I'm glad to see this happen. When the cameras were on before, it was
actually 90% safer to cross the street in front of my house. GOOD!!!!



Speed cameras likely to return to parts of Virginia
January 30, 2009 - 1:16pm
Michelle Basch, WTOP Radio

FAIRFAX, Va. - There may be 10 more reasons to watch your speed in the Washington area now that the City of Fairfax has nearly finalized a contract for speed cameras.

Fairfax City Council and Mayor Robert F. Lederer have approved the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems. And although the city manager still has the right to tweak the plan, it is effectively a done deal.

Lon Anderson with Triple-A has concerns about the program.

"These should be law enforcement tools, not moneymaking tools. It shouldn't be a 'gotcha game' for greenbacks."

Fairfax City Councilman Dan Drummond says revenue is not the objective.

"It is not the intent of the city for this to be a revenue-generating program."

He says violators would pay a $50 fine, but would not lose any points.

Drummond couldn't say when the cameras would be up and running because the city has to wait for the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve the locations, and it's not clear how soon that will happen.

Below is a list of potential sites for the cameras:

* Fairfax Circle
* 123 at Eaton Place
* Route 50 at Plantation
* Route 50 at Jermantown
* Route 123 at North St
* Route 236 at Burke Station
* Route 50 at University
* Lee Hwy at Jermantown
* Route 50 at Stafford
* Route 50 at Warwick
* Route 50 at Oak St
* Route 50 at Eaton Pl
* Route 50 (FFX Blvd) at Rebel Run
* Route 236 (Main) at Pickett
* Route 236 (Main) at Whitacre
* Route 50 (FFX Blvd) at Paul VI
* Route 50 (FFX Blvd) at Fairchester

The state also requires a law enforcement officer to review every ticket issued by a red light camera before it's sent out, and Drummond says the city will abide by that rule. He says not one city resident showed up at a public hearing to oppose the reinstitution of red light cameras, and he's only received one e-mail from a resident who doesn't want them.

The City of Fairfax used to have red light cameras, but turned them off after a Virginia pilot program ended in 2005. A 2007 law allows cities and counties to bring them back. Fairfax City could become the first jurisdiction in the entire state to get red light cameras running again.

they never had speed cameras, red light cameras will be returning....

Traffic cameras are so unconstitutional it's not even funny, especially speed cameras. In DC, they can send you a ticket with a picture of your tag. The burden of proof is on you to show that you weren't speeding, which is impossible to do. I'm 90% sure that DC police were hitting "out of towners", whether they were speeding or not, because they knew the chances of them fighting the ticket were slim to none. Besides, they needed to pay for the new stadium.

Does anyone have any statistics about how many people have been killed or injured at those locations? If there is a high mortality rate at these locations, they are doing it out of concern for the public. If not, it's all about money and there are probably kickbacks for some politician.

The OP states that these are "speed cameras". If they are, they should last less than a year before people have a shit and get them removed.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traffic cameras are so unconstitutional it's not
> even funny, especially speed cameras. In DC, they
> can send you a ticket with a picture of your tag.
> The burden of proof is on you to show that you
> weren't speeding, which is impossible to do. I'm
> 90% sure that DC police were hitting "out of
> towners", whether they were speeding or not,
> because they knew the chances of them fighting the
> ticket were slim to none. Besides, they needed to
> pay for the new stadium.
>
> Does anyone have any statistics about how many
> people have been killed or injured at those
> locations? If there is a high mortality rate at
> these locations, they are doing it out of concern
> for the public. If not, it's all about money and
> there are probably kickbacks for some politician.
>
> The OP states that these are "speed cameras". If
> they are, they should last less than a year before
> people have a shit and get them removed.


I dont have any numbers available, however, my experience at Eaton Pl.
and 123 is enough for me. Traffic coming off I-66 is usually hitting
around 50 mph in a 35 zone. If the light is green, its GO LIKE HELL to
Rt. 50. If its yellow, it means FLOOR IT!. Red means, well...maybe.
When the cameras were on before, the traffic really improved and some
people actually slowed down and stopped for the light. Pedestrian
traffic was greatly improved as I didnt feel like I was running for
my life every time I crossed the street. If people dont want a ticket
all they have to do is slow down and stop for the light. Even if they
dont get a ticket the psychological impact of the Flash going off
is a deterrent. Just my own personal observation.

