Full Forecaste

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Area News

Red-light cameras on the table for Longview council this week

Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:12 AM PDT

By Amy M.E. Fischer

Font Size:
 
 

The Longview City Council’s debate over putting red-light cameras at the city’s most dangerous intersections stalled two years ago but will get a jump-start Thursday night.

Council members Dennis Weber and Mary Jane Melink are raising the issue at this week’s council meeting, saying the cameras would make the town’s roads safer and free up police to investigate more crimes.

“It’s just one of those things that makes perfect sense,” Weber said Friday. “I think that’s the best use of taxpayers’ money.”

According to Longview police statistics:

• Between 2000 and 2006, there were 4,920 crashes within Longview city limits.

• Thirteen of those crashes resulted in fatalities.

• 29 percent of those crashes were caused by red-light running or right-angle collisions.

Used in roughly 200 U.S. cities and all over Europe — but nowhere in Cowlitz County — red-light cameras are activated when a vehicle runs a red light. The camera automatically photographs the vehicle. A police officer verifies and approves the ticket, which is mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner. If the owner wasn’t driving the vehicle, he or she can contest the ticket in court or give police the name and address of the driver.

According to Longview Police Capt. Jim Duscha, a worldwide study of the cameras earlier this decade concluded they reduced red-light violations by 40 percent to 50 percent and reduced injury collisions by 30 percent. After cameras were installed in Garland, Texas, red-light running dropped 56 percent in 2006 and crashes were down 38 percent, Duscha said.

“We need to use technology to our advantage any time we can, so I think this is a good way to do it,” he said Friday.

Private companies lease red-light cameras to cities on a monthly basis, Duscha said. When the Longview City council contemplated using the cameras in 2006, the cost was estimated to be $15,000 a month. Duscha did not know what a lease would cost the city today. The camera company’s consultants would evaluate the city’s crash data and determine which intersections could benefit from the technology, he said.

In past discussions, some Longview council members said they considered the cameras an invasion of citizens’ privacy. Weber said new state laws regarding the cameras’ use should alleviate those concerns.

According to Longview police, under the new laws, the cameras must be positioned so they photograph only the back and front of a vehicle as it passes through the red light. The cameras may not photograph the driver’s or passengers’ faces. Also, the intersections must be posted with signs altering drivers about the cameras.

“Once I heard these were the rules the courts came out with, I said, ‘That’s OK, that’s reasonable.’ ... It will keep people from being swept up in a sting operation,” Weber said.

Some of Weber’s constituents don’t like the idea of “cameras in the sky” but seem to feel better about the notion after he explains the new laws, he said. Weber hears more complaints, however, about “why we aren’t doing anything about the crazy traffic,” he said.

Duscha said a few red-light cameras at key intersections ought to break people’s bad habits at the wheel. He thinks drivers blaze through red lights because they know they can get away with it when there aren’t cops around.

“What we want to do is change the driving behavior so when they drive up to an intersection in the city of Longview, they know they need to stop,” Duscha said.

According to Duscha the most crash-prone intersections in Longview include:

• 14th Avenue and Tennant Way

• 14th Avenue and Hudson Street

• 11th Avenue and Tennant Way

• 30th Avenue and Ocean Beach Highway

• Pacific Way and Ocean Beach Highway

The city has other technology in place to nab red-light runners. In 2002, the city obtained $2,500 in state funds to install blue LED lights on the back of several Ocean Beach Highway traffic signal heads. The “Traffic Enforcement Indicator Lights” allow officers to position patrol cars beyond the intersections and catch violators without running red lights themselves.

While the blue lights remain useful to police, they also have drawbacks, Duscha said. Drivers tend to run red lights in heavy traffic, and it can be tough for patrol officers to safely pull out and chase them down.

“Sometimes it’s more dangerous than it should be,” he said.

In Longview, Councilwoman Melink has learned to pause before hitting the gas when she’s first in line, such at the turn from Kessler Boulevard onto Ocean Beach Highway.

“When the light turns green,” she said, “you’re not safe to go out.”

Previous Next

DW wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:41 AM:

" $15,000 a month or more for the camera's?? Why not just make the ticket $500 a piece, and dedicate a patrol for just red light runners and save the money on the camera's. And if you can't prove that you weren't driving a vehicle registered to you, do you still get the ticket?? Just a thought........ "

pangborn wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:30 AM:

" Reeks of a police state. "

imho wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:56 AM:

" DW, yes, you will still get a ticket. You'll still get a ticket even if you can prove that you weren't driving. It is up to you to decide whether to fight the ticket in court. It is up to you to prove you weren't driving. Nice, huh?
I live in a community that has red-light cameras. The majority of the tickets are given to the driver who turns right without coming to a complete stop. To Ms. Fischer: The above article leaves out a very important piece of data... of the 29% of crashes caused by red-light runners, how many resulted in a fatality? "

cherokee wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:00 AM:

" I totally oppose any red light cameras. With the high unemployment rate in this county, how will people pay any tickets they may receive? If you want red light cameras, then place them on Industrial way and catch all the trucks that blow through red lights without even slowing down.What gives them the right to run red lights. Those drivers are dangerous and need their CDL pulled! What say you truckers? Can you drive a little safer, or does my widow have to sue you out of everything after I get killed by you running a red light? "

Atrucker wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:17 AM:

" What a waste of tax payer money. and I can almost say bring on the rear end crashes from sudden breaks for the light. The lights themselves are to slow to fast, to many ,just plain dumb in some places .
The Kelso Longview border has got be the biggest cluster you know what in the county, and it just gets worse.
Same goes for the Allen street mess.
Oh yah,make a bigger mess of traffic than it already is , and we pay for this stupidity. "

Just a Joe wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:33 AM:

" Pay me $15,000 a month and my family and I will sit out at these intersections and call in red light runners. Is there any way to get a stop sign camera in Kelso? I live on a corner lot that at least 50% of the drivers speed thru doing about 40 in a 25. Just curious. "

Pierce Co. Repub. wrote on Aug 10, 2008 11:36 AM:

" Yep - T-Bone accidents were down in Garland Texas, but what about rear end collisions at camera equipped intersections?? Garland has removed three of the cameras now because they werent making enough "Revenue". We have three of them here in Puyallup and I doubt they've helped anything but the city coffers. Just say no to Red Light Cameras! Hire another officer instead! "

Kelso Hilander wrote on Aug 10, 2008 12:29 PM:

" I agree with Just a Joe! And, I am even looking for a job right now. I would gladly randomly sit at all of the listed intersections throughout the day and photograph red light runners. Especially if the city would want to pay me $15,000 a month! Add it up. That's $180,000 a year. What a nice salary. I would rather see that money used for something else, like say, more police officers! $180k would easily hire four new police officers at $45k a year. Thats enough to add one more patrol officer to each shift of the day. If the City did that, maybe we could actually catch the bank robbers next time. On a side note, there would probably be less problems on Tennant Way if the lights actually changed with the flow of traffic like the sighs say they will. "

bucketball wrote on Aug 10, 2008 1:04 PM:

" Before anyone thinks this a good idea read this http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ The city just wants revenue and if you do get a ticket take it to court. It should be a guaranteed win for the owner of the vehicle since the burden of proof lies with the government to prove who was driving. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Aug 10, 2008 1:22 PM:

" This is a great idea. I want people who don't follow the laws to be punished. Cry and whine all you want. All you have to do is drive right. I have absolutely no problem with this idea. And in the long run it will produce more than it costs if it prevents just one T-bone. Having had a family member victimized by a red-light runner, I can tell you the results are disasterous and tear a family apart in a matter of seconds. A child who had a healthy father or mother, now must watch that parent suffer and maybe never be the same. So all of you who cry about a police state, when was the last time you called authorities and gave them a license plate number of a dangerous driver. I do it at least once a month and I've even gone to court to testify against them. And I will continue to do so every chance I get. Put up the cameras and make everyone respect the laws and the safety of others. "

Louie wrote on Aug 10, 2008 2:27 PM:

" Personally I am sick and tired of red light runners. If there are rear end collisions the people involved are driving too fast and following too close. If you can't follow the rules of the road you should be ticketed. I am all for it! Maybe it will stop the craziness of running red lights. How many people let others drive their cars?...ridiculous to not be able to prove you were not the driver if this happens and it is not you driving the car. Maybe you shouldn't lend your cars out to red light runners. "

cherokee wrote on Aug 10, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Please put the cameras on Industrial way. Truckers must stop for lights or quit driving!!! "

DUH wrote on Aug 10, 2008 7:09 PM:

" All the photographs I have seen from red light cameras show the whole front of the car, including a clear picture of the driver. Should be no problem proving in court that you were not the one driving. I also feel that if you do go to court to prove it wasn't you and you don't bring the person that was actually behind the wheel or give a name and address of that person when the photo was taken, then you are still liable and should pay the ticket. Maybe the next time you'll think twice about loaning out your car. "

Plato wrote on Aug 10, 2008 7:25 PM:

" Red light running might be reduced with some of the technology that is available now. When a light turns red now the cross traffic light immediately turns green. If that was delayed by the time it takes to cross the intersection at the speed limit it might cut down on the accidents. Also some of the intersections listed have long waits on a red light, especially for a left turn lane. Address this problem and it could also help. "

horsetails wrote on Aug 11, 2008 12:17 AM:

" Please read this blog:http://veilguy.blogspot.com/2007/08/automated-red-light-speed-camera-photo.html

Contact your City Council and tell them not to sell you out to corporate interests. This is about taking your money without asking AGAIN! If you go to court, who is your accuser, a CAMERA? LOL. "

ClearCut wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:24 AM:

" 1. Lengthen the yellow lights! A 2004 paper (fn. 2) showed a 69% decrease in violations when the yellow was increased from 4.0 seconds, to 4.5. Other studies (fn. 1) gave similar results. It costs next to nothing to re-set the yellows, so longer yellows can be applied all over town, reducing running at every intersection.

