I am curious why so many people of Fairfax County, and all over the country for that matter, complain about the traffic law enforcement methods --- whether by Cameras or Police on the scene...yet have no solutions of their own to offer. I just do not understand how people can complain about BOTH of the basic alternatives when it comes to this issue.



Alternative #1 --- Police enforce traffic laws in person by patrolling the streets.

Alternative #2 --- Cameras are installed to cover much of the county to enforce traffic laws.

In #1 - It is always "Why are the police out here giving tickets and not taking care of REAL CRIME?!?" --- "The Police cause more danger to everyone the way they pull people over on the sides of the roads." --- "This all is just revenue for the county!"

In #2 - It is always "This is an infringement of my rights and freedoms." --- "The cameras have not been proven to deter infractions." --- "The cameras cost too much, I do not want my taxes paying for these!" --- "We will be living in a POLICE STATE!" --- "This all is just revenue for the county!"



So, lets get rid of the obvious ones - Yes, WE break the traffic laws consistent enough to create a steady revenue for the county. I have no issue with this at all and really it is irrelevant. Cameras do not equate to a "Police State" in any way at all.

Also, I realize that there is a need for Police to enforce some traffic violations in person - DWIs' and tending to accident scenes, among other things.


Each scenario is met with disgust and a list of complaints, but never any offering of solutions.



________________________________________________________________________________

My solution - install cameras throughout the county and have these available to move to varying locations. Do not announce the camera locations at any time. Police patrolling can be reduced as the number of cameras increases.

In terms of paying for the cameras and their maintenance - install a certain number (A financially reasonable amount - I do not know the related cost), so lets say 20 for a period of time. When enough revenue has been made, increase to 35 and so on... We all know that there will be no shortage with the revenue and in a relative short period of time the majority of the county could be covered. A plus to this, IMO, is that high crime areas will also gain surveillance on the back of the traffic enforcement. This, also, would free up our Police force to take care of "Real Crime" and not bog them down with traffic patrols.

A Minor Threat

Red Light Cameras have been proven to be dangerous. People have to slam on the breaks to avoid a ticket which cause accidents because cameras are just that and have no discretion. They arent even run by police its just a private company. People also hate that it doesnt matter who was driving the car the ticket just ends up with the owner.

Cameras have no place in traffic enforcement. Out of every areas this is the last area that needs cameras doing it because of a lack of police presence for it.

Liberal Logic 09 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Red Light Cameras have been proven to be
> dangerous.

Change how they are made (See below) --- would not be that hard to accomplish. In this time of technology, I am sure there are alternatives to the "Flash" that these cameras use, or have used in the past...possibly a night-vision lens.


> They arent even run by police its just a private
> company.

Have the systems run by police departments --- not too much to incorporate and would add some new job positions.


> People also hate that it doesnt matter
> who was driving the car the ticket just ends up
> with the owner.

True, not sure how this could be avoided.


> Cameras have no place in traffic enforcement. Out
> of every areas this is the last area that needs
> cameras doing it because of a lack of police
> presence for it.

I am not saying there is a lack of police --- what I am noting is that generally people do not accept EITHER alternative to enforce traffic laws.



Additionally the cameras could be utilized a couple of ways. (The "Red Light" cameras could be example #1 below, while highway "Speeding" cameras could be #2)

1. So small that they are not readily visible to traffic. Taking away the dangers caused by drivers "slamming on the brakes" when approaching.
2. Large and very visible to traffic, which could be a deterrent in itself, since the public will not know which "Housings" actually have cameras.

I included that the cameras should be moved between various locations in my OP --- in this age of instant information I would predict a "FFX Traffic Camera Alert" site to be created soon after the camera program had started.

So, I disagree with "Liberal Logic 09" and their post is a perfect example of the complaining with no better solution offered.

A Minor Threat

This thread seems to be both inflammatory and off-topic. As it has no relevance to the main forum, and postpoppunk is an alias of Mr. Misery, it has been reported as a troll thread.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread seems to be both inflammatory

FALSE.

> and off-topic.

FALSE.

> As it has no relevance to the main forum,

FALSE.

> and postpoppunk is an alias of Mr. Misery,

FALSE.

> it has been reported as a troll thread.

Idiot.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Change how they are made (See below) --- would not
> be that hard to accomplish. In this time of
> technology, I am sure there are alternatives to
> the "Flash" that these cameras use, or have used
> in the past...possibly a night-vision lens.

If it was that easy they would have done it by now. Its a robotic camera the only way to have it work is to have a trip line activated when the light changes. Theres no way to give a camera human discreation other than to have it monitored 24/7

> Have the systems run by police departments --- not
> too much to incorporate and would add some new job
> positions.

