Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 New Revenue Stream - Speeders and Red Light Runners Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Belleislerunner
Member
Username: Belleislerunner

Post Number: 255
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 198.204.133.208
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 5:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Has the city of Detroit looked into cameras for catching speeders? An article in DC today states that the District now collect over $3 million a month from speeders. Seems like a sure way for Detroit to capitalize on the illegality of those who choose to break the law. Seems like an extra $36 million a year could go a long way in helping Detroit's budget woes.

WASHINGTON -- There's a new high for monthly fines from the District's automated speed limit cameras.

The Metropolitan Police Department collected a record $3.3 million in March. That raised the 5-year-old program's total revenue to more than $100 million.

It's the first time the program has collected more than $3 million in a single month. But a technical glitch may be to blame. Police officials said a few tickets from February may have been processed in March.

Police said about 3 million cars and trucks were monitored in March, and just over 2 percent of those vehicles received tickets for speeding. That's down from nearly 30 percent of vehicles that received tickets when the program began in 2001

www.nbc4.com
Top of pageBottom of page

Jjw
Member
Username: Jjw

Post Number: 94
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 68.33.56.156
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 5:56 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

they have them all over baltimore also---big money-maker for the city and also cutting way back on folks deciding to run red lights and banging into someone
Top of pageBottom of page

Funkycarrie
Member
Username: Funkycarrie

Post Number: 209
Registered: 02-2004
Posted From: 69.208.117.53
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 5:59 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

they could make a fortune.....costs money to make the money though.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rrl
Member
Username: Rrl

Post Number: 478
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 71.213.228.212
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 6:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Heh, the DPD prolly doesn't want them, they'd be the biggest violator of running reds, now verified on film.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wilus1mj
Member
Username: Wilus1mj

Post Number: 61
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 216.111.89.3
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 6:25 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DC has more daily traffic than Detroit, the revenue numbers wouldn't be 3 million/month.
Top of pageBottom of page

Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed

Post Number: 148
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 209.220.229.254
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 6:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would support red light cameras (that didn't snap the instant the light turned red) but I would not support speeding cameras. Red light running is dangerous in its very essence. Speed is not necessarily dangerous.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 1462
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.100.158.10
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 6:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

DC has more daily traffic than Detroit, the revenue numbers wouldn't be 3 million/month.




Detroit also doesn't have the idiots from Maryland barreling through its neighborhoods at warp speed.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ptero
Member
Username: Ptero

Post Number: 30
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 4.229.60.59
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 6:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There's timing!

TV news, ch.4 or 7, just did a story on the five o'clock news about Southgate planning to install cameras for red light runners. Coming soon.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 15
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.246.96.250
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 7:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I didn't look further into this, but I had always thought that certain states passed laws allowing tickets to be given solely on video or camera evidence, and Michigan is still not one of them. Which is why those little machines the police put on the side of the road that show you your speed are somewhat of an empty threat. Anybody know the legal facts on this?
Top of pageBottom of page

Belleislerunner
Member
Username: Belleislerunner

Post Number: 256
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 198.204.133.208
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 7:23 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dan might be able to clarify but the article focuses on speeders, not so much on red light runners. I'm sure a few cameras on Belle Isle, Jefferson and Woodward would find many who ignore the speed limit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 5771
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 70.236.198.22
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 8:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Always centers around positive driver ID...and we don't mandate front license plates.

Out west, they will pull you over if you don't have a front plate. If I remember right, that is how that Ann Arbor fellow that murdered those two people in their condo got caught in Utah...got pulled over because of no front plate, and because his trunk was dragging dangerously low...from the weight in the trunk of his stolen car.


LA had those camera-ticket machines for running red lights when I lived there...one light always seemed to defy my attempts at counting a rhythm with the 'don't walk' flashing before the yellow...and sure enough a few years later they got caught adjusting the timing of the light change and had to refund a whole shitload of bogus tickets.

The City had been working with a private company, and was allowing them a very high percentage of the profits...and they apparently had bent the rules to their favor.

Right, as IF the city didn't know about the scheme...
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitaldom
Member
Username: Digitaldom

Post Number: 435
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 24.192.148.150
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 9:18 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

People in Detroit Speed and Run red lights more in the city than any other I have been too.. Yeah one problem.. Most of those cars are stolen.. Oops.. Someone is getting a ticket.. That didn't do the crime..
Top of pageBottom of page

Reetz12
Member
Username: Reetz12

Post Number: 48
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 68.40.172.108
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 10:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm not sure if this related, but on the local freeways, what are the solar poles installed about every 1-2 miles for?
Top of pageBottom of page

Ro_resident
Member
Username: Ro_resident

Post Number: 159
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 69.14.126.140
Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 11:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There was a push to create enabling legislation to allow red light cameras a few years ago. The push didn't make it very far--the way Michigan's laws are set up, it hard to implement an automated ticketing system and make it stick.

As a side note, the traffic sensors were installed by Traffic.com to monitor traffic flows on the area freeways. The sensors imbedded in the pavement were too far apart for the system they use. The new sensors fill in the gaps.

http://www.oakpostonline.com/p hpnuke/modules.php?name=News&f ile=article&sid=48
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 19
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.246.96.250
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 1:00 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"the traffic sensors were installed by Traffic.com to monitor traffic flows on the area freeways."

