Do Denver red-light cameras deter violations?

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 4, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.

Text size

More Local News

Map my news

Denver has failed to enforce its red-light camera contract, collecting the $75 fines but not collecting the data necessary to determine whether the program actually is reducing red-light running.

The contractor, Redflex Traffic Systems of Scottsdale, Ariz., hasn't submitted a single page of the mountains of data the contract requires since the cameras went live last summer, including statistics that would disclose whether it must reimburse money to Denver for system failures.

The company also hasn't lived up to requirements for support staffing, including a Denver-based representative to attend to problems. Nor has it turned in required maintenance reports or equipment certifications.

On the other hand, the Denver Police Department failed to demand any of the required reports until a Rocky Open Records Act request revealed there weren't any to be found.

More than 11,200 tickets were mailed out through November.

Denver police officials in charge of the program refused to be interviewed by the Rocky about the problems; Redflex failed to respond to several interview requests and written questions.

Police Division Chief David Quinones wrote a letter to Redflex last month, after the Rocky's request revealed the lack of reporting, demanding that Redflex submit documentation by today.

The raw data that is available lends credence to standard traffic engineering practice outside Denver that increasing yellow-light timing reduces red-light running.

After stories in the Rocky last spring disclosed that Denver uses the legal minimum three seconds of yellow, despite an engineering formula calling for more, the city agreed to add time at all four camera locations.

According to police data through November, at three of the locations where the yellow was boosted to four or five seconds, a daily average of nine, 10 and 16 tickets are issued. That's significantly less than Redflex studies at those locations last year, when the yellows were three seconds. Redflex had counted up to 125 violations over a 12-hour period.

But at the fourth location, eastbound Sixth Avenue at Lincoln Street, Denver added only a half-second of yellow time, for 31/2 seconds. That camera has caught an average of 53 violators a day.

Denver police have summoned Redflex to a meeting next week. In his letter, Quinones held the contract renewal over the company's head. The one-year contract expires Feb. 15.

"While Denver has the option to renew the agreement for additional terms, Redflex's performance to date has raised several significant concerns," Quinones wrote. "Our legal counsel will be attending the meeting with us."

It is impossible to determine whether Denver's four cameras are reducing red-light running without having basic data such as total traffic counts. The contract requires Redflex to submit periodic reports but there hasn't been a single one since the first camera started to issue tickets nearly six months ago.

Denver pays Redflex nearly $32,000 a month to operate the four cameras. But Redflex is supposed to reimburse Denver $25 every time it fails to photograph all but 2 percent of detected violations. So far, the company hasn't provided data that would allow Denver to determine whether it's owed any money from Redflex.

Quinones also demanded Redflex give Denver Internet access to live video and still images as required in the contract. Poor-quality images were responsible for Denver missing violations and at least one court challenge. Redflex had to install more equipment after the system went live to address the problem.

Alex Plotkin, 30, of Denver, beat a ticket in August when a judge agreed the photo image wasn't clear enough. The judge didn't have a high-resolution monitor in the courtroom to view a clearer image.

"The thing the judge cared about was the picture the city provided to me was unusable," Plotkin said. "The supervisor kept claiming that on the Web site there is a higher-quality picture, but the judge did not have a high- resolution monitor on his desk."

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

January 4, 2009

6:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

I believe these cameras are unconstitutional. It's disgusting that taxpayers are actually charged the costs of police spying on us.
January 4, 2009

7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

StillUndecided writes:

11,200 x $75 - ($32,000 x 6 months) = $648,000 in revenue.

Something tells me that the contract will be renewed and these cameras will not be going away soon, no matter how many problems the system may have.
January 4, 2009

7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

lillondonbaby writes:

Tsk Tsk Tsk. Shameful!! Yet not surprising. denver has a lovely way of keeping it's law abiding citizens in check...but who, dare I ask is keeping them in check? City of greed.
January 4, 2009

7:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

Like a Governmental gumball machine...