I think the red stop lights with the white strobe in them is more effective. You see these lights some places in Arlington, never seen one in Ffx. Sometimes it's easy to miss a red light, but it's hard to miss those strobes.

I see the constitutionality angle as a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, the tickets do seem to violate presumption of innocence to some extent.

On the other hand, a camera won't pull you over, and start looking for additional violations, and potentially then try to sobriety test you or search your vehicle for some vague reason. If police aren't doing as much red light and speed enforcement, it gives them less opportunity to pull you over and usurp your rights through other interpersonal means.

NSL, there is a strobe red light at the intersection of rt 7 and... colvin run mill? I think that's right.

R is for rear end collision! you take in your seat! C is for a camera C. U. N. Tv! K is for KOMPRESSOR! KOMPRESSOR DOES NOT DANCE!

Usurp your rights? Shut up..everything you mentioned must have surely happened to "a friend" of yours and not you b/c you smelled of alcohol and were speeding or whatever else.....oh, I'm sorry, I mean you were just driving along and minding your own business when you were singled out for no reason. Give me a break...

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NSL, there is a strobe red light at the
> intersection of rt 7 and... colvin run mill? I
> think that's right.


That's the only one I know of in FFX County.

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the red stop lights with the white strobe
> in them is more effective. You see these lights
> some places in Arlington, never seen one in Ffx.
> Sometimes it's easy to miss a red light, but it's
> hard to miss those strobes.

Most of the people who run red lights are not going to stop running them just because of a strobe light. Although that probably will help to reduce the most dangerous kinds, where some idiot on a cell phone or otherwise not paying attention blows through the light well after it has cycled green for the cross-street.

The majority of red light runners are self-important assholes who were stuck behind a long line of cars and are mad that they didn't make the light, so they go through anyway. But even though they are assholes, the DOT has figured them into the timing of the lights. They delay the green for the cross-traffic a few seconds.

I think they should just do what Germany does -- when I see a yellow to warn me to stop for the upcoming red, the people sitting on the cross street are seeing a yellow to let them know to start accelerating for the green. Anyone approaching a yellow-going-red always stops, because they know that if they don't, there'll be cars crossing into their path almost immediately.

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the red stop lights with the white strobe
> in them is more effective. You see these lights
> some places in Arlington, never seen one in Ffx.
> Sometimes it's easy to miss a red light, but it's
> hard to miss those strobes.

it would be interesting to see what they would do if one of the strobe cameras caused someone to have a seizure, cross into oncoming traffic and kill the other person.

---

oh and this is just one more reason to drive AROUND unfairfax city. i always take braddock road because going through fairfax city takes fucking forever.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2009 08:01PM by Gravis.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NSL, there is a strobe red light at the
> intersection of rt 7 and... colvin run mill? I
> think that's right.


I always thought the strobe was there to warn people that there's a red light.

Speedy Gonzalez Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The state also requires a law enforcement officer
> to review every ticket issued by a red light
> camera before it's sent out, and Drummond says the
> city will abide by that rule. He says not one city
> resident showed up at a public hearing to oppose
> the reinstitution of red light cameras, and he's
> only received one e-mail from a resident who
> doesn't want them.

I guess he didn't post a request for comments here.

Another reason to avoid Fairfax City and shop some place else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862893.stm

Typical WTOP article. They mess everything up and can't write.

They start an article with "watch your speed" and you have to figure out for yourself that they aren't talking about speed cameras at all, but red light cameras.

> Another reason to avoid Fairfax City and shop some place else.

Yup, absolutely.

I realized that Fairfax Circle must be getting primed for red light cameras yesterday when I went through it. The yellow light duration had been reset to all of maybe 1 seconds!!!

I am going to shop elsewhere to avoid getting ticketed by the clear revenue-raising efforts.

Dan Drummond says it is not the intent that it be a revenue generating program? Really now. If it was truly about public safety, then the tickets would be reportable events in terms of point accumulation. Of course, that wouldn't be politically viable since it would inflame so many citizens they could not sustain the practice. So in the end it is all about the revenue.

