fast or an incompetent driver. No other option.

Put the cameras up at every intersection, and raise the fine to $500. Works for me.

Take pictures of the driver too - other jutisdictions do that, but the GA legislature said they can’t do that, setting up this stupid discussion of “I wasn’t driving” BS

By Road Scholar

March 20, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

As for the comment that these signals should have a countdown timer, all signals are set with a minimum of 3 seconds of yellow; some intersections that are large and requires a vehicle to take longer than “normal” durations to clear the intersection at the speed limit may have a 5 second yellow interval. There is your timer. If unclear about a location, assume a 3 second yellow interval! Slow down and be safe!

By Rich

March 20, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Never been caught Pete and I drive thru one everyday. It is not the fine I do not like, it is not whether it is on my driving record or not, it is not whether it is an administrative fine, it is the burden of proof and the lack thereof. If someone runs the light driving my car, the fine gets mailed to me and……it stops here (where the problem is). What I do after the ticket is mailed and whether I pay it or make whoever pay it is besides the point. It is not my respsibility to collect the states’ money for them or aid them in enforcing the laws or in submitting invoices. Do you get it yet?

By CorrectingMisinformation

March 20, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

Rich and Al,

You guys are clearly misinformed and should research before you spout out your misinformation.

If you truly are not driving your car, you can provide a sworn affidavit of who is driving your car at the time of the offense. You also are able to provide proof that you no longer own the vehicle or that the vehicle was stolen.

If you do one of these three things, the court goes after the person you say was driving the vehicle. Of course, if you lie on the affidavit it becomes a felony.

In addition, this is not a criminal penalty. They do not report it to your insurance company either. It does not go on your driving record or criminal history. Therefore, it is a civil case.

If local jurisdictions do not fool with light timing (such as 1 second yellow lights), I don’t have a problem with the cameras being revenue generators. I think that people that break the traffic law should have to pay dearly. We have too many traffic accidents and fatalities on our roadways.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Pete,

You forgot to mention what happens when you don’t know who was driving the car or what happens if the person driving the car denies running the light? What happens when the fine doesn’t get paid? Does it effect your license then? Is is still an adminstrative fine then? You sound like you have no clue of law and have never been falsely accused of anything.

By Mark

March 20, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Does anyone actually believe that the cameras are installed for your safety? Big government could give a s** about your safety. It’s all about the buck.

By The Law

March 20, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Georgia law requires the cameras to take two photos, in addition to a photo of the license plate. You only get a ticket if one photo shows that the light was red when you were behind the stop bar and the second photo shows you in the intersection with the light red. Contrary to the comment from Chris, no one gets a ticket from the camera systems if the light was green or yellow when their car was behind the stop bar.

By Mr. Smith

March 20, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

The great benefit of the red light cameras is to help law enforcement deal with the afro-american culture which has turned our cities into war zones. Any law enforcement tool which can help contain their violence is greatly needed.

Red light cameras should be just the beginning, we should have the National Guard at every large city street corner in this country to keep them in line, Obviously their parent (or parents in those rare circumstances) are failing and they are allowed to run amuck in our public schools.

Time to put the foot down on the afro culture and insist on civilized behaviour.

By matt

March 20, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

There are several states that have taken RLCs out because the number of accidents increased.

Just like everything else, Atlanta is 4 to 5 years behind trends in traffic and civic engineering. If you don’t believe me, why are we one of the only major metropolitan areas without consistent cloverleaf or frontage road systems.

Take any exit from Jimmy Carter to the mall of Georgia exit. There are four traffic lights in the span of 500 feet just to get people on or off 85- instead of cloverleafs which require no lights and constant traffic movment.

Just like the lack of cloverleafs, Atlanta is behind the curve when it comes to these cameras.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

CorrectingMisInformation:

You just stated 3 things I must do, even though I was not driving the damn car. Do you not understand that I do not need to do anything but continue living my life if I am not breaking the law or running red lights..that is the point. How can I sign an affidavit if I do not know who was driving the car on 1/23/2007 @ 3PM. Sorry, I do not have my handy log book of my vehicle and who was driving and when.

