Atomic City Talk

I wanted to alert everyone to the fact that the City Council's worksession on Red Light Cameras has been moved to a new location and that the information published in Thursday's Observer is no longer correct.

The meeting will actually be held at the Municipal Building in the Courtroom at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, June 2.

Obviously, this issue has created a fair amount of discussion and some controversy, so I'm hoping all those interested in the issue will make Monday's meeting.

Thanks.

Stan
------------------
Stan Mitchell
The Oak Ridge Observer
Direct: (865) 483-1866
Fax: (865) 483-1630
http://oakridgeobserver.com

Thx Stan! Regret I will be out of town that evening, but have passed my thoughts and concerns to Mayor Beehan and Councilman Hensley. My primary concern is that the vendor (who will install and monitor the cameras for no fee -- but a large share of the levied fines) will stipulate that the city must REDUCE the yellow light duration. Instead, we should consider lengthening the yellow light duration (and/or the "all Red" overlap duration) in addition to any effort to install cameras.

Agreed, deichmans: whether or not cameras are added (but ESPECIALLY if they are), the yellow light needs to be lengthened along with the "all red" in key areas.

Just yesterday afternoon, amid heavy traffic, I watched a tractor-trailer blow through the red light at the Turnpike and Lafayette. He knew plenty ahead of time that the light was turning, but accelerated as he neared the intersection.

The profit motive is certainly reason to be wary of the red light cameras, but seeing daily examples of people failing to stop keeps me open to considering the idea.

JM: I think RLCs would be a deterrent - after all, how many of us are deterred from parking at a red curb or handicapped spot? RLC citations are legally treated the same as parking tickets: no points and no misdemeanor, but rather a civil fine against the vehicle owner.

This is far preferable to the alternative (i.e., the state being able to indict citizens through Orwellian surveillance). And since the citations are civil infractions (vice criminal), they're far more difficult to fight in court: the burden of proof falls on the indicted and not on the state.

There were links to other studies provided in the other 2 threads on the subject. To those that oppose red light cameras, I ask 2 questions:

1. Do you deny that there is a problem with red-light runners in Oak Ridge?
2. If not, what do you propose that we do to reduce the number of infractions (and thus, the risk of injury to motorists and pedestrians)?

The operative question is not whether or not to install RLCs, but rather *how* they should be installed.

Some communities see a drop in accidents, while others have seen an increase. The independent variable in these cases seems to be the duration of the yellow light and the "all red" pause before turning the cross traffic light green.

Communities that reduced yellow light durations from four seconds to three saw an increase in citations issued (i.e., more revenue for the monitoring company) as well as an increase in accidents.

So, JM, I think we'd be safer WITHOUT these cameras if the installing company stipulates a decrease in yellow light duration -- or otherwise does not agree to the city's option (as NM noted above) for *increasing* yellow and all-red times.

The communities that fared best were those that accompanied RLCs with longer yellow lights, longer all-red durations, and an active public information campaign.

You can find a study to suit anything you want it to. I agree wih D as I have seen first hand the problems these cameras can cause because of the limited time the light stays yellow. The increase in rear end collisions would be the result of that. Do people run red lights, Trina that is a stupid question, of course they do. Will this solve or compund the problem, who knows. I object to them for personal reasons. I was almost rear ended and had to veer off to avoid it and then was almost hit by oncoming traffic when I veered off. so yes, I oppose them.

You've stated your opinion. What is your contribution to the solution?

The city will control the timing of the caution yellow etc. The vendor will not have access to that. Why are some so paranoid to this? Surely you do not think the city is focused on revenue rather than safety. I am all for installing them and stopping the deliberate running of red lights.

Some folks have even objected to the lowering of the speed limit on the section of the turnpike under construction to 35mph, yet they were all for widening it. They will really scream when that section is reduced to two lanes starting tomorrow, Monday. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's all about safety. Drive defensively and with common sense and you have nothing to fear.

Install the cameras! Don't force me to cast a spell over city council to accomplish this small task... I'm running low on spell casting supplies as it is!!!!

Merlin, with all lanes open except for a short stretch being worked on, or when no work was being done at all, it seemed silly to me to lower the speed limit for the whole 4 miles or so. It was really bad for the City to begin issuing speeding tickets within an hour and a half of the change... really dings the "it's not about the revenue" argument (but no, I haven't gotten any tickets).

Provided that the City does not shorten the yellow lights (and lengthens those that are already less than four seconds), I'm FOR the red light cameras. Having read several of the studies cited, that seems to be the key to improving safety.