Latest News -

Sat, Nov 1, 2014

Red-light cameras go online Sunday

Comment   Email   Print
Motorists beware. The new automated camera system that will catch red-light runners in the act goes online Sunday, June 1.

The first three cameras – at Memorial and Northfield boulevards, South Rutherford and Mercury boulevards, and South Church Street and Middle Tennessee Boulevard – will be operational Sunday.

A 30-day grace period begins the same day and warning citations will be issued to owners of cars who run red lights.

The remaining four intersections – Old Fort Parkway and West Thompson Lane, Northwest Broad Street and West Northfield Boulevard, Broad and South Church streets, and Middle Tennessee and New Salem Highway – will be online July 1.

“We’re installing these cameras to try and improve safety at these intersections,” Deputy City Manager Rob Lyons said. “Obviously because of the cost involved this is not a revenue producer. So we’re not in it for the money.”

The city contracted with Traffipax, Inc. in 2007 to install and operate the automated system at a cost of more than $30 thousand per month.

TraffiPax is the nation’s largest automated traffic enforcement companies, said company representative Dan Folgton. The company operates more than 10,000 cameras and has installed the most technologically advanced system in Tennessee at Murfreesboro’s intersections.

“We will reduce red light running by 40-70 percent …,” Foglton said. “It will be an effective program to make your streets safer.”
Read more from:
News
Tags: 
City Council, MPD, Murfreesboro, Red Light Cameras, Traffic
Share: 
Comment   Email   Print
Members Opinions:
May 27, 2008 at 6:00pm
"We (meaning Traffipax, Inc.) will reduce red light running by 40-70 percent...," Foglton said.

Do the math, Murfreesboro.

Translated this means that 30-60 percent of red light running will NOT be reduced in Murfreesboro. Sixty percent, on the high end, is statistically useless considering the profits made by Traffipax.

In other words, your life is not assured by a Traffipax camera.

There seems to be a wide margin of error considering the price of service vs. the probabilty of stopping an accident (possibly causing death) at our intersections.

Question, how many deaths have been recorded at Murfreesboro intersections (average) over ten years attributed to red light "running"?

Your answer will be the cost to benefit ratio.

Someone is gonna make a lot of money with a few cameras stuck on poles around town. And, it ain't gonna be taxpayers.

Traffipax in going to profit and Murfreesboro politicians are going to look like caring big brothers.

Incidentally, you can still get killed if you don't wait and watch when your light turns green at the intersection. Your safety is up to you, not Traffipax.

The camera doesn't care and won't help you when an idiot decides that the road is theirs.

May 27, 2008 at 6:00pm
If you don't know how many red lights were run before the cameras, how can you measure the percentage reduced?

It's a revenue generating scam.

Since when did government start caring whether I live or die? It doesn't even know me. Oh yeah, when they made wearing seat belts, child seats , etc. the law.

In fact, now that I'm retired, drawing SS, you'd think they would be clamoring to get rid of me.
May 27, 2008 at 6:00pm
While I am all for anything to cut back on the ID10t's light runners, I just saw them working on the lights at Mercury and Rutherford, in their Humvee. You would think they'd have a Ford F-150 or a small pickup truck, not a Humvee. Go figure.
May 27, 2008 at 6:00pm
These are death traps, enter at your own risk. Don't be fooled by manilulated statistics by the vendor. Maybe we could let 10 traffic officers go if the numbers were accurate.
May 28, 2008 at 6:00pm

Good point Trvlace.

As for the rest of you, I guess you must be some of the ones who are running the lights, otherwise you wouldn't STILL be complaining about them.

They're here now, so let's all just do our part to make them work in a positive way for Murfreesboro.

May 28, 2008 at 6:00pm
If you don't know how many red lights were run before the cameras, how can you measure the percentage reduced? very valid question. This is cool new technology - so the guys got it. Its ok.. now lets trim the fat in the dept. we don't need some of the traffic officers.

There seem to be some very fat( embarrassingly obese) city police officers that need to get gone, this is the perfect time - with automated traffic control of this sort.
May 28, 2008 at 6:00pm
Sorry to disappoint you, I'm not a red light runner.

I actually hope very few run the red lights. Then the expected revenue won't be there which will serve them right.

It's a civil liberties issue. Every year we lose more and more civil liberties all in the name of safety. One of these years we'll be so safe we won't be doing anything.

Want some interesting reading. Read the USA Patriot Act and see how many liberties and rights you have given up all in the name of security. It doesn't say anything about only being applicable when good guys are running the country.

Once we've lost something, it's very hard to get it back.

But, I'm sure you will be happy because you'll be safe and secure.
May 28, 2008 at 6:00pm
Where is my attagirl and keptman? I saw the cameras today for the ??? time. I then thought about the city,county and state. This is just crazy. Actually I thought this is ridiculous. I would be ashamed to bring guest out of town. Here, these cameras are an historical part of our community. What is the statistics on folks running school bus signs? Where are those cameras guys. Still I do not feel safe and what decision will warrant a ticket. Hey, I still do not know if I want to fly anymore.
May 28, 2008 at 6:00pm
Why are we giving a "30 day grace period"? Running a red light isn't a new law, we just have another tool to catch the runners. Just this afternoon I observed one wreck at a red light and three cars run very obvious red lights. If you don't wait and look both ways when the light turns green you're just a statistic waiting to happen. By the by, just what liberty are we losing by having the cameras take pictures of red-light-runners???
May 29, 2008 at 6:00pm
Justdance,you assume that anyone who disagrees with the red light cameras are red light runners and bad drivers. How wrong you are !!!!. I'm very opposed to the cameras and haven't had any kind of ticket since 1981.I consider myself to be a safe driver. I'm opposed because I know what kind of problems there have been with the cameras in other cities. I know of cities (some right here in Tennessee)who have had to reimburse money back to people who recieved citiations from the cameras after it was found that companies like trafficpax manipulated the traffic lights to make the green and yellow lights shorter to create more violatons. Fact is,they make money when people run red lights. Trafficpax is under scrutity in other cities for their shady practices. Why should anyone believe they won't manipulate the lights right here in Murfreesboro ? The city is paying over 30,000 dollars a month for this scam. What happens when the city of Murfreesboro is ordered to pay back fines from citations issued by these cameras?
May 29, 2008 at 6:00pm
If they(the city) has to pay it back they will just find another way to make us pay. It's gonna come out of our pockets no matter what.
May 29, 2008 at 6:00pm
I wish there had been a camera to take a picture of the person who hit me when they ran a red light and then fled the scene. Being as I was pregnant at the time, it was very scary for me. It would have been nice to have some evidence and maybe justice served to that idiot. While everyone continues to complain about the cameras, did you ever think that if people would just drive safely and defensively instead of in a hurry and offensively, we wouldn't have to worry about the cameras?
May 29, 2008 at 6:00pm
(U.S. DOT Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines)


Substantive Issues:

o Administration of the program violates Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights

o Confrontation rights (6th Amendment right)

o Equal Protection (disparate treatment for public, police, rental, corporate, out-of-state vehicles, motorists cited by police)

o Fifth Amendment right to remain silent (for statutes requiring affidavit as to who was driving)

o Mailing a citation that requires appearance is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment

o Photographing a motorist is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment

o Pre-charging delay (delay between the violation’s occurrence and receipt of notice) – Fourteenth Amendment Due Process

o Presumption that the registered owner is the driver impermissibly shifts the burden of proof

o Privacy – violation of State privacy laws

o Revenue generation: selection criteria for photo red light enforcement, light phase timing

o Substantive Due Process - Privacy


http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/rlc_guide/rlc_bib.htm#Toc93387608
May 29, 2008 at 6:00pm
Oh for crying out loud, what a bunch of babies you all sound like. The cameras are here, good - bad - or indifferent. They will help some, accuse some, be faulty some. You have a 30 day grace period for 'Eye in the Sky' to make sure the systems are working and he is doing his job to the best of his ability, not 30 days more so you can break the law. And as for cutting back on the Traffic Patrol - there aren't enough as it is and the ones that are on patrol are hopefully in your neighborhood and not constantly tied to the traffic accidents. Grow up, not all technology is bad. Do you talk on your cell phone while driving? Drink coffee, eat breakfast, tune your car radio or now your DVD players while driving? Wonder why people aren't watching where they're going? He who is without sin cast the first stone. If you are guilty - take your punishment.


May 30, 2008 at 6:00pm
It's hilarious that there are photoblocker ads on the left of this story. Technology is unbelieveable.
May 30, 2008 at 6:00pm
These cameras aren't going to stop anyone from running a red light. They'll just take a picture when you do.

I hope they keep stats on rear-end collisions at these sites as people slam on their brakes
because the caution lights don't last long enough to make a safe stop at times.

$30,000 a month at $50 per ticket means 20 tickets a day are needed, 7 days a week, to just break even. Since the city is splitting the revenue, that mean 40 tickets a day are really needed. That's 1,200 tickets a month, if you're keeping track.

Maybe tealady won't mind when they decide to install a camera in her car and her home since spying on citizens is much easier than actually patrolling the streets. Surely she has nothing to hide and can't object to the use of technology for the benefit of all.

Some people need a refresher course in the meaning of liberty.
May 30, 2008 at 6:00pm
My problem with this whole camera deal is that they are going to ticket the OWNER of the vehicle. What if it's not me/you driving? What if it's a friend or your kid? I don't feel that just because a person owns a car they should get the ticket.
May 30, 2008 at 6:00pm
This is better entertainment than anything on TV. Weve got Judge Judy and Law and Order all rolled up into one. I have my stealth license plate cover on and my tailgate down plus I keep a copy of all "my rights" that are listed here in case they get lucky and can see around that big trailer hitch ball cover that looks like a happy face.
May 31, 2008 at 6:00pm
So what they're going to ticket the OWNER of the vehicle? If it isn't yourself, you'll have the opportunity to go to court and turn in the real driver.

If it's a business vehicle, owners will have an opportunity to discover if their drivers are really "safe drivers."

If it's a family member, well then it's your conscience how you want to deal with it.

Either way, a collision would be too late, especially if lives are lost forever.
May 31, 2008 at 6:00pm
"The monetary impact of crashes to our society is approximately $14 billion annually."

Foreword from USDOT RedLight Camera Systems - Operational Guidelines

Note: This is the reasoning behind the government's (local, state, federal) seemingly benevolent desire to care about us. MONEY and nothing else.

The government could care less if we live or die. If we could injure and/or kill ourselves without costing them money, it would get little or no attention.
_____________________

"If it isn't yourself, you'll have the opportunity to go to court and turn in the real driver."

Ah yes, the ole 'turn your neighbor in' scheme used in all repressive regimes.
Powered by Bondware
News Publishing Software