Bob is the only person smart enough to understand that GA’s system is flawed. The current system is flawed b/c it does not prove who the driver was when the picture was taken.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this

Hmmmm…..failure to pay your civil penalty from your unconstitutional “civil case” turns into a misdemeanor, which then can carry a 12 month jail sentence and will remain as permanent criminal offense on your record until the day you die. At that point, who cares if your insurance company knows or the DMV. Wonderful system we have here in GA.

By Gmarmalard

March 20, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Rich, can I borrow your car?

By JAMIE

March 20, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

The problem with most Atlantans is that they do not want to obey any traffic laws. atlanta drivers disregard the speed limits-stop signs-red lights- etc. and do not want to be held accountable for their actions. It seems that they now have an ally in the Republican speaker of the House-why am I not surprised-these are the same Republicans that do not want pick-up truck drivers to have to wear seat belts. All you personal freedom advocates need to remember one thing-you have to be alive to experience freedom.

By count_schemula

March 20, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

They seem to make an already sketchy situation even more sketchy.

In theory, I’m ok with them, in reality, I don’t like them.

I can totally see getting rear ended if I slam on the brakes, or slamming into the rear of some SUV that slams on the brakes since I can’t see in front of the SUV to know that the light is changing.

By RealityCheck

March 20, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

Contrary to Speaker Richardson’s suggestion, road widening is not a solution at some of the intersections where red light cameras are being used. Purchasing the right of way to widen roads in Midtown or Buckhead would break the bank. Widening three blocks of 14th Street from four lanes to six is costing Georgia $106 million, just to purchase the right of way. Construction costs will probably cost another $75 million or more.

By Ga Liberal

March 20, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

It is just me, or does building more roads just lead to more traffic and more traffic jams? Building more roads is not going to change people’s behavior in running red lights. People run red lights because they don’t want ot stop. They are too important to be delayed by a stupid red light. Besides, there is usually a 3-4 second delay, so why should I have to wait. The only way to really prevent people from running red lights is to have tire spikes or a barrier pop up. You may run the light, but you’ll ruin your car doing so.

There should be red light cameras at EVRY red light and stop sign. The penalty should be so steep that you’ll stop. Until then, this is just so much noise.

By pete

March 20, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Rich,

I guess unlike you, I know who is driving my car at all times.

Just so you and everyone else knows, here is the OCGA citation. It can be found at http://w3.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp . If the link does not make it through, go to the State of Georgia web site, link to the Legislative website and from there link to the Offical Code of GA. It is section 40-6-20 (3)(d) and (4). It should answer any questions assuming someone takes the time to read it.

(D) Liability under this subsection shall be determined based upon preponderance of the evidence. Prima-facie evidence that the vehicle described in the citation issued pursuant to this subsection was operated in violation of subsection (a) of this Code section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the registered owner of the vehicle, shall permit the trier of fact in its discretion to infer that such owner of the vehicle was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation. Such an inference may be rebutted if the owner of the vehicle:

(4) A violation for which a civil penalty is imposed pursuant to this subsection shall not be considered a moving traffic violation, for the purpose of points assessment under Code Section 40-5-57. Such violation shall be deemed noncriminal, and imposition of a civil penalty pursuant to this subsection shall not be deemed a conviction and shall not be made a part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed, nor shall it be used for any insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage.

By count_schemula

March 20, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this

Widening the roads does not work. You will never have enough lanes for 8:55am and they look expensive and stupid when they are empty at 2am in the morning.

By hate drivin

March 20, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Can we also ban slooowwwwww drivers? Also cars with none working brake lights need to get a ticket for having an inoperative vehicle on the roads.

By Steve

March 20, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Now that totally banning them is off the table i agree that limiting the amount cities and counties can ticket is the best way to go. Doing this will prove that the cameras are about safety and not about revenue. Also a first timer warning would be effective. The first time you run it you get a warning in the mail, the next time it is a fine. Once again this will prove its about safety and not revenue. People run red lights and they should be deterred from doing so but not at the expense of ticketing people who are caught when the light is yellow or people who did not run a redlight at all.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

No Gmarmalard , you cannot borrow my car…..but my wife, my friends, my siblings, even a few co-workers could and I am not going to log it or even keep track of it.

Pete, yeah we have heard of the law…remember it is the topic of this blog. I have read and understand it, although I strongly feel it violates our rights and is only used for revenue generation. Pretty clear on that.

By ncgreybr

March 20, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

These arguements about the driver being guilty or not is garbage. If you weren’t driving your car at 4:27PM an Peachtree St on Friday when the photo was taken, I’ll bet you can find out who was. Tell that person to go to court and pay the ticket. It’s called personal responsibility. If I run a red light, it’s MY fault. No one put their foot on top of mine and forced me to go thru the light. I’m smart enough to know that if the light is yellow now, (guess what!) in a second it’s going to be RED!AND red doesn’t mean drive faster. Yellow doesn’t mean drive faster either. It means a red light is coming up so you should begin to stop. The penalty should be twice as high, not less. Safety is not a concern for most of these bad drivers. The only thing these people remember now is something that affects their wallet. Are the cities using these tickets to fatten their revenues? Damn, I hope so!!

By John

March 20, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

I say put them up at every intersection. It keeps idiots from blocking the intersection. If you run the light and get a ticket the blame falls on you, not the state or the camera. If everyone thinks that this is just a method of generating revenue then the answer is simple, follow the rules of the road and don’t run the red lights. The state gets no money if you follow the rules.

I don’t understand why people get mad at these things. Follow the rules and you won’t have to pay the penalties. People are idiots.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Notice how the terminilogy is stated:

(i) Testifies under oath in open court that he or she was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation;

Should Read:

(i) Testifies under oath in open court that he or she was not OR MAY HAVE NOT BEEN the operator of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation;

I may have not have been right? Prove otherwise……you can’t b/c there is no witness, no picture of the driver, etc. etc.

By Bill

March 20, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Those red light cameras are all about raising money and not about making the roads safer. To think that the goverment wants to take care of it’s people is nuts. Call it what it is A revenue stream

By Rich

March 20, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

John,

This blog is not about whether people should obey the laws or not…that is not what is in question here. It is not about whether people should run red lights or not, we know it should not be done. If I run a red light and the police write me a citation right then and there, fine. If GA can implement a system that will prove who the driver is while the crime is being committed, then fine. We are not questioning whether people should be allowed to run red lights or not, we are questioning the intent behind the law and it’s constitutional right.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

ncgreybr: These arguements about the driver being guilty or not is garbage. If you weren’t driving your car at 4:27PM an Peachtree St on Friday when the photo was taken, I’ll bet you can find out who was. Tell that person to go to court and pay the ticket. It’s called personal responsibility.

No, tell the government to go find out who was since they failed to on the 1st go around. Get a new system!!!!!

By Sean T

March 20, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

These cameras should be banned! How is it legal for a driver to get a ticket for something that wasn’t witnessed by a law enforcement officer? I could see if these cameras were being used to track down bank robbers, kidnappers, or pedophiles, but using this to take money from the hard working citizens is not fair. Local govt uses this money however they please with no explanation of where the money goes! Ban the Cameras!

By Steve S

March 20, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Red light cameras as revenue generators? Obviously they are and I say add more. With the lame excuses I have been reading there is a lot of money to be made. That will eliminate the need for tax increases.

By des

March 20, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Red light cameras don’t seem to stop anyone from running the red lights. It is just as bad. If you are going to have light cameras, you don’t need so many cops. One more thing. I believe it is not legal because you are supposed to be able to face your accuser and with this you don’t have the option.

