3 Detroit reps would bring red-light cameras to Michigan

**Sandhouse** · May-23-13, 03:34 PM

Three state representatives from Detroit introduced a bill yesterday that would legalize automated traffic-ticket machines in Michigan. Representatives Durhal and Stallworth, joined by Democrats Banks [[Harper Woods), Stanley [[Flint), Yanez [[Sterling Heights) and Dianda [[Calumet) joined Republicans Schmidt [[Traverse City) and McCready [[Bloomfield Hills) in sponsoring the bill. HB 4763 would allow local governments to hire firms to operate cameras to ticket drivers turning right on red lights without stopping for at least 1 second, or who are too late for a yellow light.

The bill appears to have been written by one of the automated-ticket firms that are making millions from drivers in 26 states. It's an astonishingly-cynical scheme to con local officials and state legislators into approving automated tickets. Convictions would be like parking tickets, and would not be considered a "moving violation." The bill says the fines would not affect "provision of insurance" [[but no mention of not affecting your premiums). No driver-license points would accumulate, so you can keep your license [[and keep on paying fines).

Fines would be $275, including a big share for the camera operator. The rest would go to the local government, except for $5 for a new Trauma Fund, to turn Michigan's doctors and hospitals into a permanent lobby to make the program hard to get rid of once enacted.

The camera firm would be immune from FOIA, and its statements would be enough to convict the motorist, with no standards of accuracy. Once a city council enacts a camera ordinance, local voters would have only 30 days to begin an effort to overturn it by referendum.

It was probably only a matter of time before the camera vendors targeted Michigan as their next victim. No doubt Detroit and other broke cities are ripe candidates for these machines that can take money hand over fist from auto drivers who have grown used to turning right on red without a time-wasting stop. Who knows--these guys may be handing out bigger checks than Matty Moroun.

**DetroitPlanner** · May-23-13, 04:02 PM

I take it you have issues with this. Privacy? Are you a habitual offender? This is one of the areas my agency struggles with.

This has been very controversial in Toledo. http://www.toledopolice.com/red_light_cameras.html

**chief1356** · May-23-13, 04:35 PM

I would spare no effort to try and prevent the introduction of red light and speed cameras. Once introduced there is evidence camera companies shorten yellow light time increasing the number of tickets written. Most tickets are issued within .2 and .8 seconds of light changing so not much change is needed. There is no way of disputing ticket and no court to appear in. There are also disputes about cameras issuing tickets at right on red after cars have made complete stops. These are just another case of politicians abusing citizens.

**rex** · May-23-13, 05:15 PM

you know where they can pack this idea...

**downtownguy** · May-23-13, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Sandhouse

It was probably only a matter of time before the camera vendors targeted Michigan as their next victim. No doubt Detroit and other broke cities are ripe candidates for these machines that can take money hand over fist from auto drivers who have grown used to turning right on red without a time-wasting stop. Who knows--these guys may be handing out bigger checks than Matty Moroun.

In concept, I can't say I'm against the idea. I just watched one car today pull into the parking lane at a red light on Jefferson. After a few moments, he barreled through. A few moments later, a copycat in another lane did the same thing. They know the chances are slim to none that a cop is going to get them. And from your comment, Sandhouse, do you also think you're above the law? A time-wasting stop? So you should overrule a law because you think coming to a complete stop is a waste of time?

I will however say that I'm not keen on the lack of oversight. I don't know why these tickets should be treated any different than another moving violation. I think they should get points after they've had their day in court if they are found guilty. Since this is a new law, why do we have to repeat the mistakes and controversies that other states have made? Push the reps to write a fair law and I'll support it.

**Richard** · May-23-13, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by chief1356

I would spare no effort to try and prevent the introduction of red light and speed cameras. Once introduced there is evidence camera companies shorten yellow light time increasing the number of tickets written. Most tickets are issued within .2 and .8 seconds of light changing so not much change is needed. There is no way of disputing ticket and no court to appear in. There are also disputes about cameras issuing tickets at right on red after cars have made complete stops. These are just another case of politicians abusing citizens.