Traffic.com paid to have sensors put in that MDOT uses to monitor and respond to traffic? Is traffic.com a private organization? If not, that's quite a deal.
Top of pageBottom of page

Chitaku
Member
Username: Chitaku

Post Number: 301
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 68.43.107.72
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 1:44 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

no big brother in Detroit!
Top of pageBottom of page

Wolverine
Member
Username: Wolverine

Post Number: 147
Registered: 04-2004
Posted From: 24.231.201.120
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 1:56 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So what is the purpose for the cameras I'm seeing above the stoplights at a couple dozen major SE Michigan intersections? Is it just for traffic monitoring then?
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulj
Member
Username: Paulj

Post Number: 359
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 68.250.41.176
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 2:43 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think it's a good idea, just based on the general attitude towards traffic laws in the city.


If nothing else (due to state law on automated traffic ticket machines), the cameras could help identify stolen cars and the general whereabouts that they are being used in, like in Europe. I would go out on a limb and venture a guess that the majority of those stealing vehicles, or using stolen vehicles, run at least as many lights as the law abiding citizens who occasionally make a lapse in judgement and therefore this is a legitamate screening measure.
Also, Maybe after being caught on camera x ammount of times, one could at least recieve a letter of warning and a note in their driving file to any potential judge saying 'hey, this person is habitual and doesn't deserve as much leinency'.


of course, this requires a functioning police system that pursues stolen cars on more than a 'whoops, we just happened to randomly pull you over today' method. Our current police system realistically can't keep up with the homicide rate, so now we're deep into theory.
















"Never try to teach a pig a sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 987
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 64.142.86.133
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 2:46 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe red light cameras, NeVER speed cameras.

Other cities have shortened yellows to increase red light running revenue.

The thing that gets me is they say they do it in the name of "safety". Well, you wanna know what's actually safer than installing red light cameras? Longer yellows and longer overlap of red lights (before the other direction switches to green).

But that doesn't generate millions now does it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulj
Member
Username: Paulj

Post Number: 360
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 68.250.41.176
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 2:52 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

agreed there.

lengthen yellows, and no speed cameras.

but deliberate red-light-runners deserve all the attention we can give them. Says this experinced, urban motorcyclist, anyways.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ptero
Member
Username: Ptero

Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 4.229.36.52
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 8:55 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wolverine, at least some of the cameras at intersections are for monitoring traffic flow and adjusting timings. This FastTrac system has resulted in better flow and less backups on Rochester road for one.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gannon
Member
Username: Gannon

Post Number: 5772
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 70.236.198.22
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 9:50 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, that Roch Road system was the first in the Metro area, I think. They went on and on when the system was installed on how it was ONLY for traffic flow control.

When it was first switched on, it wasn't calibrated very well, and the fine folks who have to suffer that road every day went berserk waiting in ONE LONG LINE from I-75 all the way north to M-59...for about a week.


A year or so later, an Oakland Press article boasted how many perps they've caught using this camera system that was only supposed to monitor traffic flow...story told about dangerous dope smokers and overt sexual encounters the monitor cops had noticed.

Yeah, I want cameras at every corner...that'd just be peachy keen.

Hell, after that Roch Road debacle I thought for a while about driving around town with a photo-copied picture of an Uzi taped to my dashboard...but thought better of it.

The Oakland County system IS part of Big Brother...thanks Ptero for cheering it on!! Heh.
Top of pageBottom of page

Susanarosa
Member
Username: Susanarosa

Post Number: 820
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 208.39.170.90
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 9:56 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Traffic.com is a private organization that receives grants for this type of stuff. I don't know if they received a grant for this one though.

I dated the guy that helped create the software/technology. Asshole.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ptero
Member
Username: Ptero

Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2005
Posted From: 4.229.66.98
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 5:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

heh, only cheering on the assistance to better flow, once they 'tuned it'... It sure WAS bad at first.

Agreed, the Big Brother part hugely sux.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ro_resident
Member
Username: Ro_resident

Post Number: 160
Registered: 11-2003
Posted From: 69.14.126.140
Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 9:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The Autoscope cameras at intersections in Oakland County are not surveillance cameras, per se.

When the system was installed, video images were processed in the field. No images were transmitted to the Traffic Operations Center in Troy/Waterford.

It was not technically possible for "monitor cops" to report on suspicious activities to the police.

The CCTV cameras aka 'Jam Cams' on the freeways are slightly different. The operators have the ability to control the pan and zoom of some cameras. You can see the images on the MDOT and RCOC web sites.
http://metrocommute.com/cgi-bi n/metro/video/detroit/mdot.htm l

This is not to discount privacy issues. It is possible to monitor traffic using cell phones. You don't even have to be engaged in a conversation as a cell phone announces its presence (when on) as it moves from cell to cell. Commercial telematics products could potentially record your every move, and you pay for it. Remember to check your TOS, even the fine print!

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.