By jgordon

March 20, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this

On a different note, since we’re talking about proving cases, I’m amazed that routine traffic citations such as speeding, parking violations, other moving violations, etc, aren’t challenged in court. After all, since a vast majority of motorists disregard the law, it could conceivably be argued that you were pulled over by a prejudiced cop. (why did you pull me over when every single vehicle on this road is exceeding the limit?) It seems that one day, someone is going to challenge these types of citations. Anyone have any ideas about this?

By RWH

March 20, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Withstanding is Mr. Richardson opinions concerning the “Red Lights Camera” and more lanes are needed. Drivers break traffic laws be they Red Lights, yield and stop signs…the facts remains; what do we do about this entire problem(s). Those cameras and yield and stop signs will save your life. When you are caught in the Red light Camera, you get a ticket, with picture of you violating that law. Yes, you go to court and answser for your actions. The fines are steep and you cannot get out of it even if a judge hear’s your case. Same as those who do other things and get caught at it. We need to make evrey efforts in saving drivers and those who walk and ride bikes lives. Surely, there might be some other means; but what are they? Building more highways and lanes is not the answer because people will continue to violate those laws as well. A stiff fine stops those who have been caught, and those who have not; well, Mr. Richardson might want to keep the lights and still build new lanes so people won’t be late for work. Saving lives and stop drivers from committing dangerous acts on the highways must still take priority over anything else since the camera appear to be bothering people.

By RWH

March 20, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Withstanding is Mr. Richardson opinions concerning the “Red Lights Camera” and more lanes are needed. Drivers break traffic laws be they Red Lights, yield and stop signs…the facts remains; what do we do about this entire problem(s). Those cameras and yield and stop signs will save your life. When you are caught in the Red light Camera, you get a ticket, with picture of you violating that law. Yes, you go to court and answser for your actions. The fines are steep and you cannot get out of it even if a judge hear’s your case. Same as those who do other things and get caught at it. We need to make evrey efforts in saving drivers and those who walk and ride bikes lives. Surely, there might be some other means; but what are they? Building more highways and lanes is not the answer because people will continue to violate those laws as well. A stiff fine stops those who have been caught, and those who have not; well, Mr. Richardson might want to keep the lights and still build new lanes so people won’t be late for work. Saving lives and stop drivers from committing dangerous acts on the highways must still take priority over anything else since the camera appear to be bothering people.

By jd

March 20, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Like many, I sit in the intersection and wait for an opening or yellow to make a left turn. Eventually I will get a ticket, just like when I get a ticket for speeding - which is hard to do in Atlanta. When I pay my fine, half will go (depending on the negotiated contract) to the city, half will go to a for-profit business that provides the ‘service’. The goal of these cameras is (should be) to stop runners who might t-bone an innocent driver in a manner that cars weren’t designed to be impacted. Still photos will not discriminate between reckless drivers passing straight through an intersection and others stuck in a position of being in the intersection when the camera goes off. And they are very coy about when that happens!

By jd

March 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Like many, I sit in the intersection and wait for an opening or yellow to make a left turn. Eventually I will get a ticket, just like when I get a ticket for speeding - which is hard to do in Atlanta. When I pay my fine, half will go (depending on the negotiated contract) to the city, half will go to a for-profit business that provides the ‘service’. The goal of these cameras is (should be) to stop runners who might t-bone an innocent driver in a manner that cars weren’t designed to be impacted. Still photos will not discriminate between reckless drivers passing straight through an intersection and others stuck in a position of being in the intersection when the camera goes off. And they are very coy about when that happens!

By Willie

March 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

I vote for red light cameras so COPS, and FIREMEN, can also receive tickets like other people. Also maybe a politician or two, just might get a ticket. He/she would at lease have to go to the trouble to have the ticket fixed.

By jd

March 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Like many, I sit in the intersection and wait for an opening or yellow to make a left turn. Eventually I will get a ticket, just like when I get a ticket for speeding - which is hard to do in Atlanta. When I pay my fine, half will go (depending on the negotiated contract) to the city, half will go to a for-profit business that provides the ‘service’. The goal of these cameras is (should be) to stop runners who might t-bone an innocent driver in a manner that cars weren’t designed to be impacted. Still photos will not discriminate between reckless drivers passing straight through an intersection and others stuck in a position of being in the intersection when the camera goes off. And they are very coy about when that happens!