I doubt anyone would want to go through all the background work of the police to say yes or no to traffic pictures. That could be doable though.



> I am not saying there is a lack of police --- what
> I am noting is that generally people do not accept
> EITHER alternative to enforce traffic laws.

People generally dont like that police hide in spots that are hard to see. Given the choice between the two people would rather have police doing it then a camera that can be placed everywhere. People that complain about everything I dont care what they think.

> Additionally the cameras could be utilized a
> couple of ways. (The "Red Light" cameras could be
> example #1 below, while highway "Speeding" cameras
> could be #2)

You really want everyone going the exact speed limit under all circumstances all the time like traffic isnt bad enough around here? How about the person rushing to the hospital who then has 50 tickets in the mail from tripping all the speed cameras.

Nothing about our traffic statistics justify such an extreme measure.

> 1. So small that they are not readily visible to
> traffic. Taking away the dangers caused by drivers
> "slamming on the brakes" when approaching.
> 2. Large and very visible to traffic, which could
> be a deterrent in itself, since the public will
> not know which "Housings" actually have cameras.

They have to be market, having hidden cameras is illegal. Furthermore word would spread that theyre there and youd be right back in the situation of accidents happening to avoid a ticket.

If you have speed and traffic cameras everywhere theres no reason to run police enforcement and given our crime statistics someone would be completely justified laying off a significant percentage of departments if they no longer do traffic enforcement.

> I included that the cameras should be moved
> between various locations in my OP --- in this age
> of instant information I would predict a "FFX
> Traffic Camera Alert" site to be created soon
> after the camera program had started.

Why? Why not just go all the way and put them everywhere.

> So, I disagree with "Liberal Logic 09" and their
> post is a perfect example of the complaining with
> no better solution offered.

Your post is the perfect example of wanting a police state where everything you do is ticketed by cameras. You havent even given a reason why you want this. Our traffic stats are actually very good considering the massive amounts of congestion. Lets just go all the way and add HOV cameras too, or jaywalking cameras.

I gave my solution tickets should only be handed out by the police not cameras.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread seems to be both inflammatory and
> off-topic. As it has no relevance to the main
> forum, and postpoppunk is an alias of Mr. Misery,
> it has been reported as a troll thread.


Good luck with your paranoia. Please feel free to report this thread as often as you wish. Nothing will happen since Cary knows that I am not MMisery.

I mentioned Fairfax County in the OP, but there may be a chance it gets moved --- not my decision.

Did you have anything to add to the topic or just your usual brand of general ignorance?

A Minor Threat

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Good luck with your paranoia. Please feel free to
> report this thread as often as you wish.




Reported.

CONTRACEPTION!!!!!!!!

I will edit this post (Tomorrow), so I can address the points made by "Liberal Logic 09"..

A Minor Threat



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2013 11:53PM by postpoppunk.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> postpoppunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Good luck with your paranoia. Please feel free
> to
> > report this thread as often as you wish.
>
>
>
>
> Reported.


I have never "Reported" a thread on FFXU in my 2 years here --- not sure what the procedure is, but I encourage you to report as many times as humanly possible.

I am curious --- I have not posted for months and the same day I decide to post again, you decide to take time out of your busy FFXU schedule of posting 24/7 to fuck with me - why?

A Minor Threat

The bottom line is that I want at least a chance of being able to drive fast sometimes without getting caught. Red light cameras, I have no problem with; because running a red light is deadly dangerous. But with speed cameras, I draw the line, because you cannot outsmart them, you will never have a day of good luck against them, and they don't have to choose between you and some other speeder -- they can get you both. I also think the state should have to do a *little* bit of work to squeeze those traffic fines out of us.