Here's an article on rigged short-yellows. I wonder how auditable Farifax City's enforcement system will be?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/italian-red-light-cameras-rigged-with-shorter-yellow-lights.ars

"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

So they can send tickets but can't make you pay them?

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So they can send tickets but can't make you pay
> them?

Correct. And they can continue to do so legally, since payments are being made 'voluntarily'.

The code actually states that courts can mail you the summons for red light tickets: https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-76.2 This is in spite of (sort of...) VA code https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-76 which requires in person summons only.

But the code clearly indicates that if someone fails to respond to the mailed summons the court has to deliver the summons in person before they can penalize them in any way: If the person fail 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 of this Code.

The bottom line is that if you don't respond to the mailed summons, they have to send the sheriff out to personally give you the summons before they can penalize you for not responding. That of course drives the cost up and their red light ticket profit down...and one has to wonder if the courts will just abandon those cases which don't respond to the regular mail.

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 60 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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2009 12:52PM by trogdor!.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So they can send tickets but can't make you pay
> > them?
>
> Correct. And they can continue to do so legally,
> since payments are being made 'voluntarily'.
>
> The code actually states that courts can mail you
> the summons for red light tickets:
> https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c
> od+19.2-76.2 This is in spite of (sort of...) VA
> code
> https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+c
> od+19.2-76 which requires in person summons only.
>
> But the code clearly indicates that if someone
> fails to respond to the mailed summons the court
> has to deliver the summons in person before they
> can penalize them in any way: If the person fail
> 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 of this Code.
>
> The bottom line is that if you don't respond to
> the mailed summons, they have to send the sheriff
> out to personally give you the summons before they
> can penalize you for not responding. That of
> course drives the cost up and their red light
> ticket profit down...and one has to wonder if the
> courts will just abandon those cases which don't
> respond to the regular mail.
>
> 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 60
> 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.


Very interesting. I suppose there are some conflicts in the law that
need to be resolved. You are obviously far more knowledgeable in
legal matters than I am. (two semesters of Business Law
doesnt get me very far here) Personally, I could care less if the
cameras are a "profit center" or not. I remember when the camera
next to my house drastically improved safety in the intersection.
Just out of curiosity, if you fail to pay the fine or contest it
it court, will it come back to haunt you should you be involved in
any other traffic violations that send you to court?

I have a much simpler solution...slow down!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a much simpler solution...slow down!

While peripherally relevant, these are red light cameras and not speeding cameras. Slow people go through red lights too.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have a much simpler solution...slow down!
>
> While peripherally relevant, these are red light
> cameras and not speeding cameras. Slow people go
> through red lights too.


but if you go through an intersection slow enough it wont trigger the camera and wont take a picture. Traffic sucks around here enough without people avoiding the picture and a fine by rolling slowly along at 5 MPH

Does this mean you need to do the exact speed limit or lower or does it let you get away with going say 5 MPH over?

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does this mean you need to do the exact speed
> limit or lower or does it let you get away with
> going say 5 MPH over?


haha U R A RTRD these are red lite cameras dummy

just slow down and you wont be going through red lights Mr Genious!

Speedy Gonzalez Wrote:

> I remember
> when the camera
> next to my house drastically improved safety in
> the intersection.

I wonder if you really know that though. It's clear that local governments have 'cooked the books' to make the cameras appear to be increasing safety. Such as:

Houston Manipulated Study to Make Red Light Cameras Appear Safer http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2675.asp

and this one, from Fairfax County: Virginia: How Shortened Yellow Yielded Greater Profit http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2650.asp

Both show that it's easy to falsify the safety numbers and that there is clearly a financial incentive to do so.

> Just out of curiosity, if you fail to pay the fine
> or contest it
> it court, will it come back to haunt you should
> you be involved in
> any other traffic violations that send you to
> court?

I imagine if you contest the ticket, you will automatically lose. If you fail to pay it, you may or may not be issued a personal summons. Obviously you won't want to ignore the court's summons, but it's important to note that mail gets lost all the time. That's the reason why the court can't penalize you for not responding (because they can't be certain you were notified). If they do pull you in many months/years later for an old ticket, I would think you could make a valid claim that your rights to due process had been violated.

As far as your driving record goes, I'm not sure if the red light cameras result in points on your license.