By No

March 20, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

No cameras!

By Phil

March 20, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

Florida’s former state attorney general (now governor) Charlie Crist refused to allow enforcement of red light camera tickets as unconstitutional. You cannot cross examine a photograph and unless an officer witnesses any infraction the process is flawed. Florida got it right! Allow the cities to retain $5.00 per ticket and you will see how concerned each is regarding safety. Finally, the AJC should request and publish the written promotional materials utilized by the companies that sell such equipment to see what direction (safety or revenue) is emphasized.

By Grampus

March 20, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

How about banning the freaking a***** in this town who run red lights like they don’t even exist instead. And that includes those spandex attired morons on bikes too.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Yeah, most traffic cases will be thrown out or reduced if they are challenged. Many factors play a role, but to name a few: 1. The officer (witness) must appear in court to testify. 2. The officer must have their radar or laser guns callobrated properly 3. The officer must be up-to-date with their radar / laser gun training. These are just the most common 3 things that will get a speeding case thrown out if challenged. It is not worth the government’s time (b/c this is about $$) to try and fight the few defendents who come to court with legal counsil. They just dismiss or reduce the charge to something stupid and they go back to abusing the normal citizens.

By Cletus Snow

March 20, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

I think red light cameras are great we need more of them, but they need to be used properly. Red light cameras can’t possibly get a picture of the driver, so whenever is issued to the vehicles owner it is through assumed liability just like a pool,you are the owner and are responsible regardless of who uses it. So whenever you choose to loan your car keep in mind who is responsible and choose wisely. Atlanta is one of the worst cities I’ve ever driven in maybe the worst,while I haven’t had an accident my neighbor has had three cars totaled by redlight runners,when the light changes to green wait three or four seconds before moving to be sure no ones running the light,and everyone is stopping’it’s not worth the chance of being hurt or killed.In the mean time put up more cameras and ticket the morons.

By Fronquenellete Jones

March 20, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Dey done give me tiket fo dis.jus wrong. I works fo city Atlanta and de jus dooin dis fo munny.don ka nun fo de peepuls.

By Rich

March 20, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

To all that think the fines should be raised to stop red light violations….what about the rich who could care less about a $70 ticket or even a $500 ticket. They are just as dangerous as anyone else right? I thought this is about safety and not $$.

By PASSING Lane, Not Cellphone Lane

March 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Slower Traffic,

* KEEP R-I-G-H-T !!!!!! *

-

Dear Minivan Drivers, Cellphone-Talking Drivers, Minorities Driving ‘Gangster Lean’ Style, Delivery Truck Drivers, Stupid People, Militants in Subaru Cars with “Kill Bush” Bumper Stickers, Simpletons Who Slow Down to Look at Flashing Lights and Generally Rude, Selfish, Self-Serving Jerks with No Consdieration for Anyone Else but Themselves:

This means YOU, too !

-

By Anonymous

March 20, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

You all realize that the red-light camera companies not only are paid to install and maintain the equipment, but they get a major percentage of the take. Obviously, the more they sell the more they make. Now, how do you sell something to government? Oh yeah! Political contributions! Whodathunkit. Check the donation list of you friendly neighborhood county commissioner, mayor or city councilman. Politicians are out of control in this country. Judging by this blog, they have most of you hoodwinked into thinking most of this is for the benefit of you, Joe and Jane Citizen. Guess again.

By Shawn D.

March 20, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

To Harold: You’re a goofball and know nothing about engineers or human behavior. If you put countdown timers on lights, folks will speed up to make it and cause more mayhem.

To Steve: I got caught in a similar situation going west on Windy Hill. The truck in front of me (he was #1 at the light) prevented me from seeing the light. When he started moving, I started moving. Unfortunately, he hadn’t been paying attention and didn’t start moving until the light turned yellow! Thus, I was caught going through the intersection during a red — at a blistering 20mph!

