More than 60 percent of red-light camera violations tossed out
By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 30, 2008 at 7:59 p.m.
Denver's red-light cameras were anything but picture perfect in their first month of operation.
More than 60 percent of the 2,545 suspected red-light violations caught on camera from the end of a 30-day grace period to Aug. 15 have been tossed out.
The reasons vary, but police said that most of the citations were rejected because the "threshold speed" that helps trigger the cameras was set too low, generating hundreds of false readings.
"The cameras fired, but the picture clearly showed all of the vehicles in compliance," said Mary Dulacki, records coordinator for Denver's Department of Safety.
Since then, the threshold speed was reset to the correct 12 mph, which fixed the problem, she said.
Bill Cowern, transportation operations engineer for the city of Boulder, said the number of citations that Denver has rejected isn't abnormally high, especially since its program is so new.
Boulder's red-light cameras had a rejection rate of 66 percent in 2003 and 40 percent this year.
Tickets are rejected for a lot of reasons, from glare in the windshield to a license plate being obstructed by another car, he said.
"We really want to make sure, from an integrity standpoint, that we're only sending out really good quality pictures where we can make out the driver and make out the license plate," Cowern said.
In Denver, police officials expect the city's $838,800 red-light camera system to perform more smoothly in the future and chalk up the incorrect threshold speed to kinks that are to be expected in introducing a new system.
But the camera setting glitch is only the latest in a series for the red-light cameras.
Police Chief Gerry Whitman said Monday that the police department is backlogged in reviewing the 12-second videos of suspected red-light runners.
"They'll get into about the third clip and the computer slows down," Whitman said, adding that an officer has to review each instance before a ticket is mailed.
Police have 90 days to issue the citation, spokesman Sonny Jackson said. The department expects to catch up on the backlog before tickets expire, he said.
"Hopefully, we'll get things worked out and cleared up before the 90 days is up so we don't lose any revenue," Jackson said.
The red-light cameras are projected to generate $1.25 million for the city in 2009.
Delays in the roll-out of the cameras have already forced the city to adjust its 2008 revenue projections.
City Budget Director Ed Scholz did not have specific numbers readily available Tuesday but called the adjustment a "minimum amount."
"We did that over the summer when we knew that it was taking them a little longer to get it up and running," he said.
Before the cameras were installed at four busy intersections, the city had to re-examine its plans after a Rocky Mountain News investigation found that all four locations had short yellow signal times that could possibly turn them into ticket traps and magnets for accidents. As a result, the city increased the yellow signal times by up to two seconds.
Other problems followed.
When the city activated the first set of cameras at Quebec Street and 36th Avenue June 17, a technical glitch caused the data from the first two days to be lost, according to city documents.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
October 1, 2008
12:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
AmericanPatriot writes:
It looks like another costly boondoggle. Eight hundred and thirty-eight thousand dollars seems small in comparison to DIA's infamous luggage system, or its former parking toll booths. But it represents a system that fails to weigh all of the pros and cons of an idea before throwing money at something. With that much money the City could have hired full-time police officers to cover these four intersections.
I think that people should rise up and take a stand against this wasteful spending. We should boycott these four intersections, or if we must use them we should make sure to not run a red light. We can beat them at their own game. They expect to raise $1.25 million with red light taxation. Well, if nobody runs a red light, there'll be no tickets and no revenue to pay for their foolhardy system.
I say, "Just say no" to running red lights.
October 1, 2008
1:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
JAWS writes:
Hey - at least the cameras can't shoot defenseless. 11 year-old mentally challenged children... or people sleeping peacefully in their OWN HOME while holding a soda can. Kudos to the DPD - you've made SO MUCH progress!!!!!
October 1, 2008
6:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrJim writes:
boycott an intersection? what are you trying to do, put the intersection out of business?
October 1, 2008
7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
Wow. $838,800 to buy and install four cameras, plus paying salaries to: cops to review the tapes, IT personnel to work out the computer glitches, technicians to go out and fiddle with the cameras when more problems arise, which is likely... some clerk to prepare the mailings and the postage to mail the fines, they just might break even in 2009... unless of course people do what they should be doing anyway, and not running the stupid lights.
October 1, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Red light cameras : ' not so clever ' way to tax the citizens.
The DIA infamous luggage system is another example of wasting money.
October 1, 2008
7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
yeayea writes:
"boycott an intersection? what are you trying to do, put the intersection out of business?"
it sounds funny, but this city IS in effect making a business out of this and other intersections.
This is how much we paid for it, this is how much we bring in etc etc
October 1, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
Next they'll have cameras on expressways, side streets, alleys, and so on. Too much of the Big Brother act in my opinion.
October 1, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
steel: the report on revenue vs expenses has been published before. Search for it in the archives before you complain about it.
Boycotting the intersection is a FANTASTIC idea.With less traffic, people would be less likely to feel the "need" to run the red. With less traffic, safety would be greater.
October 1, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
ifyem writes:
I am all for boycotting the intersections!!! Sounds like a fantastic idea!!! Damn intersections will be hurting now!!!
October 1, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
RockLobster writes:
AmericanPatriot writes: I say, "Just say no" to running red lights.
I don't need the use of red light cameras to tell me that. The fact that it's against the law to run a red light (not to mention the fact that it's dangerous) does it for me.
October 1, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
FlyfishDude52 writes:
Jackson refers to this as a "revenue producing item." I think before we allow the "big brother" form of revenue producing cameras, we need these cameras installed in the DPD's offices to be certain that they are enforcing the law in a legal way. This smacks of "taxation without representation," doesn't it?
Coming soon to your neighborhood - Cameras in your home for entrapme, oh, er, protection...
Orwell would probably turn over in his grave or is currently spinning for his forsight so many years ago...
October 1, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
RS writes:
""boycott an intersection? what are you trying to do, put the intersection out of business?"
it sounds funny, but this city IS in effect making a business out of this and other intersections."
Since it is all about the money, go all the way and boycott the entire city! Think hoe much "enforcement" money they will save!
October 1, 2008
10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
JluvDC writes:
If they can get the speed timer set right it will pay off in the end. I know the one on Arapahoe Road/Yosemite probably makes Englewood (or whoever)a fortune.
October 1, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
The real reason for these cameras is stated in the article, "The red-light cameras are projected to generate $1.25 million for the city in 2009."
Nuff said.
Scott
October 1, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
The cameras are useless; pull them out and just time the lights correctly. Fines on the number of actual intentional red light runners wouldn't even buy doughnuts for the traffic cops; cameras are set to trap safe drivers in the first half second of red. They pose no safety problem, just properly set your yellow times, Denver, and be done with this Big Brother Bee Ess.
October 1, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
almostarmy2003 writes:
FCZ writes:
LOL! You think the luggage system at DIA was a waste, I got some info for you. They had to redo every sign inside the airport 4 times because the mayor's WIFE didn't like them.
October 1, 2008
5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Flatlander88 writes:
A word for the holier-than-thou who think they're above all this: Get out your wallet! Assuming you occasionally venture outside of your neighborhood into unfamiliar territory, you need to buy a $300+ nav system to warn you when you're approaching a camera enforced location. Why?
The drivers in front of you will be exhibiting unexpected behavior, like slamming on their brakes on a brand new yellow, or because they have "local" knowledge that there's a speed camera there. The warning from the nav system will save you from rear-ending them - an accident for which the law would automatically hold you responsible.
Once you have your nav system, you will also need to spend some time each month downloading the database containing the newest locations - and of course you will need to pay for a subscription to that data. (You will also need to maintain the nav systems belonging to all your computer-illiterate friends and relatives.) Have fun out there!
October 2, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
safetykills writes:
"Hopefully, we'll get things worked out and cleared up before the 90 days is up so we don't lose any revenue," Jackson said.
I got nailed on this a little while ago at the 6th and Lincoln intersection $75. Fortunately for the cops, my revenue will not be lost.
I thought this was supposed to be about reducing accidents......oh yeah, thats already been proven to be not true......
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
You guys have been laughing at the dude who said that we should boycott the intersection. Well, if no one is getting busted, the city is not making any money, therefore, it becomes a financial bust.
I'll admit that I broke the law and if there had been a cop there, I would have deserved a ticket just the same. But these things are dangerous because they dramatically alter the way many people drive in a split second, which causes more accidents.