Interesting info on Kingsport's red light cameras (Knoxville, Bristol: real estate, restaurants)

[Ripshin]

What????? This applies to red-light cameras???? REALLY?????

[rccrain]

Absolutely, 75% of the fine goes to an Australian/Texan company, depending on which camera gets you.

I'd rather pay a local officer and have the fine go to the local court system.

Also, I've notice on 11E that people are driving faster now because of the lack of radar presence on 11E near the new camera. People used to go the speed limit when radar was a regular occurrence. You never new where an officer would be set up. Now, drivers know to slow to a crawl for 90 feet, then it's off to the races.

[jabogitlu]

Of course it does. Stop being contrary, Ripshin, you obviously know what I'm talking about.

[treyver]

The private company that wins the contract-bid from the city pays for the equipment, installation, & maintenance of the automated, camera-enforcement systems.

Private companies with the most camera-enforcement contracts in Tennessee are American Traffic Solutions, followed by Redflex Traffic Systems, LaserCraft, and then Traffipax.

Those three, private companies recoup their capital investments via only through red-light-violator fines.

Originally Posted by rccrain

Absolutely, 75% of the fine goes to an Australian/Texan company, depending on which camera gets you.

I'd rather pay a local officer and have the fine go to the local court system.

Also, I've notice on 11E that people are driving faster now because of the lack of radar presence on 11E near the new camera. People used to go the speed limit when radar was a regular occurrence. You never new where an officer would be set up. Now, drivers know to slow to a crawl for 90 feet, then it's off to the races.

rccrain, "Also, I've notice on 11E that people are driving faster now because of the lack of radar presence on 11E near the new camera. People used to go the speed limit when radar was a regular occurrence. You never new where an officer would be set up. Now, drivers know to slow to a crawl for 90 feet, then it's off to the races."

I suspect you haven't seen MtCPD double whammy! I have seen their cruisers about 200-300 yds, further away from the cameras to trap the vehicles that clear those cameras and speed up...

Originally Posted by jabogitlu

Just remember...


"Any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don’t live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer."
- Malcolm X

If you are going to quote Malcolm X, about a trivia subject as “red-light cameras and revenue leaving the community”, then please discuss a serious subject like “trade-imbalance and the majority of our revenue going to China”?

Originally Posted by Beretta

It will be interesting to see what happens in this legislative session. There are several issues at hand and not all were in the newspaper article. The elephant in the room that the legislators haven't mentioned is the revenue piece. So much of the revenue being generated from the red light cameras comes at the expense of the local businesses. Discretionary income that would be spent on restaurants or entertainment, or at other businesses, is going to pay fines. A lot of pressure on the politicians. We will see something come out of the session; we'll just have to see what it is.

"Discretionary income that would be spent on restaurants or entertainment, or at other businesses, is going to pay fines." - please NOTE, that is the discretionary income of a "red-light-violator", and not of the general populace.

And, hopefully, the "red-light-violator" is a very small minority!!!

Such a very small minority in a city would make it unprofitable for any red-light company to consider approaching a city with an automated camera-enforcement system.

Wait... that has recently happened... Cleveland, TN!!!

[rccrain]

Originally Posted by treyver

If you are going to quote Malcolm X, about a trivia subject as “red-light cameras and revenue leaving the community”, then please discuss a serious subject like “trade-imbalance and the majority of our revenue going to China”?

This is a local forum for local issues. While China might be a hot button issue, it is hardly relevant to this particular thread.

Traffic cameras that send 75% of our local government revenue to Australia based Redflex is highly relevant. Today's article in the JC Press was particularly troubling. Apparently, now they have the capability to sneak around with mobile cameras using vans. Our local government is selling us out to Redflex for 20% of the profit.

[treyver]

Originally Posted by rccrain

This is a local forum for local issues. While China might be a hot button issue, it is hardly relevant to this particular thread.

Traffic cameras that send 75% of our local government revenue to Australia based Redflex is highly relevant. Today's article in the JC Press was particularly troubling. Apparently, now they have the capability to sneak around with mobile cameras using vans. Our local government is selling us out to Redflex for 20% of the profit.

"75% of our local government revenue” IS NOT GOING to the Australian based Redflex. 75% of a ‘red-light-violator’ FINE is going to the Australian based Redflex.

I am not mincing words; I am correcting MISINFORMATION.

Moreover, if the ‘red-light-violator’ is a small minority that creates that new revenue stream, which leaves the community, then I am all-for the disappearance of that small-minority.

[rccrain]

Well from now on I'll only use the terminology that you allow. *roll eyes*

Looks like I need to make this very simple.

Situation A: A police officer stops you for speeding/running a red. You get a $100 ticket from Bluff City. $100 stays in the local economy. Good.

Situation B: A camera catches your car speeding or "running a red". You get a "non-moving violation" (What?). You pay a $100 fine of which $75 goes to Australia based Redflex. What if you weren't driving? What if the camera made a mistake? Well, if you contest the "non-moving violation" and lose, it becomes a "moving violation", goes on your driving record, and you have to pay additional court costs. Bad.

Situation C:links to blogs not allowed
Very Bad.

[treyver]

Originally Posted by rccrain

Well from now on I'll only use the terminology that you allow. *roll eyes*

Looks like I need to make this very simple.

Situation A: A police officer stops you for speeding/running a red. You get a $100 ticket from Bluff City. $100 stays in the local economy. Good.

Situation B: A camera catches your car speeding or "running a red". You get a "non-moving violation" (What?). You pay a $100 fine of which $75 goes to Australia based Redflex. What if you weren't driving? What if the camera made a mistake? Well, if you contest the "non-moving violation" and lose, it becomes a "moving violation", goes on your driving record, and you have to pay additional court costs. Bad.

Situation C: deleted
Very Bad.

You left-out some pertinent information for Situation A, rccrain.
Situation A:
(1) police officer stops you for speeding/running a red-light.
(2) police officer WILL ask for your "driver's license" (has it expired?) and "proof-of-insurance" (is it up-to-date?).
(3) police officer tickets you for the speed/red-light violation, which is a "criminal offense"
(4) your driver's license accrues points
(5) your violation WILL BE reported to your insurance company
(6) your insurance rates most probably will be higher when you renew it
(7) you may need to attend a safety/driving course
(8) while the police officer is ticketing you, he/she may be looking into your car (privacy???)
(a) did you have your seat-belt on?
(b) do you have an open-alcohol container?
(c) does your car have a funny odor?
(c) did you leave your weapon on the seat, instead of putting it away?
(9) AND, while speeding/running the red-light, you're going to be late to where ever you were in a hurry to go...

Situation B:
(1) camera catches you speeding/running a red-light
(2) you receive in the mail, the violation
(a) the "criminal violation" is re-classified as a "civil offense" because the city passed an ordinance about the use of these automated-camera-enforcement-systems that clearly define how-it-is-used and how an actual police officer will review that civil offense evidence (the pictures and the video); therefore, a "civil offense" IS a non-moving violation (similar to illegal parking)
(3) I somewhat agree about the cost of these non-moving violation.
(a) in Knoxville, it is $50
(b) in Kingsport, it is $100?
(c) in Mt Carmel, it is more than $100
Why can't TN agree about uniformity for the cost of these non-moving violation? (the non-uniformity caused these types of camera systems to be banned in Michigan and Minnesota)
(4) decision? Pay or Not Pay
(a) if I wasn't driving, the back of the civil-violation-form allows me to nominate the person driving my vehicle
(b) camera made a mistake?
- "Hey, that isn't my car?" your case will be dismissed.
- "Hey, my car is in that curb lane, but the data-header of the violation states that vehicle in the inside lane is speeding: your case will be dismissed.
(5) No argument about choosing to contest the "non-moving violation". I wouldn't contest an illegal-parking ticket when I know I parked in front of the fire-hydrant or parked in a handicap spot.

Situation C: USA Blog About Road Safety,

links to blogs not allowed

[jabogitlu]

Have to spread it around, rccrain, but I wanted to rep your post.

[donsabi]

According to News 5 the traffic cams in Kingsport have generated about $700,000 in revenue with about $500,000 of that money going to the Australian based Redflex. Kingsport claims they didn't pay a dime for the cams and that "T-bone" accidents have been reduced justifying the cams presence.

The truth is that yes "T-bone" accidents have decreased but rear end accidents have had a huge increase. On a good day, or bad day, you can take a beach chair to these intersections and watch live action rear end accidents.

The truth is that when the people learn where the cameras are they slow down for that intersection and speed up for the intersections without cams. On Stone Drive in Kingsport the police have clocked some motorcycles traveling in excess of 150mph traffic cam or not. They can't catch those violators and they don't even try. Kingsport choose to install these traffic cams during severe economic times placing further hardships on people who have already endured too much. I believe the fine is $100 with about $20 going to Kingsport and $80 going to Australia. Way to go Kingsport!

Some Tennessee legislators don't quite see these traffic cams the same way local governments do and are trying to ban these traffic cams. Thank God for someone with some sense.