I paid my fine.

so with all the extra revenue, do you think the city will buy that judge a better Monitor?
January 4, 2009

7:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Deckert writes:

See... it's all about the revenue. Let's not increase the yellow for safety reasons... let's keep it short to enhance revenue (and decrease safety!). City government DOES NOT have your best interests at heart people and Hickenlooper ought to be tossed out on his butt tomorrow! The police are not now, nor ever have been, your friends, they are an occupation force interested only in your compliance and submission to their uncontrolled wishes. YOU have to obey their arbitary decisions on yellow light times, but THEY do not have to obey clear and definite contractural/legal requirements! They regard you as a slave, NOT a citizen!
January 4, 2009

7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brix57 writes:

Gee, 4 locations? Wow!!! Normal government accounting in place and they are complaining? Has it decreased the Denver Metro habit of running red lights? They really have to ask?
I would ask that anyone that really cares about this to become a pedestrian for a week and see how many drivers actually care! Right turn on red means you do not have to stop first and who cares if there are pedestrians in the crosswalk. Just blare the tiny horn and flip them off while the neck cradles the cellphone. Yellow light a block away? Speed up and swerve around pedestrians in the crosswalk as you have to text that message.
January 4, 2009

7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

Here's an alcohol mind soaked idea: traffic circles.

They're working really well on West Quincy.
January 4, 2009

7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

crazeditalian writes:

Why the hell does the City care if they're "living up" to their contract terms? All they want is to collect money from mailing tickets, they don't want to have to do any REAL law enforcement or actual WORK! God forbid!
January 4, 2009

7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

Brix57
This city is mild. The worst cities for running lights are London and Palermo, Sicily. In Palermo drivers bump up on sidewalks to pass.
January 4, 2009

8:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

theguyoverthere writes:

You people should quit whinning and deal with it. The camera's are there to stop the people who don't bother stopping at the light and believe yellow means floor it. I have seen too many accidents/close calls because people weren't following the law. If people would drive properly, there would be no need to put the camera's in the first place. You only have yourselves to blame.
January 4, 2009

8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Brix57 writes:

HopiMedicineMan writes:

Brix57
This city is mild. The worst cities for running lights are London and Palermo, Sicily. In Palermo drivers bump up on sidewalks to pass.

Yes, that is true of most European cities where the streets were originally pedestrian and horse oriented. Been there at one time.
But, here in Denver, it is the perceived culture that one must have an automobile at all costs. This is reflected in the ignoring of traffic laws, driving without insurance, without a license, even. Try doing that in London or Palermo. European jails do not have recliners in them. In Sweden, a DUI fine costs you one tenth of your gross income plus you do not drive again in almost forever.
As I said before, become a pedestrian for a week and you will see more inept drivers than you will ever see while driving.
January 4, 2009

8:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

dlprobert writes:

It sure is funny that almost everyone here is crying about the legality of these cameras. If ya didn't "break" the law as it was written, then this would be of no concern to you! In reality, the way the law is written, you are breaking it by "entering" the intersection after the light has turned yellow. Quit whining and drive like you have respect for those you share the road with....or suffer the consequences!
January 4, 2009

8:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

fifty writes:

I am still upset because a camera took two pictures when I pulled up to a red light. All four of us were stopped, so I don't know which one of us was violating what law.

At first, I didn't even know where the flash of light was coming from. I thought lightning was shooting down the side of my car.
January 4, 2009

8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

StillUndecided writes:

Reality,
I grew up in Montana and saw first-hand the tragic relationship between the Native American people and alcohol. Alcoholism seemed to the the rule as opposed to the exception. The poverty on the reservations was heartbreaking.

I also saw discrimination against the Native Americans like you would not believe. I am too young to have seen what Blacks went through in the 50s and 60 but I bet that the Indians suffer similarly.

