Dallas considers shutting off red light cams, since they're working too well and harming revenue
There's just one, fairly ironic, flaw to the otherwise totally lovable red light cameras that adorn Dallas: they work too well. Turns out the cams have curtailed red light infractions by 50 percent, which in turn has put a budget crunch on City Hall. The city is now considering stopping its planned rollout of more cameras, or shutting down the cameras on a rotating basis -- upkeep when off is next to nothing, but the city pays $3,799 per month per online camera to its service provider. That sounds like quite a spendy broadband bill, but we're not the experts here. Just remember kids, your government wants what's best for you, and what's best for you is a well-funded government, alright?[Via Fark]
Filed under: Digital Cameras, Transportation
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
The Dude @ Mar 15th 2008 9:50PM
People aren't running reds as much but they're slamming on their brakes to do so. Result? Rear-end collisions are up because of it. At least that's the case at some intersections in L.A.
matthew @ Mar 15th 2008 9:51PM
you beat me to it.. don't get the wrong idea folks. the govt is more concerned with making money then lowering accidents and keeping us safe
EdgeOne @ Mar 15th 2008 10:11PM
Yeah, because whiplash is worse than a full-on t-bone crash.
tropik @ Mar 15th 2008 10:32PM
If you leave enough space between you and the car in front of you, like you are supposed to, you would have as many Rear-end collisions.
tropik @ Mar 15th 2008 10:39PM
*would not
rip @ Mar 15th 2008 11:35PM
We all know they are just going to shorten the yellow light time.
Revenue problem fixed!
Aguiluz @ Mar 16th 2008 12:05AM
rip:
"We all know they are just going to shorten the yellow light time. "
Design a stoplight without a yellow light then! Red Light cams guaranteed pay each and every day.
/sarcasm
Nick @ Mar 16th 2008 12:22AM
Virginia did a study that showed that red light cameras reduce T-bone crashes (the most likely to be deadly) but increase rear-end collisions (the most likely just to be fender benders).
http://vtrc.virginiadot.org/PubDetails.aspx?PubNo=07-R2
Virginia had red light cameras for a while, but then the General Assembly let the constitutional exemption that allows them to exist expire, so they were all off for a few years. This past year, they brought them back--but with a lot more restrictions on where and how they can be installed. Most imporantly, no more than 1 camera per 10,000 residents, and lots of safety studies and required paperwork, which ensures that the cameras are used only for safety and not for revenue-generating purposes. In all, it seems like a pretty good compromise.
Chris McDowell @ Mar 16th 2008 1:11AM
If they really wanted to stop t bones and all that they could have a bit longer yellow light. Then when the red light turns red it waits a few before the other lights turn green. If your light turns green a bit after that one turned red even if they ran the red they would not t bone you because you havent gotten your green yet. Red light cameras are for revenue. That way the only way your getting t boned is if the guy clearly runs a red after it has been red for a bit and they should give out an increased ticket for catching those people that clearly run the red seconds after it has already been red. Red light cameras are for revenue.
Dodo @ Mar 16th 2008 3:23AM
What's sad is they are spending almost $4k a month on dedicated broadband to isolate it from the public works sonet ring, but there are dozen of zero authentication access points run by the water department. The kicker is there is no segmentation at city hall between the water department and the police department.
teej @ Mar 16th 2008 6:41PM
@Edgeone,
the people who cause t-bone crashes are either a) not paying attention to lights, or cameras for that matter, or b) drunk.
i've personally ran a couple red light camera intersections to prevent slamming on the brakes and causing the person to run into me. i, however, have enough common sense and pay enough attention to prevent a t-bone accident. people who run lights 3-5 seconds after they turn red have no regard for red-light cameras.
ammi @ Mar 17th 2008 3:43PM
@spacegravity4me:
You've never read 1984?
I command you to either get yourself to a bookstore/library immediately or download the Ebook. 1984 is one of those books that should be required reading for everyone ever.
Mark.Nine @ Mar 15th 2008 9:51PM
Dallas is considering* shutting off red light cams...
Richie @ Mar 15th 2008 11:51PM
Basic rule of journalism: no passive verbs. "Dallas considers" is correct, not "is considering"
Nick @ Mar 16th 2008 12:43AM
[pedantic]
"Is considering" is not passive because Dallas is not removed from or moved in the sentence and the subject is still doing the acting instead of being acted upon ("Shuttering of red light cameras is being considered [by Dallas]").