Speed cameras take all the sport out of our cat and mouse game with the smokies.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am curious why so many people of Fairfax County,
> and all over the country for that matter, complain
> about the traffic law enforcement methods ---
> whether by Cameras or Police on the scene...yet
> have no solutions of their own to offer. I just do
> not understand how people can complain about BOTH
> of the basic alternatives when it comes to this
> issue.
>
>
>
> Alternative #1 --- Police enforce traffic laws in
> person by patrolling the streets.
>
> Alternative #2 --- Cameras are installed to cover
> much of the county to enforce traffic laws.
>
> In #1 - It is always "Why are the police out here
> giving tickets and not taking care of REAL
> CRIME?!?" --- "The Police cause more danger to
> everyone the way they pull people over on the
> sides of the roads." --- "This all is just revenue
> for the county!"
>
> In #2 - It is always "This is an infringement of
> my rights and freedoms." --- "The cameras have not
> been proven to deter infractions." --- "The
> cameras cost too much, I do not want my taxes
> paying for these!" --- "We will be living in a
> POLICE STATE!" --- "This all is just revenue for
> the county!"
>
>
>
> So, lets get rid of the obvious ones - Yes, WE
> break the traffic laws consistent enough to create
> a steady revenue for the county. I have no issue
> with this at all and really it is irrelevant.
> Cameras do not equate to a "Police State" in any
> way at all.
>
> Also, I realize that there is a need for Police to
> enforce some traffic violations in person - DWIs'
> and tending to accident scenes, among other
> things.
>
>
> Each scenario is met with disgust and a list of
> complaints, but never any offering of solutions.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> ______________________________
>
> My solution - install cameras throughout the
> county and have these available to move to varying
> locations. Do not announce the camera locations at
> any time. Police patrolling can be reduced as the
> number of cameras increases.
>
> In terms of paying for the cameras and their
> maintenance - install a certain number (A
> financially reasonable amount - I do not know the
> related cost), so lets say 20 for a period of
> time. When enough revenue has been made, increase
> to 35 and so on... We all know that there will be
> no shortage with the revenue and in a relative
> short period of time the majority of the county
> could be covered. A plus to this, IMO, is that
> high crime areas will also gain surveillance on
> the back of the traffic enforcement. This, also,
> would free up our Police force to take care of
> "Real Crime" and not bog them down with traffic
> patrols.

I'm of the opinion that it's always best to insist that the state follow the law when they're prosecuting you for violating the law. Otherwise, the state itself can become lawless.

Insist on a personal summons. Mailed summonses are not sufficient under the law. If you respond, you do so voluntarily.


"There is a practical issue with regard to issuing citations for red light running: the Code of Virginia requires that an in-person summons, rather than certified mail, be used to compel an individual to appear in court. Because of the high cost of delivering summonses outside Virginia,this requirement could make the programs administratively difficult for some localities if it became commonly known that only an in-person summons can require a vehicle owner either to pay the penalty or to appear in court. However, the program can still legally continue in its present form without a change in the Code."

From the VDOT report on Virginia's Red Light Cameras http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf

§ 15.2-968.1 (G)
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-968.1

"If the summoned person fails to appear on the date of return set out in the summons mailed pursuant to this section, the summons shall be executed in the manner set out in § 19.2-76.3. No proceedings for contempt or arrest of a person summoned by mailing shall be instituted for failure to appear on the return date of the summons. Any summons executed for a violation of this section shall provide to the person summoned at least 30 business days from the mailing of the summons to inspect information collected by a traffic light signal violation monitoring system in connection with the violation.

"But with speed cameras, I draw the line, because you cannot outsmart them, you will never have a day of good luck against them, and they don't have to choose between you and some other speeder -- they can get you both."

It's about the lack of due process and revenue enhancement for localities, not safety or "playing fair" at some cat-and-mouse game with cops.

I prefer humans and not cameras.

was in MD the other day and even though I was doing 5 under the speed limit cause I knew where the camera was (I saw it flash on the vehicle ahead of me) it flashed me too.

It was obviously broken, but if I get a ticket, I have to go back to explain that now, dont I? Fun times.

You fat fucks need to start walking. Do you really believe traffic is going to improve? Big Brother is part of society and ain't nothing you can do but post on a forum. Tickets pay salaries and sometimes improve roads where the affluent live.
Hilarious....

How did all that reporting work out for eesh?

The Anarchist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You fat fucks need to start walking. Do you really
> believe traffic is going to improve? Big Brother
> is part of society and ain't nothing you can do
> but post on a forum. Tickets pay salaries and
> sometimes improve roads where the affluent live.
> Hilarious....

You're not much of an anarchist.
Attachments:

Yeah, due process too, sure. But like most people that is a theoretical concept to me -- unless and until I get a ticket of course. I think courts around the state have decided that cameras don't inhibit due process. On a daily basis, it's a cat and mouse game to most people: try not to get caught.

Local revenue, to me that's an illegitimate reason for any criminal arrest. It presents an inherent conflict of interest.


Not a lawyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "But with speed cameras, I draw the line, because
> you cannot outsmart them, you will never have a
> day of good luck against them, and they don't have
> to choose between you and some other speeder --
> they can get you both."
>
> It's about the lack of due process and revenue
> enhancement for localities, not safety or "playing
> fair" at some cat-and-mouse game with cops.

Liberal Logic 09 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cameras have no place in traffic enforcement. Out
> of every areas this is the last area that needs
> cameras doing it because of a lack of police
> presence for it.


What does this even mean?

I do not think there is any issue with "due process" - if you break the law and are caught by the cameras OR an officer in person, the results are the same.

Yes, there has been issue with the mailed summons, IMO, that should equate to completely legal and be followed up just as a ticket that was issued in person by an officer.