It does not take much of a stretch to put two and two together and surmise that their condition could be a result of their treatment. I am not exactly sure what the point of your posts is but I hope that the law enforcement efforts that you are citing leads people to get the help that they need.
January 4, 2009

8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

expetrbiltdrvr writes:

People just need to slow down. If your late to a meeting you should learn better time management. I drive a truck in and sround denver and everyone always has to be the first one in line or absolutly will not follow a truck if even for a few seconds so that they can make their exit. It is always go as fast as they can to get around the truck and then slam on the brakes. then they scream and holler when they get into an accident with the truck because they got rear ended. In other words people, hang up and drive. There are enough distractions out there on the roads without the phone glued to your ears. I have been driving a truck for 15 years and am a native of Denver and i have seen the quality of the drivers in this city go way down. Oh yeah one last thing the best place to be when around a truck, is behind him. You can stop much more quikly then the truck can and the cops wont even notice you there if you are speeding.
January 4, 2009

9:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

dlprobert writes: "If ya didn't "break" the law as it was written, then this would be of no concern to you! In reality, the way the law is written, you are breaking it by "entering" the intersection after the light has turned yellow."

That's not only false, but it's physically impossible. The moment the light turns yellow there could be many cars about to enter and it is not possible under laws of physics for them to stop.

The law anticipates that and *permits* you to enter under yellow up to the very moment it turns red. The only thing that is illegal is to cross the intersection line to enter *after* red, not yellow.
January 4, 2009

9:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

NeilC writes:

The Denver City Council needs to choose between 1) Revenue Generation, and 2) Public Safety . . . then make their choice known to the public. One additional factor they should consider is the increase in 'rear end' collisions that would naturally occur with shorter yellow light intervals.

If Denver chooses revenue , the yellow light warning should be reduced to 3 seconds. However, if public safety is their concern, they should increase the yellow light to between 4 and 5.5 seconds, based on actual data.
Assuming that public safety is the Council's concern and the yellow light time is increased, fines should be substantially increased, as should be no more excuses to run red lights.
January 4, 2009

9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

dlprobert writes:

Reality_Check writes:

dlprobert writes:
"the way the law is written, you are breaking it by "entering" the intersection after the light has turned yellow."

100% B*LLSH*T

Hey reality, maybe you need to go read the law: "STEADY YELLOW LIGHT: A red light is about to appear.
Stop unless you are already within the intersection."

Source: Co Dept. of Motor Vehicles handbook viewable here:
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?...

So before ya run off at the mouth about something ya don't know and make yourself look ignorant and foolish...do some research! Entering the intersection after the light turns yellow is AGAINST THE LAW!
January 4, 2009

9:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

dlprobert writes:

AC, maybe you need to read the law too!
January 4, 2009

10:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

dlprobert writes:

Here is the law for you morons that just have to do a "Starman" when you see a yellow light

(b) Steady yellow indication:

"(I) Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter and entering the intersection is prohibited."

Copied directly from the Co. revised statutes. Again, do some research before looking so fooloish. You may not get a ticket from the cop, as most, if not all, traffic violations are up to the officer's discretion, but it IS against the law to enter the intersection after the light turns yellow!
January 4, 2009

10:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

dlprobert writes:

the object of the yellow light is to prevent someone from being in the intersection, when the light turns green for the other side. FYI ii is also illegal to enter the intersection when the light is green, if you cannot completely clear the intersection...something alot of folks don't know. If traffic is so busy that, on the other side of the intersection, traffic is at a standstill and you enter, but cannot get completely thru, you are in violation of the law...

Personally, I think that you should not be able to renew your license without passing a written test, at least every other time your license comes up for renewal. And folks over 60 should have to do this every time, along with a driving test to prove their competency.
January 4, 2009

10:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

WiseFool writes:

The Denver Police understand their history with corruption and give a nod to this ...
January 4, 2009

10:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

cdmdenver writes:

"DPD" Who cares about collecting Data...

If it fills the City's Coffers and pays DPD
who cares? Illegal, who cares about illegal
or the constitution, everything we implement
and brings in money is Constitutional!!
January 4, 2009

10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

dlprobert writes:

"It is a common misconception. The purpose of the yellow light is to allow those cars that are already at the limit line to clear the intersection before the light turns red. If you enter the intersection after the light has turned yellow and do not clear it completely before the red, you've run a red light."

This is a quote from a lawyer on http://www.findlaw.com/
January 4, 2009

10:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

It sure is funny how some of you are arguing about the semantics of the law...I think it is only common sense that you don't enter an intersection once the light is yellow, especially after reading that Denver only gives the minimum (3 seconds?) required time for the light to change. As far as the law is concerned, I believe dlprobert is correct, you aren't supposed to enter the intersection if the light is yellow, unless it is unsafe to stop. Who knows, this is probably another one of those things that is up to the officer. In the "Police State" of Colorado, I am sure they can and will use this to pull you over to see what else they can get you for.
January 4, 2009

10:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

I am curious as to what the real deal is here in Denver tho...widh a cop would just put his 2 cents in....lol
January 4, 2009

10:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

Seems everyone missd the point of this article tho....
"Denver has failed to enforce its red-light camera contract, collecting the $75 fines but not collecting the data necessary to determine whether the program actually is reducing red-light running.

The contractor, Redflex Traffic Systems, of Scottsdale, Ariz., hasn't submitted a single page of the mountains of data the contract requires since the cameras went live last summer, including statistics that would disclose whether it must reimburse money to Denver for system failures."

How much money does Redflex owe Denver (us, the taxpayers)?
January 4, 2009

10:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

Hey Reality_Check! Like you, I have a right to my opinion...looking at things, it seems you do nothing all day but spout yours, however right or wrong they may be. I never said it was a law, I said I thought it may be...hell I don't know. You just go on being an idiot that enters intersections when they are yellow...don't cry when ya get broadsided. Like I said earlier, it seems like common sense to not enter an intersection when the light is about to change. Then again, after reading several of your posts, not only about this article, but others too, you may be lacking in the "common sense" department.
January 4, 2009

11:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

Reality_Check writes:

"Ask the City Attorney for a copy of the contract and see what the default/breach provisions are."

NOT MY JOB! Seems to me that you have the time to do this....
January 4, 2009

11:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

Reality, you have a good nite...I have to go to work in the morning, something you, obviously, don't have to worry about. Your job must be to sit online on this site and do nothing but spout your moronic ideas! Do us all a favor ... Get a REAL life!
January 4, 2009

11:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

Although this did make for some interesting reading...DOCUMENT: Denver letter to Redflex
January 4, 2009

11:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

I guess by your silence, I can assume that I hit the nail on the head...you ARE just a moron that has nothing better to do all day except sit on the RMN site and spout your moronic thoughts! LOL
January 4, 2009

11:56 p.m.

Mile_Hi_Dave writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
January 5, 2009

12:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

ruffryde997 writes:

wow...seriously...like i totally agree with reality check but dam man how many posts do you gotta put up? just realize your right and let these idiots keep arguing...dam
January 5, 2009

12:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

2ndamendmentrights writes:

I have no idea why you guys all keep replying back to REALITYCHECK...it is obvious he is a loaner that sits at home and does nothing but watch for your replies! He is one that is arguing against the redlight cameras being taken away because when the cameras go away he loses that much out of his welfare check every month. Dont indulge him with replies.
January 5, 2009

6:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

dlprobert writes: ""It is a common misconception. The purpose of the yellow light is to allow those cars that are already at the limit line to clear the intersection before the light turns red. If you enter the intersection after the light has turned yellow and do not clear it completely before the red, you've run a red light." This is a quote from a lawyer on http://www.findlaw.com/"

I got news for you; you're source is WRONG.

In Colorado and almost EVERY other state they follow the uniform traffic code, which says you may enter ANY TIME under yellow. It is NOT illegal to still be moving through the intersection when it turns red. It simply isn't, chum. As long as you can exit you're legal. That's just the way it is. You're wrong.
January 5, 2009

6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

dlprobert writes: "Here is the law for you morons that just have to do a "Starman" when you see a yellow light

(b) Steady yellow indication:

"(I) Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter and entering the intersection is prohibited."

WOW, chum, I have NEVER seen someone on these boards LIE as blatantly as you.

You ADDED those last six words to the Colorado Revised Statutes. I know the law well. It does NOT say what you just quoted, you blatant liar. It ends after the word "thereafter."

Check it out at 42-4-604(b)(I). Traffic control signal legend. Steady yellow indication: Vehicular traffic facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter.

Try not to pull a fast one on people who know the law better than you.
January 5, 2009

7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dub writes:

After all is said and done, there's more said than done. I think the crux of the problem is the fact that the City wouldn't change the yellow time at one intersection. There is a formula for the time that includes the speed limit before the intersection, the width of it, and the reaction time, plus the stopping distance. If you want to generate revenue, all you do is shorten the yellow time, if you are concerned about safety, you lengthen it ( within reason ).Experience in other cities show that if the approaching vehicle speed is higher, and the drivers know that the cameras are there, the result is that rear end collisions go way up because the drivers slam on the brakes to avoid getting caught by the cameras. Lawsuits have been brought in several places disputing the timing of the yellow, and where the cameras were placed, along with the motive ( revenue vs. safety ). Remember " It's for the children".
January 5, 2009

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

dlprobert writes: "It sure is funny that almost everyone here is crying about the legality of these cameras. If ya didn't "break" the law as it was written, then this would be of no concern to you!"

Yeah, we've heard this before. When we complain about warrantless wiretapping, posters like you tell us we have nothing to worry about if we're not doing anything illegal, when we complain about military helicopters swooping down unannounced in Denver last Denver, again, posters like you tell us to quit complaining and be "grateful" we have a military to protect us.

Well, I'm grateful that a sizable portion of other Americans don't share your sheeplike docility. You appear to welcome an increasingly police-like state.
January 5, 2009

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

typo...I meant "in Denver last summer"
January 5, 2009

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

I can't believe how STUPID dlprobert is.

Hey genius, if you are approaching an intersection at 30 mph and the light turns yellow 5 feet before your car gets to the intersection, you will not be able to stop. How and why should that be against the law?

Why am I even asking. You are obviously too stupid to comprehend this idea.

AC: Thanks for pointing this out as well.

After writing this, I can't even believe I bothered.
January 5, 2009

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

c4l2a0,

Not only that, but dlprobert *fabricated* a state statute to support his phony claim. He added that last phrase "and entering the intersection is illegal" out of thin air. It's not. You can enter an intersection on the last tenth of a second of yellow as long as you can exit it.

Most signals have a one- to six-second all-red clearance phase as well, sto allow cars that *legally* entered on yellow to exit before cross traffic starts.

I love these clowns like dlprobert who spout stuff I already know is false then try to strut around like know-it-alls. A simple check of the CRS wording online showed he blatantly lied.
January 5, 2009

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

I'm glad I'm not a resident of the fascist city of Denver. For those who are though, as a taxpayer I'd demand accountability from the police chief, to the city manager and up to Chickenpooper himself. The city government works for the residents of Denver, not the other way around. I'd demand accountability on the lack of sufficient timing for yellow lights, not just at the 4 intersections in question, but at ALL intersections. If anyone's fooled that government is actually concerned about safety...... too bad. If they were, they'd increase the yellow time so drivers don't have to slam on their brakes to stop in time, even where they're skidding into the intersection to stop. That........ theguyoverthere, is why people gun it when the light changes yellow!

Police departments are nothing more than revenue generators for their city. It's why we see police with radar everywhere, but not much of them patrolling looking for the crazy drivers. It's why we see speed traps. An Arapahoe County Deputy that was running for Sheriff a few years ago said that the county has quotas for tickets, even if it's illegal (and who's going to prove it anyway when things like this happen where law enforcement can't even provide data?), yet it was a way of saying safety isn't the concern, it's more about generating revenue.
January 5, 2009

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

dlprobert, a driver is not technically breaking the law by entering an intersection after the light changes to yellow. A driver breaks the law if they enter the intersection once the light turns red. A yellow doesn't mean stop, red does.
January 5, 2009

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

The_Punnisher writes:

Denver got caught in the revenue business with the photo vans, remember?

They were SUPPOSED to be parked at school areas, instead of the freeways....

THEN a legislator got caught and the rules changed.

We need the AMERICAN version of Captain Gatso..

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/welcome.htm

But we won't have it until we get MAD about SPIES from the DPD..
January 5, 2009

10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

expeterbiltdriver, my suggestion to truck drivers is don't drive in the fast lane when it takes you forever to get going. That's stupid and it irritates drivers because the moron truck drivers that think they're driving a sports car can't get out of the way. I had one on Saturday that didn't like driving behind traffic in the right lane of NB I-225 doing 55, at about Illiff, so he came into my lane and if I didn't hit my brakes the back end of his bed would've went across my hood. Don't try to make it out as vehicle drivers are the only ones who drive like cr @p, because truck drivers are the worst. I've heard several say that they drive a big rig, and "who's going to get in their way."

As a matter of fact, I was hit in the driver's side by a tractor-trailer several years ago when he turned left at an intersection right off the highway, still going way too fast, and took the right away from me. My 65 Mustang was totalled, I had 88 stitches in my head, and the driver said it wasn't his fault. He got a ticket with several infractions listed, and when his insurance company tried to lowball me on a settlement.... $1,000, I ended up suing and won. So....... truck drivers can drive just as bad but do a lot worse damage and injury from their accident than a vehicle will.
January 5, 2009

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

In reality, even running a red light isn't all that bad as long as it isn't more than 1 second late. Opposing traffic and pedestrians do not even get the green light for another 3 seconds anyway.

I've run my fair share of reds, usually as I am going underneath them. No harm, no foul.

The problem arises when people have run a red after at least 2 seconds.
January 5, 2009

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

....and when opposing traffic anticipates the green and jumps the gun.
January 5, 2009

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

lwt5150 writes:

What do you call the third person through a red light in Denver?

A native!
January 5, 2009

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Cwilly writes: "Don't try to make it out as vehicle drivers are the only ones who drive like cr @p, because truck drivers are the worst. I've heard several say that they drive a big rig, and "who's going to get in their way."

My experience has been the opposite. While I've encountered a reckless big rig driver here and there, most appear to be more careful and courteous than the average automobile driver. They certainly let you pass them more often.
January 5, 2009

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

mytwosense, it's not my experience at all. Then again, maybe I drive on the highway more than you. There are too many who are not courteous, many who don't drive careful, and many who don't care that they're driving 45 mph in the left lane (out of 3-4 lanes to choose from) and holding traffic up behind them. I probably pay particular attention to tractor-trailers after being nailed by one like I was, along with the fact my father used to drive them over 30 years ago before moving into management.

I remember several years ago one tractor-trailer doing about 70 on NB I-25 at Arapahoe.... when the speed limit was 55, and I moved out of the way only to watch him literally drive over a car with two women in it about 200 feet ahead. The car was a disaster, but the 2 women in it weren't hurt too bad.

Coming back from Vegas last March, one forced me and some friends off the road, into the median, because he couldn't wait to pass a slower vehicle. Thankfully there was room to go on the median. He either wasn't paying attention to the vehicle passing him on the left (US) or he didn't care. Trust me, some just don't care.
January 5, 2009

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

oatis writes:

Despite the hysterical and indignant "unconstitutional" accusations by the obviously reckless drivers posting here (I DO suspect there is some relationship between their grammatically indecipherable and impossibly- spelled posts, and the angry, "anti-cop-and slowpoke" tone of those posts) driving remains not a right, but a solemn privilege; and it ought to be summarily prohibited in those lacking the maturity and civic respect required to perform the task.

If you are caught speeding by an unmarked radar truck, you get fines---and points removed from your license. The seventy-five dollar fine (for an infraction as irresponsible and dangerous as ignoring a red light) is incomprehensible. The first two violations ought to carry at least a $500.00 fine, with suspension of all driving privileges to be revoked upon the third instance.

Infractions would STOP, the idiots would ride the bus, and the rest of us would breathe a little easier.
January 5, 2009

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

Actually, oatis, driving IS a right. As a tax paying citizen of this state I have the RIGHT to drive on the roads that I am funding until I do something to have that right taken away.

Semantics.

Did I spell that correctly? Was it gramatically acceptable for you?

