Voters in Murrieta tomorrow will decide whether red-light camera systems in place at three intersections—which advocates say have saved lives but critics counter are ineffective and unfair—should stay or go.
Measure N asks Murrieta residents whether the existing red-light cameras should be removed and the city council barred from installing additional ones in the future. The systems were first deployed in 2006.
"The unfortunate truth is that red light ticketing cameras can't improve safety because they cannot prevent the serious collisions caused by motorists who are impaired, distracted or fatigued and enter the intersection long after the light has turned red," according to a campaign statement from Measure N proponents. "More tickets, less safety."
The initiative backers, who include conservative activist Diana Serafin and Safer Streets L.A. Executive Director Jay Beeber, say a comparison of collision data from the five years before the city's red light cameras were installed to the five years after shows collisions overall jumped 120 percent, while rear-end collisions spiked a whopping 285 percent higher.
"And while the cameras increased accidents, by the time of this election, Murrieta will have issued almost 12,000 tickets at almost $500 each, removing millions of dollars from our local economy and wasting thousands of valuable police man hours," initiative backers wrote. "The vast majority of these tickets go to drivers who miss the end of the yellow phase by a fraction of a second."
Initiative opponents, including Councilmen Rick Gibbs and Alan Long, argue that Measure N's authors are spinning data to suit their purposes. Opponents wrote in a ballot statement that red-light running at camera-enforced intersections plummeted from 5,100 to 121 incidents from 2005 to 2011 and that half the people ticketed were three car lengths away from the intersection when the light changed and they chose to continue through it.
"Seventy-two percent of the red light violations were written to drivers who do not live in Murrieta," opponents said. "It is people passing through our town who put your life in danger."
The city of Los Angeles deactivated its red-light camera system last year based on doubts about its effectiveness as a deterrent and the fact that local courts wouldn't uphold the citations.
From 2004 to 2010, the city of Los Angeles issued 183,000 tickets, valued at more than $80 million. An audit of the automated traffic enforcement program, however, found no corresponding increase in safety at the intersections generating citations.
So my question is, who would be in charge of deciding where these cameras go and/or would these cameras be put at every busy intersection? Thank you in advance for your responses.
ATS with the police dept. put out "rat" cameras at 20 locations to see which intersections the next cameras would go. It could be anywhere in the city. The "rat" cameras were temporary cameras that took pictures of any potential violations. Again it has nothing to do with accidents. There are proven ways to make our intersections safe: 1) extend the yellow timing 2) make a 4 way red interval (all cars have a red for a few seconds) 3) Scynchronize the lights Loma Linda and Hawthorne did this and reduced accidnets and tickets by 90%. I hope this helps. Vote Yes on N
Those that vote for Proposition N are voting for personal liberty and individual responsibility and those that vote no are voting to authorize our city government to pick the pockets of residents that have committed no crime. For a crime to take place and victim needs to be created. If a person runs a red light and no one is harmed no crime has been committed. If someone causes an accident and crime has been committed and it is the responsibility to City to punish the guilty party.
How about the lies the city council and PD are telling people. In 2005 we had 11 fatalities - 10 were alcohol related - 5 on the freeway and one at a light - not where the cameras are either. The information given to the public is all 11 fatalies were at the camera intsections -LIES. How about Gibbs telling on the press video the Temecula fatality couple weeks ago would have been prevented by a camera? Well if a camera would of \stop the person fleeing from the first accident he caused then put more cameras in. Yes he caused TWO accidents; fled one and killed in the next. Go ATSA bill Murrieta residents more money and keep taking it out of state. We have stupid residents here!
I have had 6 Murrieta Police voting against the cameras. I had witnesses when they told me! email me at d.serafin@verizon,net
So basically you're saying you can break any law you want as long as you don't physically harm someone? Someone can point a gun at someone else as long as a trigger isn't pulled? The whole reason we have traffic laws is so that we have a standard which we can look at and know how to expect others to act. If people start ignoring lights, stop signs, speed limits, and other laws, the roads will be exponentially more dangerous.
Running a Red Light in itself does not cause injuries, it only creates a threat of doing so. With liberty comes the responsibility to respect the rights of others. When a person violates someone elses life, liberty or property they should be punished. It is easy to establish when this has happened but to punish people for threatening the lives of an potential unidentified individual is not a crime. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and is not to be regarded to have less authority than traffic rules or the regulations, codes, ordinances and statutes that are inferior to the Constitution. Overweight people pose a threat to their own lives and liberty. Should we lock them up in the interest of health safety.
Cameras also went down to defeat in Newport Beach and League City, Texas. One city and one state at a time, the cameras will be defeated and politicians will no longer have the the temptation to have their engineering departments engineer traffic lights for maximum ticket revenue. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association.