It is instead the present progressive, which can be active or passive depending on how it is used ("The boy is eating the pie" / "The pie is being eaten [by the boy]").
[/pedantic]
[commentary]
Who cares?
[/commentary]
[conclusion]
Either "considers" or "is considering" is fine.
[/conclusion]
ScooterDe @ Mar 16th 2008 8:53AM
*considers is correct.
It is the "present simple" tense.
"Is considering" is "present continuous", which is not strictly correct, but is gaining popularity. Apparently this is due to the popularity of Indian English, which is chipping away at American English. See article at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/05/nenglish105.xml
@Richie, to follow your logic, your sentence would be (re)written "Basic journalism rule". To take the active tense to its extreme, including the elimination of articles and adjectives, is particularly true of US journalism, but need not apply universally.
There are many different ways to express ones self in English and I suggest a little more tolerance, especially of those who are not native speakers.
Andrew @ Mar 16th 2008 1:09PM
As a non-native English speaker:
"Dallas considers" does not seem like correct English to me, it should be present continuous "Dallas is considering". Why? Because "to consider" as used in this case is not an action that takes a moment of time to complete - it will be occurring over days and weeks or even months. If the verb was "to decide" then it would make sense to use present simple.
Nick @ Mar 16th 2008 3:37PM
@Andrew:
In normal English usage, people would use "is considering" since the action is ongoing, so you are correct.
When people are writing about the events that occur in a story, however, they tend to use the simple present tense. ("Romeo considers killing himself; then, he drinks the poison.") That's because the writer is referring to a specific point in time in the story, and you can argue that a journalist is telling a story in the same manner. (He's referring to when the council or whomever brought up and considered the proposal, not the fact that the action happens to still be ongoing.) It's also just been American journalistic style for quite some time.
What brought this whole thing up in the first place is that the article was originally posted with the headline "Dallas is considers shutting off..." which is obviously a typo. You can verify this by looking at the URL. Engadget corrected the headline by removing "is," choosing the simple present instead of the present progressive (aka "present continuous"), which is acceptable in journalism but can sound odd when taken out of context. Either way, people would understand you, and it is unlikely that anybody would call you out on it, though, as has happened here.
Clear as mud, right? The only real rule in a language as promiscuous as English is that "there are no rules."
James @ Mar 15th 2008 9:51PM
This is actually why people hate their government right now. To put money over the safety of people?? Seriously, when you think about it, I hate these cameras as much as everyone else, but if the stats say that people run red lights 50% less, then that's 50% less chance someone will become crippled or killed because of someone running a red light. I hope they look at the big picture and realize why they put the cameras up in the first place. Was it to "increase" revenue, or reduce the amount of people running red lights? Let's hope it was the latter. ;)
Simon @ Mar 15th 2008 10:31PM
The best way to reduce spending would be not to get into grossly overpriced contracts. "$3,799 per month per online camera" sounds like the worst deal ever for the people who pay, pretty good deal for the company that supported someones campagin. They are surely past ROI or they wouldn't be allowed to "consider" anything.
Don't hold to that stupid notion the US gov is there for the people, for safety or any other civil reason, it's only there to bolster capitalism. You know, what the US gov calls democracy is actually just capitalism, that's why some contries don't care to get it stuffed down their throats.
Tom @ Mar 15th 2008 10:33PM
Oh bull, red light cameras give motive to INCREASE accidents:
"Short yellows assure a steady flow of red light camera ticket revenue. A Texas Transportation Institute study found that an extra second of yellow time added to the current ITE formula yields a a 53 percent reduction in the number of tickets issued along with a 40 percent reduction in accidents."
Lubbock TX lowered the yellow times (one to below the legal minimum of 3 seconds) to increase red light camera revenues. Every second removed from yellow light time _GREATLY INCREASES_ the chances of an accident.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1621.asp
The solution isn't red light cameras, it's sensible yellow light timings.
craig @ Mar 15th 2008 11:52PM
Correct, Tom. Red light camera revenues are predicated on short yellow cycles. Local governments will contract out management of these systems for large fees and for "access" to the light systems for proper functioning, but what they really do is reward private companies for tickets issued and create an accountability gap for yellow cycles that don't meet legal requirements. These companies deliberate short-cycle yellows to increase violations and their paydays. The result is a reduction in traffic safety. No matter since traffic laws are about money, not about the best interests of the public (at least in the US).
The real reason for a drop in revenue is stricter requirements ensuring that yellow cycles are adequate. Texas has dealt with these problems in the past. Usually what happens is a state politician gets burned by some corrupt local traffic enforcement and sticks it to them once he gets back in Austin. The article made mention of revenue sharing mandated by the state and that's not surprising. Red light cameras and photo radar are unconstitutional in Texas anyway. Wonder what tricks Dallas is pulling to avoid that?
James @ Mar 16th 2008 1:37AM
Great comment Tom, I agree. I wish there were more common sense polititians out there with these kinds of thoughts. A better yellow light time limit is good, however the problem I've seen with long yellow lights is most people try to erk past them at the last minute, which usually is the time most red-light accidents occur. I don't really like the idea of red-light cameras. There must be a better way to ensure public safety. A while back there was a news article about a guy who lived in a residential neighborhood where people were travelling through incredibly fast. He had small kids who played in the front yard, so he was concerned. He made a life-sized cardboard cutout of a cop holding a radar gun, and posted it in his yard. People stopped speeding past LOL!
Another thing that I remember growing up was a big digital sign that posted everyone's speed as they passed. I remember it worked on me as a teenager heheh. Perhaps if they posted a few signs a couple blocks away from the intersection that it was monitored by the camera?
One thing though, if you are in the middle of an intersection and it turns red on you, then it is not considered running the red light. Can these cameras make the distinction?
@Simon - I agree with most of what you say. There are many governemt contracts and wastefull pork spending that are idiotic to say the least, that's why it's up to us to speak up about it. On the other hand, I don't believe our government is a bad thing, nor do I think everyone in government is only thinking of themselves. And capitalism is a very good thing. I would need to see the budget for such a camera, perhaps there is manpower involved in coordinating and monitoring these? Upkeep, etc. That is all considered in the final budget.
Austin @ Mar 16th 2008 1:43AM
Have you no faith, comrade? Our government is always in the sole pursuit of our well-being, and the fact that you would sow the notion of public discontent against this country shows your true disloyalty to the collective. Whether you continue on your meaningless crusade against our security and patriotism, or whether you do not go on with it, makes no difference. The Thought Police will get you just the same. you have committed — will still commit, even if you never set pen to paper— the essential crime that contains all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, we call it. Thoughtcrime is not a thing that can be concealed forever. You are a difficult case. But don't give up hope. Everyone is cured sooner or later. In the end we shall shoot you. Doubleplusungood!
Moxy @ Mar 16th 2008 2:37AM
OMG Simon. Please don't comment on things you have little knowledge about. By definition, the government labeling any form of income for themselves as revenue is an insult to hard working people that actually do generate real revenue. This type of government action is by no means an expression of capitalism but more a characteristic of statism. LOL -- the idea of labeling government’s taxation, fees, or fines as "revenue" is deplorable.
PS - As much as some Americans and others like to call America capitalists, sadly we no longer are. We've degraded to a mixed economy in the direction of collectivism. We've become a country where the principle of capitalism, the rights of individuals, has been sold to the highest bidder ... and that is not capitalism.
If you think capitalism is about making money, you are wrong. The primary principle of Capitalism is individual rights – rights such that no majority can negate. The fact that the government powers such as Eminent Domain and Esheet laws are being defined more liberally and being used more often is an obvious indicator that we, the USA, is no longer Capitalists. And for you patriots, research eminent domain usage and esheet usage… you will get angry… as you should… far more angry than petty red light cameras.
-- freedom does not come in degrees --
CB @ Mar 16th 2008 3:00AM
It's a sad reality.
James @ Mar 16th 2008 3:29AM
Maybe to cut down on the spending they could randomly pick days or hours to turn on the red light cameras so people dont know when they will be on and when they wont be so even when they are off people will think twice before running them. They could pick times that the most traffic is on the road to turn them on and at night keep them off to cut down on the spending. Or randomly pick half the days to have them on and have them off to cut spending in half.
CJ @ Mar 16th 2008 7:11PM
[off-topic]
Let's expound on those "signs that show your speed." Those are called "smart trailers," not because they possess any super intelligence, but because they contain a laptop which records the times of day when the highest number of people are speeding through that area. Plot this on a graph over 24 hours, and the peaks are when you should be posting a unit with a radar gun and a ticket pad.
The nice thing about the smart trailers is that can be moved around to any area that they're needed. It's "seemingly" random, which increases the likelihood that when you see one, you'll slow down. Take note of the location the next time you see one. I'll bet you within a few weeks, you'll see a police officer clocking traffic at some time on that same street.
Smart trailers have been found to be very effective in determining when the most ideal time is to post an officer to slow down traffic (read: make money). Maximizes ticket output while minimizing officers' wasted time clocking traffic that isn't likely to be speeding.
Don't think it's about making money? In Colorado, to where do we mail our check when we get a speeding ticket? The police department? Nope. The return address is the Colorado Department of Revenue. Not that I'd know or anything...
Which has nothing to do with red-light cameras. State law here says that an officer has to observe the infraction before a citation can be issued. Kinda ruins the whole automated camera idea.
[/off-topic]
CJ @ Mar 16th 2008 7:14PM
And here I thought that poor yellow light timings were because traffic engineers were complete morons.
"Ha, I'm not as think as you dumb I am."
spacegravity4me @ Mar 16th 2008 9:12PM
@ Austin: Dude, be thankful that I detected sarcastic undertones in your statement and that I'm pretty sure you must be quoting something from something that I have never heard of lol, because you were about to ignite my patriotic wrath, lol.
So, could they just get a good deal on the cams and leave em' on almost all the time and leave the yellow light timing alone from the start. That way we have the best of both worlds. I'm a bit idealistic, but it just makes sense if you ask me. Course, the majority of the city just wants/needs the money so "they" or "the collective" (I am not a bee btw) will probably just keep doing it the way they are now. It is a humorous story though. Good to see something different.
spacegravity4me @ Mar 16th 2008 9:13PM
@ Austin: Dude, be thankful that I detected sarcastic undertones in your statement and that I'm pretty sure you must be quoting something from something that I have never heard of lol, because you were about to ignite my patriotic wrath, lol.
So, could they just get a good deal on the cams and leave em' on almost all the time and leave the yellow light timing alone from the start. That way we have the best of both worlds. I'm a bit idealistic, but it just makes sense if you ask me. Course, the majority of the city just wants/needs the money so "they" or "the collective" (I am not a bee btw) will probably just keep doing it the way they are now. It is a humorous story though. Good to see something different.
Simon @ Mar 17th 2008 3:21AM
Moxy, the revenue made here is made by a private organisation. The goverment was just a means to an end. And that's what (actual) capitalism is all about: Making money. Naturaly those who have money have the easiest ways to make more money. Your notions of just and fair captialism are pipe dreams, the reality is that capitalism is about power and control for an elite group of individuals, while a (real) democracy would put the power and control into the hands of the goverment that would be supposed to care for *all* people, not just those who have money and power. Calling the USA a collectivism is ridiculous. And "Eminent Domain" is used more for capitalistic purposes than for any social reason. Just because laws with social intend are abused by capitalists doesn't make the state a socialism.
You're living in a fucked up capitalistic oligarcy of the rich and powerful.
Get your head out of your textbooks and take a look at the world your living in.
And your quote is a totaly different matter. According to it, you have already lost your freedom.
Hung @ Mar 15th 2008 9:53PM
I'm surprisingly okay with this. Should I be more angry?
Maybe people will turn this into a game.
"See that red light up there? Sometimes the camera is on, sometimes it's off. Dozen wings says it's on.
Dealzies."
Hung @ Mar 15th 2008 9:56PM
After reading James's comment, I've become enraged. Not blind with fury, but enough to sit up straight and not slouch.
I'd be willing to pay an extra tax to keep up the cameras if it means that some lunatic will think twice about beating that "yellow."
Colin B @ Mar 15th 2008 9:54PM
Wait wait...but isn't the real point of these to stop people from running red lights for safety's benefit? Shouldn't they be proud of themselves for improving the stats? Ticket revenue should be an after-effect...it seems rather counterintuitive to me to sacrifice safety in order to generate cash flow. Stupid politicians.
Colin B @ Mar 15th 2008 9:55PM
looks like James beat me to the same sentiment above...well done.
Andir3.0 @ Mar 16th 2008 11:04AM
If it weren't for revenue, they'd just place concrete pillars that raise 2 seconds after the yellow light to absolutely prevent anyone from going into the intersection. Cruel? yes. Effective? Totally. People might start being aware of yellow lights and not try "beating it" by risking their cars and lives. Another solution would be to require triggered brakes in all cars approaching an intersection. They require manufacturers put in emissions controls, why not accident controls?
As it is now, they don't prevent you from going into the intersection. They just heavily fine you for doing so.
Bob @ Mar 16th 2008 10:38PM
I always thought that they should have triggered "spike strips" that pop up from underneath the road at the intersections. Also, they could make the yellow light times randomly timed anywhere from 2 seconds to 4 seconds, and that might make people think twice because they wouldn't know if it was 2, 3 or 4 seconds they had to get through the intersection, basically the same idea as the "is the camera on or not?" thing above.
James @ Mar 15th 2008 9:57PM
Interesting point. I live in LA too, and people are just shitty drivers here. If I wanted some extra cash I'd slam on my brakes and cause someone to rear end me as well. It would be their fault actually, for failing to follow at a safe distance.
On another note however, I would much rather have more rear-end bumps from people who don't know how to drive.
James @ Mar 15th 2008 9:59PM
That was meant to be a reply to The Dude's post :)
Xboxman @ Mar 15th 2008 10:17PM
I hate idiot drivers... if you approach a yellow then stop... holy fuck soo many dumb drivers out there.
ethana2 @ Mar 15th 2008 11:40PM
That old lady in front of you? She's driving to the library to pick up books already in the public domain. That dude who cut you off? He's going to tell off his telco for lousy landline phone service. That lady who almost hit you? Blockbuster. The dude in the van? He's off to the post office to send a personal letter.
So many idiots, period. Save an arab-- use the internet.
Zorque @ Mar 16th 2008 12:01AM
Oh good, another drooling ethana2 post. Let's see what's in ethana2.txt.
"Interesting. Similar in feel to the response you get when you tell the one where Robin’s like “Holy kleenex, Batman- he was right under our nose and we blew it!” You know, the slow “wow.”
My jokes get that a lot too. Check out this one: “Mathematicians have recently developed a new algorithm to calculate pi: Infinity factorial over Chuck Norris.”
The things we come up with when we’re bored ;)"
Welp.
roflercopterer @ Mar 16th 2008 2:55AM
its DERP not welp.
Zorque @ Mar 16th 2008 3:13AM
Yeah, I think you have me confused with someone who thinks sayingDERP is funny.
pete @ Mar 15th 2008 10:25PM
Is it only me or did people miss the $3,799 tag per camera and thought the title can be misleading.
According to the main article it cost Dallas about $4.1 million a year for installation and $2.8 for operation cost totaling $6.9 million a year. They made $6.2 million on tickets. Its expected, as any system for operation cost to go up and theres a trend for revenues to go down.
Not trying to lean either way, just pointing out the facts and I'll let you guys make the decision since the Engadget post doesn't mention that the city is loosing money on the system.
klew @ Mar 15th 2008 10:25PM
So doing the math, $3799 per month is $45588 per year. How much do traffic cops get paid in Dallas?
arcatek @ Mar 15th 2008 10:25PM
Well Lubbock Texas had those cameras for about 6 months then they were taken down for several reasons first being that the state changed the amount of money the city would make and second because red light infractions may have been down but rear end collisions went way up and there was also a big stink for the resoning of why the city council wanted them in the first place it ended up costing the city money instead of making profit
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/lubchartfull.jpg
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/062707/loc_062707043.shtml
painty @ Mar 15th 2008 10:27PM
let's see, governments introduce red light cameras to encourage safer driving, motorists comply so governments turn off to encourage unsafe driving. make sense to me...
Tonbo @ Mar 15th 2008 10:30PM
As long as Dallas doesn't advertise which cameras are inactive, and they rotate the active cameras regularly, the dummy cams have been shown to be just as effective in deterring traffic infractions.