I agree with this, where I am at the tv news crew busted the yellow light timing delay meddling , after it was corrected tickets issiued decreased 80%.

They also play with the ticket notification issiue , 30 days to respond but by the time you recieve the notice you have a week left and not enough time to dispute.

Its kinda like the cell phone road side assistance , they bank the funds and pay off of the interest , so you bank as much as possiable as fast as possiable and worry about the drawbacks later , there has been no refunds of those who payed before the scams aspect is discovered so much is lost.

OP was it really necessary to mention Mr . Moroun to prove a point?

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · May-23-13, 11:04 PM

A bunch of communities here in CA have started to remove red light cameras.

**wolverine** · May-23-13, 11:47 PM

Well at least you have to completely run a red light for it to work. This isn't some yellow / red, oh I couldn't stop in time. No....it's crossing into the intersection when cross traffic is present. It's hard to prove otherwise because the induction loops are well into the intersection. You can dispute a citation if the person operating the vehicle was not you. They have been tossed because of poor photographic quality of the driver

....Or because the operator was on a motorcycle and made a left on a solid red because of light uncertainty or an inconvenient waiting time, which is permissible by law in some states.

But in my opinion, Michigan doesn't need them. It's not going to make the streets any safer and it's just more administrative crap to deal with. Cities don't make all that much money. Maybe a $1 million in it for Detroit.

**Wheels** · May-24-13, 10:07 AM

It has always been my understanding that the Michigan State Constitution has a Right To Face Your Accuser clause that makes this and other type of relay hand off type ticketing illegal.

If allowed to change this we could see planes giving speeding tickets and many other money grabbing scams.

**Gannon** · May-24-13, 10:56 AM

In every location I am aware of where these have been implemented, they have been abused. Every one.

So, no. In no way, shape, or form should this be even discussed. Dismissed out-of-hand, especially due those with experience taking them out after the contract expires. Thanks, DetroiterontheWestCoast for the update.

These reps need to be remembered come the next election cycle. They are easily bought, if they can be duped into bringing this to the floor.

**corktownyuppie** · May-24-13, 11:23 AM

I'm good with the cameras. I'm not ok with the no oversight. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here in Detroit we need to automate as much public safety stuff as we can.

I'd push to find a law that will allow us to learn from these abuses and correct them.

**RO_Resident** · May-24-13, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Wheels

It has always been my understanding that the Michigan State Constitution has a Right To Face Your Accuser clause that makes this and other type of relay hand off type ticketing illegal.

If allowed to change this we could see planes giving speeding tickets and many other money grabbing scams.

Some communities/law enforcement organizations investigated if it would be feasible to install red light cameras about a decade ago. They came to the conclusion that the cameras would not pass legal muster because of the right to face your accuser. Another factor was that judges traditionally had stricter scrutiny for having human witnesses for alleged violations.

One officer stated that reckless driving tickets were dismissed if the peace officer only saw the aftermath of a wreck--damn the skid marks, car in a ditch, etc. There had to be an eyewitness for those types of tickets to stick.

**Danny** · May-24-13, 01:45 PM

Good ideal! That would increase BIG BROTHER's surveillance to everyone who drives through a red light. We have to too many auto accidents and insurance companies and complaining about lawsuits and costs. So when you see an orange light turing red STOP or else!

**Honky Tonk** · May-24-13, 01:55 PM

I, personally, am tired of watching people blow through red lights, [[I'm not talking within miliseconds), passing me @ 60 in the parking lane, pulling halfway out into a busy street @ a high rate of speed, and only then stopping, and all the other life threatening driving I see going on daily. On the hand, some of the other camera abuses cited on this forum are totally unacceptable, and remind me the terms "shooting fish in a barrel" or "sitting ducks". If I'm popped for actually doing something illegal, I'll take my punishment. I don't like being taken advantage of. The cameras might be a good thing if the companies are held accountable for their actions.