There are certain circumstances, like mentioned earlier, where if you are speeding to a hospital (Which is illegal) and rack up a handful of tickets - the courts could take those circumstances into consideration.

As for revenue - it is what it is --- if we continue to fund the county with our inability to obey laws, then why would the county not take advantage of that? It is not even an arguable point in reality.

A Minor Threat

actually, there is a due process issue.

that's why speeding/red light cam tickets DON'T add points to your license, or affect your insurance.

"There are no driver license points assessed and there are no insurance implications. By law, the Department of Motor Vehicles and insurance companies cannot be notified of the offense."

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/police/photored/page76913.aspx

Liberal Logic 09 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If it was that easy they would have done it by
> now. Its a robotic camera the only way to have it
> work is to have a trip line activated when the
> light changes.


I am sure it is more about money verse technology. The trip line is fine, just the "flash" needs to be eliminated. Again, not too hard this day and age.


> Theres no way to give a camera
> human discreation other than to have it monitored
> 24/7


No one suggested the cameras have "human discretion" or that there is any need for that at all.



> I doubt anyone would want to go through all the
> background work of the police to say yes or no to
> traffic pictures. That could be doable though.

I do not think that "police background work" would be necessary --- the department that ran the cameras would have a different set of skills and requirements.


> People generally dont like that police hide in
> spots that are hard to see. Given the choice
> between the two people would rather have police
> doing it then a camera that can be placed
> everywhere. People that complain about everything
> I dont care what they think.


I agree that people will complain about anything and I do not think that there should even be a "choice" --- just do it and let people adapt accordingly.


> You really want everyone going the exact speed
> limit under all circumstances all the time like
> traffic isnt bad enough around here?


Actually, studies have proven that if everyone went the "exact speed limit under all circumstances" that commutes would take less time + fewer accidents.


> They have to be market, having hidden cameras is
> illegal.


Make them legal - problem solved. Only those "1984" idiots would bring up issues with this procedure.


> Furthermore word would spread that
> theyre there and youd be right back in the
> situation of accidents happening to avoid a
> ticket.

I already addressed this, in this age of instant information I would predict a "FFX Traffic Camera Alert" site to be created to combat the camera program --- this is why they would move between MANY sights AND have empty housings as well. These movements would not be announced.


> If you have speed and traffic cameras everywhere
> theres no reason to run police enforcement and
> given our crime statistics someone would be
> completely justified laying off a significant
> percentage of departments if they no longer do
> traffic enforcement.

Disagree completely --- there are many situations, again I already covered this, where police enforcement in person is necessary and needed. Also, any resources freed up by the camera system could be used to address "Real Crime". I added earlier, that some of the cameras can double up their use in high crime areas --- helping with safety and creating a few more jobs with the department personnel who monitor them.


> Your post is the perfect example of wanting a
> police state where everything you do is ticketed
> by cameras. You havent even given a reason why
> you want this. Our traffic stats are actually
> very good considering the massive amounts of
> congestion. Lets just go all the way and add HOV
> cameras too, or jaywalking cameras.

Wrong --- my post is about solutions and welcoming the modern world and the technology it has to offer to one of the wealthiest areas in the USA. Again, the "Police State" cries are moot, every time I hear this it leads me to believe that people just do not want to be accountable for their actions.

Cameras FORCING people to adapt or lose the privilege of driving only leads to safer roadways and the availability for use in high crime areas just makes sense.
Anyone who drives legally and does not commit crimes on a regular basis has no problems with camera systems to enforce some of the traffic laws and to monitor high crimes areas. Even if the county did go all out and cover huge portions with cameras, law abiding citizens would not complain, but welcome the added security and general safety that the system brings.

A Minor Threat

due process? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> actually, there is a due process issue.
>
> that's why speeding/red light cam tickets DON'T
> add points to your license, or affect your
> insurance.
>
> "There are no driver license points assessed and
> there are no insurance implications. By law, the
> Department of Motor Vehicles and insurance
> companies cannot be notified of the offense."
>
> http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/police/photo
> red/page76913.aspx


Yes, there are problems now --- I would think that all this could easily be straightened out in time.

A Minor Threat

If I were issued a camera ticket..... I would rip it up and throw it out.

No Plans to Return Red Light Cameras to Fairfax County

Despite surrounding jurisdictions reaping profits, Fairfax County has no plans to reinstate program discontinued in 2005.
http://fairfaxcity.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/no-plans-to-return-red-light-cameras-to-fairfax-county-09bbf696

Despite recent news by surrounding jurisdictions reaping profits from red light cameras, Fairfax County currently has no plans to reinstate its program.

The Virginia legislature issued a red light camera law in the 1990s and Fairfax County gained red light cameras at 10 different intersections. The Photo Red Light Monitoring program expired in Fairfax County on June 30, 2005. The state legislation was renewed but new requirements were added. The county would have had to upgrade from film to digital cameras and provide for additional engineering studies.

