Red light cameras aren't designed to catch those actions.

Great plan for cops, they put in less effort and more money rolls in. Gives them plenty of time for details - those boat payments don't make themselves. And, once the cameras are there they can be used for other purposes to spy on private citizens. A win-win for the big government lovers that run the city.

This, exactly.

US PIRG (you're probably familiar with the MASSPIRG branch) released a study about some of the ways that contractors limit the city's ability to reduce violations, lengthening yellow lights, which have a proven impact on reducing crashes, and getting out of contracts when the lights are seen to be a detriment. http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Caution---Red-Light-Cameras-Ahead.pdf

NC A&T University did a study on this in small urban areas, which bears out an increased crash rate in cities like Salem.

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/Burkey-Obeng-2004.pdf

More locally, Swampscott looked into this a few years ago, and rejected it on the grounds that cams would decrease public safety.

http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/swampscott.pdf

The other thing I'd add is that we have design reviews of things like trash cans and curbs. These things are big, ugly, have bright flashes, and aren't going to match any "period-style" lighting.

Lastly, USF just did a study on cams and safety, and found that cams don't increase safety. Also includes a photo of a cam set up next to some "period-style" street lights.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/education-news/2012/feb/12/study-slams-traffic-cameras-ar-357892/

I won't support red light cameras. I would absolutely support approving extra overtime for the police to spend more time on enforcement.

To klassy salem

Why pay overtime to do their job

No they can't. Moving violation tickets must be handed to the driver, per state law.

Several years back, Boston Police cadets wrote up tickets on drivers for infractions like not letting a person go across the crosswalk and other violations. All those tickets were mailed. Once those tickets were brought into court with proof that they were mailed, they were all dismissed.

Yes they can

Hasn't the city ever seen Robocop? ED-209 didn't work, you still need a human involved :D

Then I guess, Anita, you're familiar with the way the Europeans have solved their $camera problem with old tires and gasoline. http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

"Drives slamming breaks at yellow lights are not driving properly in the 1st place."

Tell that to your insurance company after you rear end one, and they collect your deductible and raise your rates.

"Camera lights proven effective worldwide - proof is in pictures."

Effective in increasing accidents, maybe. If they've proven effective worldwide, why are so many municipalities spending so much money to remove them?

Griping about insurance company policy is deflecting - that's another issue entirely.

Maybe some places are removing TLCs. But lots of other places are not - they've worked all over Europe and even NYC, where traffic issues make the ones in Salem look like nothing. Every place is different, which is why examples like Greensboro, NC are ridiculous - it's like comparing a tank to a tricycle - yes, they both have wheels, but that's about where it ends.

I'd rather see the city try SOMETHING than keep their heads buried in the sand as they have for the past 20 years while bad drivers make us all unsafe. There are no other solutions presented here that have anywhere near the efficiency and impact that TLCs would. Putting more cops on overtime is so obviously NOT the solution, I can't believe it's even been suggested.

Define "worked."

They haven't stopped the violators, and haven't reduced accidents. They don't catch speeders. They don't catch people doing anything where they aren't present, and they don't move. How is that efficient, or impactful? It couldn't be more passive. In MA, the cam fines are limited, and they don't add any points to your license. Impact?

How different is Swampscott, from Salem?

In your Greensboro analogy, we're the tricycle.

There is no maybe about it. Houston removed. LA removed. The state of New Mexico removed after finding they had no effect on safety. Atlanta has removed cameras, Salem OR was ordered by the state to remove theirs after accidents went up 77% after their installation. Peoria, AZ removed theirs after accidents increased. Colorado Springs removed theirs after finding that it took 2.5 full time officers (cost of $200,000) to review the results, and moved to saturation patrols and high visibility enforcement. That's impact.

So again, define worked.

Want to make intersections safer? Lengthen yellows. That actually "works."

I have no problem with enforcement. I'm happy to have it, but it has to work.

I completely agree with you. This town has become a crazy zoo driving around here. People do not care about pedestrian crossing lights, nor do they yield when turning on a green light, especially at Lafayette and Derby. It is a drag race to see who can get bye first. The police are not interested in policing traffic violations, they rather sit on the side of the road with the new camera that takes a picture of your license plate and see if it is current and that it is not expired. But no one seems too concerned about that camera. The police drive around in parking lots and anywhere cars are parked looking for expired plates and if they find one they wait for the driver then impound the car.
This town needs the cameras to stop people running lights. I have been almost hit quite a few times from people spacing out and blowing thru red lights. If people think that these will cause accidents from people slamming on their brakes at yellow lights then drive safer and pay attention, get off the phone and drive, keep a safe distance from the car in front of you...do we have to refresh those driving safety tips again?? We would not need cameras if people would drive the right way and obey traffic laws and a good way for that would be for people to go back to school and learn to read english....

I foresee and increasing number of people simply ignoring the $camera's mailed revenue demand when they realize how unenforceable they are.

Already happening in LA.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/27/local/la-me-0727-red-light-cameras-20110727

Unenforceable in LA, where a loophole in the language of local law is being exploited. That's fixable at a Gov't level in CA, BTW.

This is Salem, not LA - try to keep that in mind. I would hope that the local Salem & MA government would make sure the tickets were enforceable, BEFORE investing in the lights. Article does nothing to illustrate an argument against TLCs, but shows exactly how violators will acknowledge their guilt, ignore their responsibility and take advantage of any possible excuse to "absolve" themselves. That's the unfortunate mindset of many drivers in Salem already and needs to be changed.

LOL! Salem ain't South Africa. There's only so much that can be done with this $cam to make it enforceable and all of those changes have a strong tendency to push the $cammers in a direction they don't want to go. They don't want the burden of proof that necessarily comes with criminal enforcement as that would be an impossible standard for them the meet thus killing their profits (which is what this $cam is all about). Thus they want to keep their revenue claim at the civil level but they don't even want to have to pursue their claim by suing in a civil court. They want to use 'administrative hearings'. Were they required to follow criminal, or even civil procedure, you'd see them close up shop. They can't afford it. That's why they ignore people who ignore their claims.

So, why do you think a judge is MORE likely to enforce a camera fine? Aren't they even less likely?

The police vetting every ticket against records of where police cars were at the moment that a ticket was issued is a far more wild scenario. Such logs don't even exist.

There's no way to know if this will change the judges behavior, either way. But today, in a court where the ticketing officer may or may not be present, running a red light is still a he said/she said.

Judges can get away with lax judgements in these cases because there's no hard evidence. With a photo, there's hard evidence, and mollycoddling by judges is obvious. Judges are under fire in MA for being too easy on driving offenses, I think this forces them to back off that habit.

I can see how what I typed may be misconstrued, so to clarify, Police logs do report responses to emergencies that create scenarios like the one John envisions. So while the actual route may not be immediately apparent, the scenario is relatively easy to reconstruct.

If you don't think people get tickets fixed every day your wrong. I know people that have done it. Elderly man passes a school bus while students are getting off, the son knows a cop and no one shows up in the court room.That's a real story. You can even have cops from other towns help help you by reaching out to a cop in the town where the violation occured. Go to Wash and New Derby from 2-3 and tell me you can't get screwed by cameras.Then again,I guess if the judges are soft wiyh the cop in the court they will never uphold a ticket by camera,Right? The reality you speak of is that you are dead wrong that everyone goes to court to fight tickets. That's nonsense.

Strange, none of that seems to have happened in other jurisdictions that have tried this $cam. Check out what has happened in Houston and Los Angeles just to name two jurisdictions. Could that be because these $camera generated revenue demands are not really 'tickets' in the legal sense of the word and thus do not enjoy the same enforcement sanctions in spite of what the $camera shills threaten?

You win !!! You bored me to death.

Driving in Salem, Does your company Install and operate these cameras or does the city run them?