**Cliffy** · May-24-13, 02:32 PM

I can just imagine in the city of Detroit. Those machines will be firing tickets left and right and probably to the address of the driver whose car is stolen.

**compn** · May-24-13, 03:22 PM

sure, put up expensive cameras unsecured in a city that has limited police resources.
scrappers, get out your hacksaws.
vandals, get out your hacksaws.
grafiti artists, get out your paint.

dangerous driving is a big thing here in michigan.
these cameras will do nothing to change it.

the extra lights in detroit[[and suburbs) need to be removed. how many times have you sat at a light intersection of one busy road and one dead end road and observed zero traffic cross? why is that light still active? whos paying for that light to be on? we are!

actual things that will end dangerous driving:
0) have cars drive themselves
1) making all cars have breathalyzers to start them
2) make any cell phone travelling faster than 5mph disable itself completely.
3) more police to pull over dangerous drivers
4) force everyone to have a dash cam like they do in russia.
^^^^^^
i am for all of the above things to get rid of dangerous driving. but i am not for intersection cameras.

the cameras are the definition of evil. they shorten the yellow lights and make people slam on the brakes, thus causing rear-end collisions to avoid a ticket.

how will the cameras help avoid people tailgaiting? it wont. you know how many people tailgate you thru a yellow light? daily occurance for me. sometimes i count 3 people in my lane follow me thru an intersection. this is in the suburbs! its not a detroit only thing.

write to your represenative and tell them how stupid they are. WRITE THEM NOW!

**Novine** · May-24-13, 03:49 PM

" It's not going to make the streets any safer and it's just more administrative crap to deal with."

Better go do some research. The cameras do make the streets safer.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/05/16...as-save-lives/

**SMRJim** · May-24-13, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sandhouse

Three state representatives from Detroit introduced a bill yesterday that would legalize automated traffic-ticket machines in Michigan. Representatives Durhal and Stallworth, joined by Democrats Banks [[Harper Woods), Stanley [[Flint), Yanez [[Sterling Heights) and Dianda [[Calumet) joined Republicans Schmidt [[Traverse City) and McCready [[Bloomfield Hills) in sponsoring the bill. HB 4763 would allow local governments to hire firms to operate cameras to ticket drivers turning right on red lights without stopping for at least 1 second, or who are too late for a yellow light.

The bill appears to have been written by one of the automated-ticket firms that are making millions from drivers in 26 states. It's an astonishingly-cynical scheme to con local officials and state legislators into approving automated tickets. Convictions would be like parking tickets, and would not be considered a "moving violation." The bill says the fines would not affect "provision of insurance" [[but no mention of not affecting your premiums). No driver-license points would accumulate, so you can keep your license [[and keep on paying fines).

Fines would be $275, including a big share for the camera operator. The rest would go to the local government, except for $5 for a new Trauma Fund, to turn Michigan's doctors and hospitals into a permanent lobby to make the program hard to get rid of once enacted.

The camera firm would be immune from FOIA, and its statements would be enough to convict the motorist, with no standards of accuracy. Once a city council enacts a camera ordinance, local voters would have only 30 days to begin an effort to overturn it by referendum.

It was probably only a matter of time before the camera vendors targeted Michigan as their next victim. No doubt Detroit and other broke cities are ripe candidates for these machines that can take money hand over fist from auto drivers who have grown used to turning right on red without a time-wasting stop. Who knows--these guys may be handing out bigger checks than Matty Moroun.

How anyone can be for this is so far beyond me it's beyond words. But I'm sure eventually it will happen, because there is LOTS of money to be made. So if I make a turn on a red without waiting for 1 second even though I know there is no traffic coming whatsoever I'm a danger to society, right? Meanwhile some idiot who waits for more than 1 second and then turns right in front of an oncoming car who has the right of way and makes them slam their brakes on [[I see this fairly frequently) doesn't get a ticket. Oh, and I'm sure they'll NEVER malfunction. Just like the cameras that regulate traffic lights, right? Absolutely laughable, but fitting for where this country seems to be headed these days.

**compn** · May-24-13, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"
Better go do some research. The cameras do make the streets safer.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/05/16...as-save-lives/

from that blog post:

A few studies have found that red light cameras do increase rear end collisions, but the data is not consistent.

**Novine** · May-24-13, 10:40 PM

If you're going to cherry-pick to make a point, you better do a better job than that. Let's compare.

"A 2011 study by IIHS comparing cities with red light cameras to those without them found that in the 14 largest U.S. cities, the cameras reduced fatal red-light-running collisions by 24 percent. Even more impressive, they seemed to promote safe driver behavior more generally. The researchers found that cities with red light cameras saw 17 percent fewer fatal crashes at signalized intersections, per capita, than cities without cameras"

"A few studies have found that red light cameras do increase rear end collisions, but the data is not consistent. In addition, these types of collisions tend to be minor fender-benders, which pose far smaller risks than the type of high-speed, side-impact collisions that the cameras prevent, says Kara Macek, a spokeswoman with the Governors Highway Safety Association."

You prefer avoiding low speed, low injury crashes as opposed to preventing high speed, high fatality crashes. You lose.

**compn** · May-25-13, 08:13 AM

increase the yellow light to 5 seconds and i'll support red light cameras.

i mean, you agree they can create more rear-end accidents, right?
lets diminish that by extending the yellow light.

**douglasm** · May-25-13, 09:24 AM

Out where I am, the city lengthened the yellow light at intersections with cameras in the downtown core. After a period of "adjustment" by drivers, the number of tickets issued for running the red light went down to the point that, for the city at least, the cameras are a break even issue. Where the current savings is coming from is decreased officer time investigating accidents at those lights.

**Richard** · May-25-13, 10:08 AM

I think the biggest problem is the privately owned aspect,when a camera is placed until awareness happens it is a good revenue producer,once people know they are there yes they are more cautious and there is a reduction in accidents.

But it takes a certain amount of revenue to have the device there if public awareness causes the revenue to drop 80% then the fudging starts.

The city where I am at collected 6 million in the first year ,next years numbers will tell if it is feasible.

I think if anything this should be a city owned thing and used only in high trouble spots and then moved around so one really never knows if they will be there or not to raise public awareness as a whole.

On the other hand you have a city that at this time has a problem collecting any kind of taxes,tickets,and parking fines ,so to add yet another expense creating aspect to the burden is proably not such a good idea.

**313WX** · May-25-13, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

I think the biggest problem is the privately owned aspect,when a camera is placed until awareness happens it is a good revenue producer,once people know they are there yes they are more cautious and there is a reduction in accidents.

But it takes a certain amount of revenue to have the device there if public awareness causes the revenue to drop 80% then the fudging starts.

The city where I am at collected 6 million in the first year ,next years numbers will tell if it is feasible.

I think if anything this should be a city owned thing and used only in high trouble spots and then moved around so one really never knows if they will be there or not to raise public awareness as a whole.

On the other hand you have a city that at this time has a problem collecting any kind of taxes,tickets,and parking fines ,so to add yet another expense creating aspect to the burden is proably not such a good idea.

Agreed. As long as this remains in the public domain, I don't have a problem with the cameras.

**chief1356** · May-25-13, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Agreed. As long as this remains in the public domain, I don't have a problem with the cameras.

Why would you trust politicians or bureaucrats anymore than a businessman? Are they more honest in dealing with the citizens than businessmen? Witness the IRS scandal,were those bureaucrats caring of the citizens they were dealing with?
The politicians,in wanting to install red light cameras, are motivated by the same thing as a businessman, money. No one would believe that they will only install them at a few locations. When the revenue drops at those sites they will to put more cameras up or they will shorten yellow time but I would bet they would do BOTH.