A recent Washington Post article reported Washington, D.C. made $55.1 million in 2011 from its red light and speed cameras. In Alexandria, the city has in the first three months of 2012.

at the North Street and University Drive intersection, and Fairfax Boulevard at Fairfax Circle in July. Drivers caught running red lights at those intersections have to pay a $50 fine per violation.

Fairfax County Police Traffic Enforcement Supervisor Bob Otten said the Fairfax program was not generating an income and policies did not allow the county to charge more than $50 per ticket.

“It was a very expensive program to operate but we saw great success and it was not about the money – at $50 a ticket, you’re not getting any money,” Otten said.

Over the life of the program, which ran from 2002 to 2005, the county lost $1,371,425. Revenues from citations began to decrease in the second half of 2003 because signal timing changes were made at the intersections where the cameras were located and drivers became more aware of the presence of the cameras.

“The number of tickets went down and we needed less people to review (the film),” Otten said. “We had police personnel looking at the pictures and, of course, as the numbers (of violations) went down you had a lot of people who weren’t working.”

The program employed seven positions. Film was sent to the camera vendors to be processed but then returned to county personnel to review each photograph and determine if a driver would be cited with a violation. Although those seven positions were eliminated, the employees were relocated to other jobs within the county.

“Out of every 100 times the camera took a picture we were only citing about 50 people because of the amount of protocol we had for the legislation,” Otten said.

There are no known plans to update the cameras across Fairfax County. The decision would be made by the Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the program was removed due to changes in law and has not been reinstated for fiscal reasons.

“When we had it, it was very successful,” Otten said. “Across the county we had about 45 percent reduction in (violations). Of course, when you have reductions, you’re not making any money.”
Attachments:

Fairfax expands red-light camera program to six intersections
http://www.wtop.com/41/3384373/Fairfax-expands-red-light-camera-program-to-six-intersections

FAIRFAX, Va. - The City of Fairfax has approved a plan to increase the number of red-light camera locations from three intersections to six after a City Council vote on Tuesday night.

The move expands the number of overall cameras from four to seven.

"The number of violations at the new intersections will go down and that's going to make commuting through the City of Fairfax safer," said Police Chief Rick Rappaport.

Fairfax established a red-light camera program in 1997 under a 10-year pilot program in the state. The program ended when the state's law allowing red-light camera enforcement expired in 2005.

However, Fairfax restarted the program when Virginia passed a new law a few years later to allow the cameras. That program has been running since August 2011.

Currently Fairfax has cameras at the following locations:
•Fairfax Boulevard (U.S. 29) at Fairfax Circle eastbound
•Fairfax Boulevard (U.S. 29) at Fairfax Circle westbound
•University Boulevard at North Street

According to police, the cameras have generated 20,525 tickets and netted about $500,000 in revenue. Red-light camera tickets in Virginia are $50, which is less than the $75 fine in Maryland and $150 in the District.

"I believe we have been successful at changing driver behavior and it shows because the violations at the existing intersections have slowed down," said Rappaport, who adds that overall net revenue has dropped to about $25,000 per month.

Red-light camera tickets in Virginia do not carry points because they are civil offenses. Under Virginia law, drivers also must be warned about red-light photo enforcement at an intersection. Also, both are true in Maryland.

Ultimately, the Fairfax City Council agreed to add three new cameras because it didn't want to overburden the police department. Rappaport told lawmakers that eight to 10 intersections would require another officer to process the citations. Mayor Scott Silverthorne and the City Council said they were unwilling to fund that.

"There are efficiencies in moving to a red light program, but there also ought to be cost savings. So asking for additional staffing doesn't sit particularly well with me. If this is a true priority, you should reallocate existing staffing to meet the demand," Silverthorne said.

It's unclear exactly when the cameras will be installed because engineering and design will be necessary. However, it could be online before the end of the year. The locations include the following:


•Fairfax Boulevard (U.S. 29) at Plantation Parkway (east)
• Chain Bridge Road (Va. Route 123) at Eaton Place (north)
• Main Street at Pickett Road (west)

Critics of red-light cameras believe cities like Fairfax are solely in it for the money, not for safety. Rappaport admits there has been no substantial drop in accidents from red light cameras so far, but points out that since the city is so small, there aren't many accidents to begin with.

"When you're dealing with four or five accidents per year [at an intersection], there's not much room to drop. But it's important to note that there was no increase in any type of accident. They all stayed the same or went down," Rappaport said.

"But the violation numbers have gone down significantly. And when you reduce the violation numbers, you reduce the risk of that one person running a red light and causing a serious or fatal accident."