All that said, I think red light cameras are a benefit overall. The way Alpharetta has implemented them is the best, in my opinion. If you’re stuck in the intersection waiting to turn, you don’t get dinged. It only counts if you get caught moving across the line after the red is on.

By jgordon

March 20, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Rich, I’m thinking more along the lines of challenging traffic laws because they are so unevenly applied. One could use the discrimination defense: “he pulled me over ‘cause I’m (fill in the blank)everyone else was hauling as$ too”.

By Officer

March 20, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

OK. Just a few random thoughts…

Right to confront your accuser: Your accuser is a police officer who reviews photographic evidence of a violation and issues the citation. You can go to court and fight the citation and I’m sure you could subpoena the officer that issued the ciation to appear. Therefore, you can confront your accuser so that argument is out the window.

It is no different than catching someone committing a crime on video camera and then charging them with the offense.

Argument: If you weren’t driving, you don’t have any responsibility.

This is a civil penalty/case. Lets imagine.. You loan your car to someone. They run a red light. They kill someone. Do you think that you bear no personal responsibility? You will get sued. You will lose. Your insurance will pay the awarded verdict or settle out of court.

As the owner of the car, you are responsible to ensure the safe operation of your vehicle. You do HAVE responsibility and liability if someone carelessly operates your vehicle. The same is true for a red light ticket. You ARE doing something wrong. You are allowing your vehicle to be irresponsibly operated and you SHOULD be required to take the time to identify the careless party.

Absolute Myth/Fabrication: I will or have gotten a ticket because I was in the middle of the intersection when the light changed colors.

WRONG You ONLY get a ticket if the system photographs your vehicle BEHIND the stop bar when the light turns red. This means that you ENTERED the intersection on Red. You will NOT get a ticket for being in the middle of the intersection when the light is yellow no matter how hard you try. Anyone that says they have either got an improper ticket (which can be contested and thrown out) or they are lying.

As a citizen and an officer, I have no tolerance for red light runners. All too often, they are people to self-absorbed in THEIR affairs and believe that its ok for them to run a light because they are in a hurry or late to work. Next time, leave earlier. I can’t tell you how many times I hear, “Officer, it had just changed and I’m late for work so I just went.”

Stop making excuses and accept responsibility for your actions.

On the random side note to Mr. Slower Traffic, keep right: The signs mean traffic travelling SLOWER than the speed limit. In Georgia, the left lane is NOT designated a passing lane. If people are doing the speed limit, they have no legal obligation to move over for you.

By gttim

March 20, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

*”While he wants to ban their use outright, Richardson would reconsider if the $70 fine imposed on red light runners was eliminated or reduced drastically.

“It is wrong to do it for revenue purposes,” Richardson says. “We have to always remember we are taking money from citizens.” “*

What does Richardson think Sandy Springs is doing writing $400 speeding tickets on 400? They are generating revenue, nothing else. Plus, if you fight it in court, they charge you more for court costs, hoping you will just pay the ticket and not contest it. They are writing so many they had a serious courtroom and judge shortage.

I like the red light cameras. The intersections should all be well marked, which would discourage red light runners. Hell, they ought to put up camera signs at intersections without cameras. I bet that would have a positive effect as well.

By Officer

March 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Jgordon:

SARCASM ONYou should apply for membership to MENSA. SARCASM OFF

Yes. Let’s smear an officer’s reputation so that you can avoid responsiblity for your infractions. Let’s stand up in open court and call the officer racist or sexist or some other convenient “ist.” While you’re at it, why don’t you get the media involved too?

There are bad officers out there. Unfortunately, we’ve found a few amongst us here in metro Atlanta.

It makes it convenient to call us liars and easy to smear those of us that work hard everyday with the best intentions.

Yes. You are just a high IQ genius! Someone should have thought of it earlier!