And for the record, I think that habitual red light runners should be thrown in jail for a year or so and have their licenses permanently revoked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2009 12:47AM by trogdor!.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speedy Gonzalez Wrote:
>
> > I remember
> > when the camera
> > next to my house drastically improved safety in
> > the intersection.
>
> I wonder if you really know that though. It's
> clear that local governments have 'cooked the
> books' to make the cameras appear to be increasing
> safety. Such as:
>
> Houston Manipulated Study to Make Red Light
> Cameras Appear Safer
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2675.asp
>
> and this one, from Fairfax County: Virginia: How
> Shortened Yellow Yielded Greater Profit
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2650.asp
>
> Both show that it's easy to falsify the safety
> numbers and that there is clearly a financial
> incentive to do so.
>
> > Just out of curiosity, if you fail to pay the
> fine
> > or contest it
> > it court, will it come back to haunt you should
> > you be involved in
> > any other traffic violations that send you to
> > court?
>
> I imagine if you contest the ticket, you will
> automatically lose. If you fail to pay it, you
> may or may not be issued a personal summons.
> Obviously you won't want to ignore the court's
> summons, but it's important to note that mail gets
> lost all the time. That's the reason why the
> court can't penalize you for not responding
> (because they can't be certain you were notified).
> If they do pull you in many months/years later for
> an old ticket, I would think you could make a
> valid claim that your rights to due process had
> been violated.
>
> As far as your driving record goes, I'm not sure
> if the red light cameras result in points on your
> license.
>
> And for the record, I think that habitual red
> light runners should be thrown in jail for a year
> or so and have their licenses permanently revoked.

Lets just say that I felt much safer after the cameras were installed.
I cross the intersection of Eaton Place and Chain Bridge at least three
times per day on foot. Prior to the camera, I had to sprint across
when the light changed due to drivers who floor it when the light
changed and also watch for drivers turning onto Chain Bridge who simply
ignored the light entirely. I guess its just my own gut feeling, but drivers actually started paying attention to the light. This is a very busy
intersection during the rush and Im accustomed to hearing the
"Screeeech..BAMMM!!!" at least once per day

I once asked a Fairfax City cop what he thought of the camera and he
informed me that it wasnt really that effective because 90% of the
folks who contested a ticket actually won. (I dont know how accurate
his statement was) Perhaps I'm being selfish, but for my own safety
and especially for the young children in the neighborhood (who are mostly
unsupervised) I'd like to see the camera turned back on.

Trogdor,
I forgot to say thanks for your well informed replies. I appreciate
your input.

Speedys..your a cocksucker!! YAY!

Speedy sucks cock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speedys..your a cocksucker!! YAY!

I can tell you are a deep thinker. Speedy straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFgouHdlro

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So they can send tickets but can't make you pay
> them?


This helful hint has been on the wiki for a long time http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/wiki/Traffic_Ticket_Help#Red_Light_Camera_Ticket

not that anyone reads the wiki

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So they can send tickets but can't make you pay
> > them?
>
>
> This helful hint has been on the wiki for a long
> time
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/wiki/Traffic_Tic
> ket_Help#Red_Light_Camera_Ticket
>
> not that anyone reads the wiki


Better solution..obey the law!

Best solution: avoid Fairfax and spend your money where people are welcomed, not entrapped.

With the yellow lights dramatically shortened - as they now are at Fairfax Circle - they will be snagging people who had no intention at all of running a red light.

Vince,
I don't think this is an issue of obeying the law, there are numerous studies that show that the duration of the yellow has been shortened in order to increase the amount of red light tickets. Fairfax County is very aware of this, and has been caught red-handed playing with these timings.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2650.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2593.asp

WashPo did a great article on this a few years ago and uncovered that DC ha brought in over $150 Million from these devices. At the same time, they have increased wrecks and made the roads less safe, all in the name of a dollar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

IF these devices were calibrated so that the yellows were longer, I would be all for it, but as it stands now, they aren't making us any safer. This is a tax without calling it a tax.

In Maryland, some kids are running through these intersections with their a fake license plate of one of their friends on their car and their friends are getting the tickets.
http://boingboing.net/2009/01/06/naughty-speed-camera.html

Still feel safer?