However, council members Steven Stombres and Eleanor Schmidt expressed concern about the numbers.

"If there was compelling safety data, I would support adding new cameras. But cutting to the chase, I don't think it's worth expanding the program," said Stombres.

Fairfax contracts with Australia-based Redflex Traffic Systems to run the red-light camera program. Redflex also has a contract with the City of Alexandria. But the contract between Fairfax and Redflex expires later this year and Fairfax is currently evaluating several bids. One is from American Traffic Solutions, which operates red-light camera programs in Arlington and Falls Church.

"The benefit is that there are a lot of good companies out there that offer good products and it'll be interesting to see where we go with it," said Rappaport.

Fairfax County is exploring a red-light camera program. In March, Supervisor Michael R. Frey, R-Sully, asked the Fairfax County Department of Transportation to study the possibility after an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety report found the Arlington camera program increased overall safety.

Transportation Director Tom Biesiadny tells WTOP that his agency is working with the Fairfax County Police Department to put together a report, which should be completed in the fall.

City of Fairfax red-light presentation
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152888700/City-of-Fairfax-red-light-presentation

Fairfax's red light program has been running since August 2011, when Virginia passed a law allowing the cameras. (WTOP/Ari Ashe)
Attachments:

I spent about six years stationed in Germany, and think the point about freeing up police for things other than minor traffic enforcement is probably the most important issue about traffic cameras.

Traffic cameras are widely used in Germany for both speeding and red light enforcement. Some are highly visible, some are in unmarked cars, and some are dummy cameras. The cameras certainly generate some revenue, but more importantly they make drivers slow down, obey the regulations with a bit more attention, drive more predictably, and be safer around vulnerable users in congested areas. Cameras are certainly not the most popular things with drivers, since being flashed "geblitzt" by a camera is not usually fun. German drivers are much more responsible than they are here and Germans realize that cars are transportation, but also deadly weapons. In densely-populated Germany, driver's education costs thousands of Euros, a license is obtainable only at age 18, and if a driver is bad enough, he loses the license completely and/or has to retake the expensive driver's education.

These comments are fully subjective, but while German police vehicles certainly could pull over motorists for traffic violations, it certainly seemed like more policemen were pulled over with a motorist for roadside assistance purposes. The police in Germany were not necessarily going to be friends to all motorists, especially foreigners, but the driver-police relationship felt different than it does here, mostly because much of the minor traffic enforcement was not needed because cameras kept drivers focused on driving at safe speeds.

Look at Germany Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I spent about six years stationed in Germany, and
> think the point about freeing up police for things
> other than minor traffic enforcement is probably
> the most important issue about traffic cameras.

This is a good point.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread seems to be both inflammatory and
> off-topic. As it has no relevance to the main
> forum, and postpoppunk is an alias of Mr. Misery,
> it has been reported as a troll thread.


Thank you, sir.

This officer here wants to create more of a budget for the FCPD. He is proposing to have BOTH cops on the street AND traffic cameras for traffic enforcement.

The cop said no one is offering any solutions. The best was is to reform our traffic laws, as in increase the speed limit to what modern cars can handle, get rid of laws which are just used as revenue generators like distracted driving, and don't make every single driving infraction "reckless driving". VA is one of the only places to pull that shit.

Alexander Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This thread seems to be both inflammatory and
> > off-topic. As it has no relevance to the main
> > forum, and postpoppunk is an alias of Mr.
> Misery,
> > it has been reported as a troll thread.
>
>
> Thank you, sir.
>
> This officer here wants to create more of a budget
> for the FCPD. He is proposing to have BOTH cops on
> the street AND traffic cameras for traffic
> enforcement.
>
> The cop said no one is offering any solutions. The
> best was is to reform our traffic laws, as in
> increase the speed limit to what modern cars can
> handle, get rid of laws which are just used as
> revenue generators like distracted driving, and
> don't make every single driving infraction
> "reckless driving". VA is one of the only places
> to pull that shit.

I don't see how it falls into "Off-Topic" as the OP asks the question about Fairfax County. You're right about the poster, but the subject matter is still something of worthy debate.

@ postpoppunk, i think you have one thing wrong. cameras generate revenue, not the officer stopping people. a traffic camera will issue 100x more tickets than any officers will. people also seem to forget that the camera tickets dont come with any points. only points are given when an officer stops the violator.

red light cameras do not cause any more accidents than not having cameras there. it has been proven that they dont. there is a difference in the type of accidents that occur with or without red light cameras. with them, rear end accidents are greater becuase people dont want to have their picture taken. without them, t-bone type accidents are higher because more people run the light. its a trade off either way you look at it. rear end accidents are less likely to injure people then t-bone accicents.

Reduce or totally take away the huge percentage private companies get for each ticket. Some have already been caught reducing the yellow phase time to increase violations. Others were caught sending through tickets where their was no violation.

Its presumed guilt by the municipality. They have some evidence (photos) but usually you cannot id the driver. So who committed the violation? They mail a citation to the owner but the owner is not accused directly. You can either ask for a court date, pay the 50 bucks thus admitting guilt or sign a notarized affidavit saying you were not the driver. 5th amendment says you dont have to deny a crime they are not accusing you of.

First chuck the mailed edition of this shakedown- its a joke. In fact returning it acknowledges your receipt of same. Ignore it. That will force them to issue you a summons in person. Once they do that ask for a court date and then request records of the equipment, maintenance records, request to depose the police officer that signed the citation from the photos/video make sure to get documentation of his training. As for chain of evidence you will need to know every person that had or could have had access to the evidence. That means the company running the camera, data and mailings. You will need all their records and you might want to interview the parties involved.

Was the photo altered? Was it cropped, enlarged (to show your plate) or altered in any way shape or form? Was the data protected by the vendor and by the municipality? You have the right to 'rebut' the prima facie evidence.

You should not have to testify against yourself. They have no evidence against any person. Ask to face your accuser - the camera. You cannot. Even thought you should not have to answer 'who was driving the car' simply say you dont know for sure. Lots of people have access to my house and my car. My family, some friends, the person that watches your kids/pets. My mechanic drives my car when he is trying to diagnose issues with the car. For all you know someone took a joyride in your car and returned it before you ever knew it was gone.


The point is if its a photo of a car and nothing else the state has to prove guilt - you do not have to prove a negative (that you did not do something).

The reason the fine is so cheap (50 bucks) is that it is really a tax. Running a red is a serious crime and I dont think they want to let truly guilty people off with no points, no record and only $50 fine. Its a scam. Dont pay them.

unconstitutional Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its presumed guilt by the municipality. They have
> some evidence (photos) but usually you cannot id
> the driver. So who committed the violation? They
> mail a citation to the owner but the owner is not
> accused directly. You can either ask for a court
> date, pay the 50 bucks thus admitting guilt or
> sign a notarized affidavit saying you were not the
> driver. 5th amendment says you dont have to deny
> a crime they are not accusing you of.
>
> First chuck the mailed edition of this shakedown-
> its a joke. In fact returning it acknowledges
> your receipt of same. Ignore it. That will force
> them to issue you a summons in person. Once they
> do that ask for a court date and then request
> records of the equipment, maintenance records,
> request to depose the police officer that signed
> the citation from the photos/video make sure to
> get documentation of his training. As for chain
> of evidence you will need to know every person
> that had or could have had access to the evidence.
> That means the company running the camera, data
> and mailings. You will need all their records and
> you might want to interview the parties involved.
>
>
> Was the photo altered? Was it cropped, enlarged
> (to show your plate) or altered in any way shape
> or form? Was the data protected by the vendor and
> by the municipality? You have the right to
> 'rebut' the prima facie evidence.
>
> You should not have to testify against yourself.
> They have no evidence against any person. Ask to
> face your accuser - the camera. You cannot. Even
> thought you should not have to answer 'who was
> driving the car' simply say you dont know for
> sure. Lots of people have access to my house and
> my car. My family, some friends, the person that
> watches your kids/pets. My mechanic drives my car
> when he is trying to diagnose issues with the car.
> For all you know someone took a joyride in your
> car and returned it before you ever knew it was
> gone.
>
>
> The point is if its a photo of a car and nothing
> else the state has to prove guilt - you do not
> have to prove a negative (that you did not do
> something).
>
> The reason the fine is so cheap (50 bucks) is that
> it is really a tax. Running a red is a serious
> crime and I dont think they want to let truly
> guilty people off with no points, no record and
> only $50 fine. Its a scam. Dont pay them.

That was really informative actually, thanks.


Have you ever gone through with this personally? I would like to hear your story as well as get some advice to beat one.

Alex

Actually yes, I am in the process of this at the moment. Ill keep you informed as to the 'process.' Ill repost if and when I am served...

unconstitutional Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason the fine is so cheap (50 bucks) is that
> it is really a tax.

The actual reason that the fine is so cheap is that this isn't DC. Red light tickets are $100 there.

Meanwhile, your arguments against the law itself are absurd, being based upon goober misunderstandings of the law in general and assumptions of rights that you don't now and never have had. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and the state may establish and enforce a wide range of controls and regulations to protect the public from those who would abuse that privilege. As ever, all your wishful Freedom-and-Liberty thinking is a complete waste of time. If you get a red-light camera ticket, pay it. Don't go to a lot of additional effort and expense just to make yourself look stupid. That's all you've accomplished here by the way.

I drive through the intersection of Chain Bridge Rd. and Eaton Place
every morning and afternoon. It's one of the most dangerous intersections
in Fairfax City/County. When the camera was active a few years ago,
people actually began stopping for the red lights and especially, stopped
flooring it when it turned yellow. Most people, like me, are creatures
of habit and usually drive the same routes to work every day and they
got used to the idea of actually obeying the signal. When the camera was
turned off it was back to business as usual. I really wish they're turn
it back on. Ever try crossing this intersection on foot? It's like playing
Russian Roulette.

Paul Drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> unconstitutional Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The reason the fine is so cheap (50 bucks) is
> that
> > it is really a tax.
>
> The actual reason that the fine is so cheap is
> that this isn't DC. Red light tickets are $100
> there.
>
> Meanwhile, your arguments against the law itself
> are absurd, being based upon goober
> misunderstandings of the law in general and
> assumptions of rights that you don't now and never
> have had. Driving is a privilege, not a right,
> and the state may establish and enforce a wide
> range of controls and regulations to protect the
> public from those who would abuse that privilege.
> As ever, all your wishful Freedom-and-Liberty
> thinking is a complete waste of time. If you get
> a red-light camera ticket, pay it. Don't go to a
> lot of additional effort and expense just to make
> yourself look stupid. That's all you've
> accomplished here by the way.

You may want to review this Brief submitted in defense of a photo enforced citation to the City of Fairfax.

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsLawBriefFairfax.html

People like you gladly give away the freedoms so many fought and died for. We dont need or want you here. Move somewhere else.

cEukL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may want to review this Brief submitted in
> defense of a photo enforced citation to the City
> of Fairfax.

Why? It's nothing but childish babble and pap. Any asshole at all can file a brief, you know. Red light cameras have been upheld everywhere. Only dorks and assfucks are sill trying to take them down.

> People like you gladly give away the freedoms so
> many fought and died for. We dont need or want
> you here. Move somewhere else.

Oh, blow me, you fucking retard. There is no right to run a red light or freedom top exceed a posted speed limit. How fucking dumb are you? Obey the law, or we'll fine you. If you do it often enough, we'll jail you, Be ready for it, you anti-social assfuck. It's coming for you.

Someone has anger issues...

I have a better idea. Why don't all vehicles come with in-car cameras and GPS tracking devices. That way all data could be collected with regard to how the vehicles were being driven and no searches would need to be conducted because we could just look at the cameras. In fact, why not just have on-body cameras and gps on PEOPLE to. Save a lot of time and effort in documenting criminal activity.

eliminate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a better idea. Why don't all vehicles come
> with in-car cameras and GPS tracking devices.
> That way all data could be collected with regard
> to how the vehicles were being driven and no
> searches would need to be conducted because we
> could just look at the cameras. In fact, why not
> just have on-body cameras and gps on PEOPLE to.
> Save a lot of time and effort in documenting
> criminal activity.

This already exists - they are called 'smart phones...'

Your property is guilty until proven innocent. If your car is accused of running a red light it is guilty. It has no rights. Look at civil forfeitures http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/john-oliver-civil-forfeiture_n_5938686.html

Paul Drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> unconstitutional Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The reason the fine is so cheap (50 bucks) is
> that
> > it is really a tax.
>
> The actual reason that the fine is so cheap is
> that this isn't DC. Red light tickets are $100
> there.
>

Officer issues a citation for running a red: the penalty 4 points $50-100 plus processing fees, the violation is recorded on the operators license and points are subtracted from the drivers record for 3 years. A few of these and your license will be suspended.

A camera issued citation for running a red (to the owner of the car) = $50.00, no record, no points, no processing fee, no limit on number of violations before penalties increase or license suspended.

Do not pay these tickets, they are unconstitutional and violate your bill of rights. If dealt with properly your scam ticket will always be dismissed. Dont know about the Nova officials but DCs mayor Vincent Gray said straight up he couldnt get rid of them cause of the loss of revenue. Its nothing to do with safety and all about profit for the city just likr everything else in Nova. And also with all the fees and taxes Nova charges, its outrageous the roads are unkept and received a D grade.

JollyRoger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do not pay these tickets, they are
> unconstitutional and violate your bill of rights.

No, you goober assfuck, they are not and do not. You ridiculous right-wing asswipes have no fucking idea on earth of what the US Constitution and Bill of Rights do and do not provide for. Just total flame-out morons -- that's all any of you are.

Very simple. B**ching is indeed a Constitutional right. Driving is not.....legally, it is a privilege.

Cannot is one word, not two.

Depends on whether the "not" is part of another construction, as in...

You can not only be annoying, but also wrong.

That said, "can not" is acceptable everywhere, but it's not as commonly used as "cannot".