All hail oatis, the one who can do no wrong. We are truly graced by your post.

I like how you are so smart you even use semi-colons. I'm impressed. Lots of big fancy sounding words too. Makes it harder for the hysterical, indignant, reckless drivers to argue with you.

I'm surprised someone of your intelligence level doesn't see anything wrong with the city's revenue generating scheme disguised as a safety concern.
January 5, 2009

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

oatis, the problem with your idea is it's unconstitutional. As the accused, a person has the right to question their accuser. Camera radars and intersection cameras cannot be questioned, hence the fact that law enforcement can't take points off of a license unless you're directly issued a ticket by an officer.
January 5, 2009

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

prk166 writes:

c4l2a0 --> Driving is not a right. Driving is a privelage. The law and the courts have both stated this and re-affirmed this over the years. It doesn't surprise me though to see you make some baseless argument such as that when you had previously rationalized putting other peoples health and property at risk. Running a red light is running a red light. It's not only legal but it's dangerous wether it's one second or 20. There are all sorts of reasons for this from that you had plenty of time to stop when the light turned yellow to the fact tha tmost traffic lights in Denver do not have overlapping reds. Your no harm, no foul logic is the same sort of "thinking" that leads to drunk driving. In either case it's not a matter of if somethings going to go wrong, it's a matter of when.

As for the city, I don't understand why they don't already have this data. Their contract is up. It's time to bite the bullet and move on to to a new vendor that can live up to their contract.
January 5, 2009

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

prk166: The only way that "running a red light" is dangerous is when it has been red for more than 2 seconds and there is oncoming traffic or pedestrians present.

If someone runs a light that has only been red for 1/10th of a second, what's the problem? Who's at risk? Nobody. No harm, no foul. The city just wants their money.

Is there a difference in safety when someone is speeding by 1 mph? No. Most cops won't even pull you over for less than 10. According to your logic, they should pull you over if you are driving 36 mph in a 35. Please!

There has to be a distinct threshold so that someone can be considered a "law-breaker".
January 5, 2009

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

c4l2a0 writes:

prk166:

And as far as driving being a "right": like I said, semantics.

If the state passed a law saying that men are not allowed to drive (I assume you are a male) would you be arguing for your "right", or your "priveledge"? The state could not take away your rights.

I understand the differences between rights and priveledges.
January 5, 2009

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

AC writes:

prk166:

You're wrong on several counts. One, most -- probably ALL -- lights in Denver DO have the all-red clearance phase standard. Minimum one second, the one at 6th and Lincoln now has FOUR seconds all-red, according to news reports.

Second, a city that does not time its yellow lights in accordance with the traffic engineering standard to account for traffic speed is NOT interested in safety. A three-second yellow is the proper timing when cars are going 25 mph. It ranges up to six seconds maximum for higher speeds. Whine all you want about "just stop when it turns yellow," the fact is that laws of physics regarding bodies in motion will ALWAYS beat the laws of traffic.
January 5, 2009

4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

silverJ writes:

Just duck when going through the intersection. I love that these systems that are in place for "safety" reasons actually encourage drivers to hide their heads until they are clear of the intersection.
January 5, 2009

4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

wanta_bee writes:

WOW! There are a great deal of very angry people in Denver! Why don't you all relax and go out for a walk and stop driving your cars everywhere like crazy and it might help solve ALL of your problems. 1. You will be more relaxed, 2. breath cleaner air and most importantly not have to worry about all the red lights that your are running when you are supposed to STOP. And yes, if you see a yellow light you are supposed to stop! Not wait until your in the intersection, not press the gas to get through, your supposed to STOP- read your own posting up there smart guy! This is not about safety, law or bad government, it is all about from some reason it appears that the people of Denver metro think they each individually think they are the center of the universe, sorry but you are not! The world does not revolve you- it goes around the sun, you picked one of the best places in the world to see the view, take a moment everyday to stop and appreciate it. Look west and enjoy sometime everyday, and remember why you live there. Stressed and freaked out people do freaky things! Slow down and breath, the world is a great place to be, and believe it or not YOU ARE IN CHARGE, we live in the “free world” and YOU CAN BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD! Enjoy it!
January 5, 2009

4:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

oatis writes: "driving remains not a right, but a solemn privilege"

Really? And who kindly bestowed this privilege on us lowly taxpaying citizens who pay for most of the roads and transportation infrastructure in this country?
January 11, 2009

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

vet64 writes:

Let's give the 'redlight runner' equal time. It is entirely possible that the sun was in his eyes and he didn't see the lights change. Maybe the roads were icy and if he/she slammed on their brakes, they would have slid through the intersection. Maybe there was someone tailgating him/her and if they stopped fast, a rearender. Not everyone has the same driving habits, of course that leads to accidents. To be fair, I've witnessed RTD buses, and even police cars, run a redlight with impunity and without a reason other than they can and get away with it.
January 11, 2009

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

vet64 writes:

Sorry, a41a0, gotta disagree with you on "the right to drive". It is a previlege that is earned. I wish more people understood that.
January 11, 2009

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

vet64 writes:

Mytwosense writes, "Who bestowed this previlege on us lowly taxpaying citizens?" Answer: you did, when you voted for those idiots sitting under that gold dome in Denver. The ones that signed the legislation most often have a limo driver and don't have to worry about such silly things as traffic laws.
January 11, 2009

7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

TrafficTicketGuru writes:

Kudos to the Rocky for bringing this information to light. It's refreshing to see a media outlet pursuing the truth and holding the Police and Government accountable. Amber light increases save lives and truly decrease offenses. Unfortunately most Cities and Governments don't pursue changing the times because theres no revenue in Safety. Keep up the Great Work!

Larry S.
trafficticketguru.com
January 20, 2009

9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

juli96 writes:

Does anybody know where I can legally complaint about these cameras? That's all I can do since missing out 1 or 2 working days to go to court to fight this injustice cost more than the ticket itself. Invasion of privacy, that's what it is. My husband got the fine for "running a red light" even though it shows on the photo that he stoped before the white line, break lights were on when it took the photo, plus he made a right turn at an intersection(quebec and 36th st. near Walmart and Home Depot) where there was no sign posted "no turning right on red". And they have the nerve to report that he made a right turn at 17 mph, are you serious? Can that be done? First he stopped, looked both ways, and then procceded to make the right turn, this is shown on the photos, what kind of 2 Denver officers in their right mind think it was otherwise? All this happen at no traffic hours about 2:30 AM. I think if more people let themselves be squezeed out of their money in these hard economic times, they will keep doing that, because its better to pay $75 than to miss 2 working days, and it's not reported to DMV, people think to just pay the stupid thing. Email me if it happened to you too at this same intersection, and if anybody knows where I can complaint some more let me know also. julihouser@msn.com
January 27, 2009

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yepvegas writes:

Short Yellow Lights Are Dangerous
In its short history, the NMA Foundation has taken on laser gun accuracy, right to a jury trial for traffic offenses, visual estimation, and vehicle seizure laws.

But now we’re tackling our biggest challenge yet: the ticket camera industry and its unabashed exploitation of short yellow light times.

The positive effect of increasing the yellow light time at a troublesome intersection (an increase of one second can reduce violations by 50%) is undisputed by even the most zealous ticket camera supporters.

Nevertheless...

Several cities have been caught shortening yellow light times to increase ticket camera profits and we think there are more yet to be discovered.

Red-light cameras can only remain profitable at poorly engineered interesections. Once an intersection is fixed, the money dries up quickly. And once the money is gone, the cameras disappear.

We’ve already seen it happen in North Carolina. After the Courts forced cities to give their profits to local schools, the majority of the ticket camera programs in the state shut down.

Our goal is to properly time the lights in all 370+ cities with red-light cameras and by doing so eliminate this scourge in all fifty states.

We also hope the project results in legislation mandating proper yellow light times. Currently, such legislation is largely non-existent.

Home › News › Local News

Do Denver red-light cameras deter violations?

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 4, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.

Related Links

More Local News

Map my news

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs