‘Costing…Taxpayers Money’: Council Votes Out Red-Light Traffic Cameras After 2 Years
- Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:21pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
Red light camera (Photo: Wikimedia)
In 2010, the city of Westminster in Maryland installed five traffic cameras to catch those who may be rolling through red lights at certain intersections. Now, after only two years in use, the city council in the town has voted to deactivate them completely.
(Related: Florida Judge Ruling Finds Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional)
Police Chief Jeff Spaulding told the local CBS affiliate WJZ that the cameras were just costing taxpayers, instead of preventing accidents and generating revenue as intended.
“These cameras were not in a break-even mode. They were literally costing the city taxpayers money,” Spaulding told WJZ. It cost the city $2,200 each day to operate one red light camera.
(Related: ‘Embarrassing’ Source of Revenue?: New York Could Institute Speed Cameras)
In fact, the report states the cameras could have been causing even more accidents than they were preventing. Here’s more from the local station:
In the two years they’ve been up, police say there were 11 serious crashes and 35 fender benders.
“These numbers are not characteristic of red light programs,” Spaulding said.
In 2010, the city installed five red light cameras. And within the year, they took down two. And now they’ve shut off two more because of a low number of citations and high number of collisions.
Watch the report:
How do residents feel about the cameras being deactivated? Some said the cameras wouldn’t deter them from coasting through a yellow light, while others think the cameras would have helped stop this.
One of the five cameras is expected to remain active as it has actually help cut down on accidents. WJZ reports no additional cameras are expected to be installed or tested elsewhere at this time.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 678 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 529 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 417 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 271 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 280 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 156 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 271 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (47)
iltws2
Posted on July 14, 2012 at 6:07amHere in Beaumont they let sensors control traffic at intersections. This is because we have city engineers who put 9000 amp service on temp. School with 2900 amps max at Pole. I guess it’s too hard
Report Post »to time lights for traffic not to mention burning more gas and replacing brakes. During rush hour most run red lights just to keep from jamming on brakes just because a car on side road got to the intersection second before you and the other 25 cars in your lane.
Dougral Supports Israel
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 9:38pmThe city that I live near has installed these abominations. At first the statements were all about safety with a little leakage about revenue. Now they blatantly state how much money the cameras have raised for the city.
This is not an inducement for me to go downtown. If I have a choice I won’t enter the city at all. Why should I risk a “gotcha” ticket when I have everything I need in my camera-free suburb? Perhaps the city gains a little up-front cash but loses in the long run.
Report Post »LandShark
Posted on July 15, 2012 at 5:28amIn Chicago alderman Burke did exactly that.The speed camera company under contract has employees review the camera infractions,the incidents that the employee believes is cause to issue a ticket, passes those,in bulk,to CPD employees who“takes the time to review”all the submitted infractions,passes final judgement and mails out the ticket.(Wouldn‘t just pass all of ’em and call it a day?..naw) Chicago will install more pole,and van mounted speed cameras at/near schools.With their budget problems,they “ want to start out slow in implementation”of these,phased them in over time. Look at the map provided for this,all the schools where they are to be implemented are in high traffic areas.Such as at major roadways(read two-lane each way streets) for the most part.Not to maximize revenue now would it? The city does not install countdown timers for these cameras.Sure, there are some intersections where countdown timers exist, but for the most part those timers were there before the speed cameras were installed. I know intersections where during rush hour the count down timers are turned off, and they are on in off-peak hours.Mind you these timers were to help people cross the road, but they don’t work when needed.Speedbumps (“speedmountain”) like those installed on my street would be cheaper and produce the came outcome.I hate those,along with traffic circles.You wouldn’t believe what went on when they shoved those our throat at the neighborhood meeting.
Report Post »Midwest Blonde
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 6:24pmI find it very hard to believe it cost $2200 per day to operate ONE camera. AND if they knew the cost at the time of installation, how could they justify spending $66,000 PER MONTH PERCAMERA?!?!? (5 camers = 330,000 PER MONTH, over $120 MILLION per year.)
I highly doubt the cost, or the stupidity of a city willing to spend THAT much money on a FEW cameras. Good hell, they could have hired 1,200 POLICE OFFICERS at 100K per year for THAT much money!!
Report Post »hayesstephen
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 10:27pmAs I understand it, the city does not buy the cameras. The company who owns them places them, and I may be wrong here but I think the citations are sent out by them. So what were seeing is a lease payment for the cameras.
Report Post »ObserverOnTheHill
Posted on July 14, 2012 at 8:46pmI, too, wonder about that “cost”. However, I never underestimate the fiscal stupidity of government bureaucracy – local, state or federal.
Report Post »TheFederalist
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 6:22pmFinally did something right! The city of Westminster in a heavily liberal, Democratic state actually did something smart. Now if the rest of Maryland will wake up and get rid of all the damn cameras. It`s nothing but a scam to take more money from people.
Report Post »ENIGMA28724
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 5:45pmNote “ nd generating revenue as intended” in the body of the article. They must have planned on generating one heck of a lot of money at $2200 a day to operate each camera. It is a know fact rear end collisions go up markedly when red light cameras are installed. The average motorist will jam on the brakes on yellow to avoid a citation, resulting in an accident. Better to make the yellow cycle a little longer and no camera if they are really concerned about safety.
Report Post »RugDog
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 4:51pmJust get a License plate flipper. Problem solved!
http://www.flipaplate.com/
Report Post »Josh2007
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 7:45pmAgreed! My state requires a front plate but mine fell off long ago, so I do not worry about red light cams. Not to mention the citizens of Houston voted them out of the city about 2 years ago.
Report Post »blackfeather
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 4:20pm…I understand that in some towns the “yellow” light timing was reduced considerably when these cams were installed, so that it would coerce “red light running” to “activate” the cam and give out a ticket. The better method is to do away with the cams, and elongate the yellow light duration. This was one big money maker for cities.
Report Post »Snake
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 4:16pmBut but but…. I thought red light cams were all about safety (sarcasim). How much is safety worth (sarcasim)? OOOoooo so this is a profit thing (Steve Martin, The Jerk)
REVOLT!!!!!
Report Post »cmi
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 5:19pmAdd your comments
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 3:57pmSame thing happened in Dallas a few years ago:
————————————
“Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.
But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections. On the face of it, that, too, is a good thing — but not, necessarily, if you rely on traffic fines to make up a healthy chunk of your budget.
Dallas lawmakers originally estimated gross revenue of $15 million from their 62 cameras this fiscal year, which ends June 30. But City Manager Mary Suhm estimated last week that the city would fall short by more than $4 million.
So last week, the city turned off about a quarter of the least profitable cameras, saying it couldn’t justify the cost of running them.”
Report Post »“Red Light Cameras Too Good For Their Own Good?”
Apple Bite
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:57pmThey been replaced by drones anyhow….
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:38pm$2200 to operate each per day, probably bring a revenue of $400 per day times 5 = $11,000 per day to operate ,minus revenue of $2000 per day equals $9000 per day to operate all 5! Cost per year is $3.2 MILLION!!! I guarantee they deactivated these red light cameras for their own selfish ambition (their pay raises, union pay offs) rather than to help the tax payer. Guaranteed!!
Report Post »Flag-Man
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:46pmWho was the idiot that made the agreement.
Report Post »2200. dollars a day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
progressiveslayer
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:49pmFLAG-MAN They’re spending our money so the number could have been 4,000.00 a day,it doesn’t matter to the government drone.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 3:42pmLet me give you some insight into who is making money off the cameras and thus lobbying for their use. And given the companies involved it is no mystery why something as simple as a camera would cost anywhere near this much to purchase and to operate. After all they give such good deals to the DOD.
“But the municipal authortites aren’t the only ones getting rich off of these cameras: so is Automated Computer Systems (ACS), a subsidiary of the immense military contractor Lockheed-Martin. In Washington, DC, ACS receives 40 percent of the revenues brought in by its cameras systems.”
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:37pmIf the drones in government can find a way to separate us from our money they’ll gleefully do it.
Report Post »They’ll work out the kinks in any technology to make it pay off for them.Public safety hahahahaha yes I know it’s always public safety.
wboehmer
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:22pmJust last week, the use of red-light traffic cameras was approved for the city of Pittsburgh, PA. Maybe they should reconsider.
Report Post »libsaredangerous
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:19pmThese cameras are nothing more than tax increases, as are the parking fines in big cities. I don’t even go near a downtown area any more. It is outrageous. And, a Colorado town put a different kind of camera up–one that detects if you are over the white line when stopped…apparently it is raking in big bucks and people can’t fight it because a judge says it is legal. It is outrageous and if any politician running was smart, they’d make this a huge argument.
Report Post »ThoreauHD
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:12pmThose camera’s are Constitutionally illegal in their use- that’s another thing. You get a half not stupid lawyer, and you can beat every ticket you get because there are ZERO witnesses to your crime/misdemeanor.
Report Post »Skeeterhawk
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:04pmThese are nothing more than electronic tax collectors. Simply increasing the duration of the yellow light will, in many cases, reduce the number of red light running and accidents. Citizens need to ban together, create ballot initiatives and have them outlawed in every state through the ballot process.
Report Post »AIDANMAN
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:04pmNO shitz… really…. i thought i herd that in the begining.. but those politicians heard the sound of money.. and if enough rolls in they can scam some for them selves….BUT it didn’t happen… becuase some company fiqured a way to make MONEY of the ignorance of city covernment sales….
Report Post »trotula
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:55pmI recently got back from Great Britain (which they should now call Mediocre Britain, Nanny State Central.) Those spy cameras were everywhere. Very spooky. I’m tellin ya, in order to pay for the dole and “free” health care, they look for EVERY way to knick your cash, and freedom goes out the window. We DON’T want to go down this road, America. Oops. Bad pun.
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:46pmOut where I live where it can get awful snowy in the winter, You could be doing 15-20 mph and the light will change but you can’t stop and must coast through. People understand and will wait for you when the roads are like that, but the damn traffic camera will still ticket you.
Report Post »RightUnite
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:45pmHoly crap!! $2,200.00 a day for one to operate?? Are you kidding me?? And whose harebrained idea was that?? Or should I say, which council member has a money stake in the company who manufactures and operates these for the city??
Report Post »MAMMY_NUNN
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:39pm$2,200 each day to operate how many union members were there watching the monitors ?
Report Post »Larry E
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:38pmI’ve only experienced “red light cameras” once while driving from Taos to Santa Fe, NM, in a small town on the way. The light went from green to red with a slight flicker of yellow in between. There was NO way at all to stop before the light turned to red. Fortunately I was far enough from the intersection that I could easily stop otherwise I’d have run the light.
Those cameras are a travesty and dangerous IMHO.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:18pmDangerous .. that is the truth .. they have been found to CAUSE accidents … glad they are finding them too expensive … because they are bad and take away rights of the “accused”.
Report Post »mcsledge
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:37pmAlthough these cameras may impact peoples’ driving, I’m not for big brother monitoring my every move. What’s next? Mandatory black boxes in cars that monitor and report speeding?
You either like freedom and the risks that come (i.e., others doing things to violate your freedom) or you prefer oppression at varying levels with the feeling that you some how are more safe. As for me, I choose freedom.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:00pmThey are getting very near to installing black boxes on vehicles. All car from, I think 2006 and on already have a chip that records the last 5-10 seconds before a crash.
Report Post »AIDANMAN
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 2:06pmwhat do you think those “snap shot” gimicks are reading.. you really think you rates are going to go down.. you’ll be hit will some report on how many “quick stops”.. fast accelerations are allowed and you went over….. and here’s your new rate… MORONS
Report Post »scdave
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:32pmThey had these here for several years. The money was supposed to go the schools but the camera co. was the only making money.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 1:28pmIt causes wrecks because people will slam on their brakes when the light turns yellow, to avoid getting an automatic ticket, and you have people the know they can make it or follow to close. Bamm, rear end. Although Barney Frank did want more of them in his district, because it did cause more rear end accidents.
Colorado Springs took the ones here down, because of the same thing, even though overwhelming evidence from Denver showed they didn’t work for their intended purpose.
But hey, it’s only tax payer money.
Report Post »