By SA

March 20, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

Isn’t great that our state imbeciles, oops meant lawmakers are so concerned about the rights of red light runners? I hope this does not impede the drive to make sweet tea the official state beverage. Guess it would never occur to them to pass legislation that might actually help people.

By Steve S

March 20, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this

Waaaaaaa…… not fair, waaaaaaaa…. it’s not fair, waaaaaaaa…. I didn’t see it waaaaaaaa….. stomp, stomp, stomp.

By c

March 20, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Harold should stop trying to be ELMO. It’s not cute when you’re not a Muppet. Anyway, I think the cameras should stay. People who are running red lights are making it dangerous for those of us who like to live. There’s never any cops around for stuff like that— they’re too busy getting caught on camera for running red lights.

By alfonso the great

March 20, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

RED LIGHT CAMERS AHAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH REVENUE. LESS COPS ON THE STREET = SAVE MONEY. CATCH EVERY POOR SHMUCK FORCED THROUGH A LIGHT = REVENUE FOR OUR FAT A*, LAZY GOVERNMENT. BIG BROTHER HATES YOU AMERICA.

By Competent Officer

March 20, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Dear “Officer”

I don’t know where you drive mostly, but if you are in one of the following categories:

Minivan Drivers, Cellphone-Talking Drivers, Minorities Driving ‘Gangster Lean’ Style, Delivery Truck Drivers, Stupid People, Militants in Subaru Cars with “Kill Bush” Bumper Stickers, Simpletons Who Slow Down to Look at Flashing Lights and Generally Rude, Selfish, Self-Serving Jerks with No Consdieration for Anyone Else but Themselves

you most likely AIN’T doing the speed limit.

I’m not going to complain about anyone who is driving safely for conditions and obeying posted traffic laws.

However, don’t get me started on those simpletons in the aforementioned categories who think a turn signal for lane changes is OPTIONAL.

People like that make daily life in Atlanta so unpleasant at times.

Get your doughnuts out of your @$$ and plug into reality, “Officer.”

I hope you are a local officer in some hick town and are not being paid by my family’s tax dollars, assuming you are who you ‘claim’ to be, Barney.

You have a nice day now, Officer. Drive Safely, ya hear!

By Icantbelievethisisaprob

March 20, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

Hey, I’ve got a radical idea. Obey the traffic laws and don’t endanger others by running a red light. If you don’t run it, you won’t get the ticket. Seems simple enough.

By V for Vendetta

March 20, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

Nice officer, thanks for perpetuating a dangerous driving environment (one where traffic can move slowly in the left lanes). I’m sure you never speed. I’m sure you never drive just a tad faster than everyone else because your car has lights on top of it.

I don’t have a HUGE problem with red light cameras per se, but I do have a problem with the illusion that they are for safety purposes and the direction they are pointing us in. Make no bones about it, the various county and state authorities promoting the use of red light cameras make an absurd amount of money off of the tickets they issue. Like many traffic citations (can someone say window tint?), the fines exists primarily to line the county/state’s pockets and less to actually protect anyone. Going 80mph with the flow of traffic on I85? Your ticket is simply taxation without representation. You were doing nothing wrong or dangerous, you were simply driving as the conditions dictated.

Which brings me to my other concern about red light cameras. How long will it be before we have speed cameras here in the metro area? They are already popping up in places like Arizona where they serve to do nothing more than slow the pace of traffic and increase congestion. Here’s a cold hard fact: People will die on the roads no matter what we do. It is an unavoidable certainty. Sure, red light cameras may abate the number of deaths somewhat, but what about speed cameras? Will they help all that much?

And what if this leads to GPS tracking systems in cars? Many cars already have them in the form of a navigation system. People don’t even realize this. Theoretically, your car’s GPS system can be used to determine not only where you are going at any given moment, but HOW FAST you are going and HOW SAFE (by monitoring things like the car’s stability control system and what not).

Scared yet? You should be, because all of this technology exists RIGHT NOW. So while red light cameras might seem like a good idea, you can see how they can easily lead to far scarier things in the future.