Longer yellows reduce severe accidents. A 2004 study (fn. 3) by the Texas Transportation Institute found, "…an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 second is associated with an MF [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes."

(Whenever one guy suggests lengthening the yellows, someone else says, "Drivers will just get used to the longer yellows, and run those, too!" The reality is that the running stays down. It does not "rebound." An example is Mesa, Arizona, where in 2000 they increased the yellows by 1 second, and running went down to 1/3 of what it had been, and has stayed down.)

2. Improve street markings. 2005 research (fn. 4) by Florida's Dept. of Transportation found that improving markings near intersections reduced red light running by up to 74 percent without increasing the likelihood of rear end collisions. Repeat: ...without increasing rear end collisions.

Who needs cameras?

CC

FN1. http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp (Red Light Camera Studies Roundup)

FN2. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06242004-230619/unrestricted/Thesis_3.pdf Figure 4.1 on page 67

FN3. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf Figure 2-8 on page 2-20

FN4. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-simulator.pdf at page 69 "

deesnuts wrote on Aug 11, 2008 2:36 AM:

" Local government is going to get their money from you one way or another. All our law enforcement does anymore is write tickets and screwover the poor. "

TheGenius wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:03 AM:

" How about this: if unemployment and a bad economy are the main reasons why someone shouldn't get a ticket they can't afford to pay, maybe they should obey traffic signals and signs. Seems like a pretty inexpensive solution. I've seen the benefits of traffic cameras in California (I know, I know, it's blasphemy to suggest anything from California is a good idea) and it seems to me that there aren't nearly as many incidents with people running red lights as there would be otherwise. This isn't some Orwellian police state melodrama, people. It's a bloody traffic camera at an intersection. What's the old cliche- don't do the crime if you can't do the time? "

DUH wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Why all the negativity? Are you afraid now that you'll get caught running red lights?
Wow, a 40% reduction in crashes by extending the "yellow". Thats not even half. Remember people... Green means go. Red means stop. Yellow DOES NOT mean go faster! "

tugtrio wrote on Aug 11, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Ever driven in Alaska? The green light flashes a couple of times before turning yellow giving you a better warning and time to stop.

But this again is to simple and cheap of a solution!!! "

RandomOpinion wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:03 AM:

" Ok lets see if we can get this rant on a small spin off...

While I am not opposed to installing traffic cameras at "dangerous" intersections, isn't $180,000 quite a bit to be spending?

I am sure everyone here has had the pleasure of driving through Longview/Kelso. The timing of these lights are INSANE!!! Why not spend some of that money to time these lights? I am tired of sitting at lights for 5 mins + only to miss the very next one 100 yards away! Rinse and repeat!

Fix the lights, THEN install cameras! "

deesnuts wrote on Aug 11, 2008 1:04 PM:

" I have to agree with RandoOpinion, you're probably seeing people running lights because of the horrible timing on them. No way in hell should it take 20 minutes to get from the Kelso bridge to Wal Mart!!!! You hit 10-12 lights in that short 4 mile journey. Hell, in that amount of time I've driven from one side of Vancouver to the other, makes no sense...let's fix the real problem people...those lights. "

El Gabilon wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:33 PM:

" We suggest that the City Council tell the camera company to shove it. As a taxpayer we are not willing to pay $15,000 to have these lights installed and/or leased. If the council is, then let them pay for it OUT OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL FINANCES. Longview does not need every new gadjet that comes along no matter what the reson. What we do need is a cut in salaries, a reduction in waste and a more effective use of manpower. For $15,000 a month the city could hire at the very least 10 civilians who could monitor red lights and issue tickets at minimum wage. We need to dump some of these council members who are waddling in the peoples treasury. "

LviewLocal wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:48 PM:

" I am so sick of people running red lights in this town. There can be a million excuses for why: the timing of the lights, the yellow light isn't long enough. Whatever. All I know is that if they would stop the red light runners, I'm all for it. "

orangecatsrule wrote on Aug 12, 2008 7:33 PM:

" Drivers are getting worse and worse - I see people START thru intersections when the light is RED almost daily.... something needs to be done whether blinking yellows, greens or tickets. And how come so many traffic lights in Longview have left turn lights but they never work? Why did they buy them if they aren't going to use them? "

horsetails wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:17 PM:

" Communism is alive and well. This would make Lenin proud. "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals