The Virginian-Pilot
©
CHESAPEAKE
Cameras will start snapping photos of red-light runners at Battlefield Boulevard/Atlantic Avenue and Campostella Road this week, a first in a city with some of the most crash-prone crossings in South Hampton Roads.
Following a 30-day grace period that begins Friday, drivers caught violating traffic lights in the north and southbound lanes of the intersection known as Edmunds Corner could find a notice for a $50 fine in the mailbox.
The spot is the first in Chesapeake to get Virginia Department of Transportation approval for red-light cameras but is not necessarily the most dire, said city traffic engineer Gary Walton.
"There are a lot of intersections in the pipeline," he said, and 28 up for consideration. Eight under consideration are intersections along Battlefield Boulevard: Kempsville Road, Medical Parkway, Volvo Parkway, Mount Pleasant Road, Wal Mart Way, Cedar Road, the Chesapeake Expressway and Edmunds Corner.
The Dominion Boulevard- Great Bridge Boulevard intersection also made the list. Police reported 53 crashes there in 2008, making it the worst in three Hampton Roads cities.
State law allows for one red-light camera per 10,000 residents. That equates to 21 in Chesapeake, although the city may never install that many, said spokesman Heath Covey.
Site selection is based on number of crashes and traffic violations and the ease in which officers can enforce the site.
The program is similar to the one in Virginia Beach, where cameras operate at 13 intersections.
Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. provides camera equipment for free and makes money from the fines. Any surplus goes to the city.
Still, Chesapeake officials tout the program as a safety initiative rather than a money maker.
"We want violations to go down over time," Walton said. "We want to see zero violations. That's the goal."
Yellow signs will warn drivers prior to the intersection. Cameras will snap three photos of red-light runners - scene shots of the vehicle before and after the violation and a close-up of the back license plate, said Officer R.D. Sheth, who is heading the program. The incident also will be recorded on video.
Violations are first routed to Redflex, which checks the images and video for quality. The company then sends it to the Police Department, which reviews it and determines whether a violation actually occurred.
If police sign off, it goes back to Redflex, which will send out the violation notice. Drivers can watch a video of their offense online.
The $50 fee is a civil penalty and will not affect DMV records, Sheth said. Violators can dispute it in court or sign an affidavit swearing they were not the driver, if that's the case, he said.
City officials said they do not know how many violations to expect at Battlefield Boulevard/Atlantic Avenue and Campostella Road.
Virginia Beach initially hoped for $350,000 a year in profit, but fell far short of that.
Pilot writer Kathy Adams contributed to this story.
Kristin Davis, (757) 222-5555, kristin.davis@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Out Rob You Legally in There Eye
Just another way for money hungry chesapeake to rob your pocketbook and wallet.Never in my life have I ever seen a money hungry city as chesapeake and va beach.Sad for a city to stoop so low.
Myth: Like old-fashioned speed traps, photo enforcement is....
designed to make money, not protect the public.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2010)
Each year crashes involving red light running claim the lives of more than 800 people and injure another 200,000 people.1 More than half of the deaths in red light running crashes are other motorists and pedestrians, so there should be no debate about the fact that red light runners are dangerous drivers who put other road users at risk. A recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study in Oxnard, California, showed that red light running violations dropped a total of 42 percent after well publicized photo enforcement was introduced.2 Another study in Fairfax, Virginia, showed that violations declined about 40 percent after one year of photo enforcement.3 A key to all effective traffic law enforcement is publicity; without it there is no deterrent effect, and the purpose of red light cameras is deterrence.
Photo enforcement has such a strong deterrent effect precisely because it is not like so-called "speed traps." The old image of a speed trap was that of "secret" enforcement at a location where almost every driver speeds. Officers could pick and choose whomever they wished
A better location and use
Why not install a camera on the shoulder lane on Eastbound I264 approaching Witchduck Road? So many people ignore the "Shoulder lane closed" sign, it makes it hard for those who do obey it to make the Witchduck exit. This camera makes more sense than the revenue light cameras...
The facts, with citations for those that refute everything!
To those that want to claim that they are not afforded their rights of representation if they are too stupid to not stop at a red light and get blipped by a photo enforcement camera Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2010)
"Laws authorizing photo enforcement provide that photographic evidence of a violation is sufficient to issue a citation to a registered owner. The citation is merely a summons. Photo-enforcement laws always make it clear that the photographic evidence creates only a rebuttable presumption. The registered owner may present a defense in person or, in Virginia, by mailing in an affidavit stating under oath that he or she was not the driver at the time of the offense (Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-833.01(D)). In other states, an owner only has to identify the driver to rebut the presumption. It is difficult to imagine a presumption that is easier to rebut"
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/myths.html
So, you get your day in court and pay the associated court fees and the fine, and get to look like an idiot in front of a judge or you pay the citation that does not count as points and you become more aware of your surrondings and not what is happening on your i
Red light scam
Of course the red light cams are about the money. I was a deputy in San Diego county back in the 90s when the city of San Diego first put in red light cams. A local news station did a story on the cams and interviewed a traffic sergeant from the SDPD. The sergeant explained how the cameras worked, they took a photo of the front license plate and the driver's face, and how much the violation cost, at that time about $150. The reporter asked the most logical question, what happens if people just remove the front license plate so the camera cannot record the number? With a straight face the sergeant said the fine for not having a front plate was higher than for running the red light. At that time not having a front plate was a simple equipment violation and once the violation was fixed, it cost a $10 administrative fee to have the violation signed off. So I knew at that time that the whole purpose of the cams was to generate revenue and not improve safety.
The quickest way to stop governments from using these unconstitutional methods of revenue collection (it is unconstitutional because each accused has the right to face their accuser in court and how do you question a camera) is
I'll never get it
It has always amazed me to see drivers speed at the end of the day and pass one, maybe two cars. For what, to save 12 seconds on their trip home. Does a few seconds or even a couple of minutes make that much difference? I use the time driving to listen to music and wind down after a days work. I'd rather get home safely, and ticket free, then to chance it all. Even now that summer is winding down, the weather will soon be nicer for the drive. Enjoy life, don't invite death!
If people were paying
If people were paying attention to what's in front of them instead trying to race through the intersection, there wouldn't be an issue with rear-ending. I think the people complaining about it are probably the ones who run the lights.
I live close to 2 intersections where there are a LOT of red light runners. One has cameras and one doesn't. At the one that does, I haven't noticed anyone getting rear-ended. At the one that doesn't I've noticed there is still plenty of accidents that involve red light runners.
If
Well, if people just didn't run into each other, we'd have no traffic accidents at all. Real solutions need to operate on observation and not wishful thinking.
Comment #2
As usual, all the people who think the laws don't apply to them are out in force cutting down any effort to enforce them. Usual "Rear end collisions will increase", "It's just a moneymaking scam", "No proof of driver" complaints. If people would just obey the limits, watch the traffic, quit texting/talking/petting their dog while driving, just maybe the accident rate would go down. Nah, that's too logical! It's easier to complain about any law enforcement efforts they don't approve of.
It isnt about the laws; it just facts
1) Rear end collisions - They do happen more when red light cameras are present because one driver tries to obey the law while the driver behind them runs into the back of their cars. 2) It is a money making scheme for the government because when they install the cameras, they usually shorten the time between the yellow and red light causing the camera to snap a picture of the license plate. 3) No proof of driver - the camera is designed to take a picture of the license plate and not the driver so there is no way to prove who was driving the car.