Steckler defends red light cameras in Fremont
By Matt Artz
Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm in Fremont, Red light cameras, Uncategorized.
From my favorite Niles chat group:
Police Chief Craig Steckler joined a discussion about speed bumps and started talking about red light cameras.
In Fremont red light cameras seem to have reduced accidents at intersections equipped with the cameras.
From 7/1/1995 to 6/30/2005 a 5 yr. period before the installation of the first set of cameras we had 734 traffic signal related accidents.
From 7/1/2000 to 6/30/2005 the rate went down to 626 accidents or a 15% decrease. In those five years we also had an overall increase in traffic volume in Fremont.
As to fines from red light violations. By Penal Code statutes the City of Fremont receives between 9% and 11% of each traffic fine with the rest of the money going to the State of California and the County of Alameda.
We would actually make more money if we did red light enforcement only with traffic officers since we have a contract with RedFlex who installs and maintains the systems and they receive a portion of the fines. We truly did install them to reduce accidents and by all accounts they have helped with this problem.
I don’t want to get into the debate of speed bumps, humps. They do slow down traffic, but I have found they simply route the traffic to different streets without speed bumps, humps and so they don’t cure the problem of speeding on residential streets but simply move it to another location.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Put those visors down friends! I’ll bet Chief Steckler would also lead you to believe that DUI Checkpoints are just the best things since peanut-butter and jelly, when in fact, they are totally unconstitutional and violate the 4th Amendment! Notice the metality…
Chief Steckler: “In Fremont red light cameras seem to have reduced accidents at intersections equiped with the cameras.”
734 traffic signal related accidents (before cameras)
626 traffic signal related accidents (after cameras)
Chief Steckler: “I don’t want to get into a debate of speed bumps, humps. They do slow down traffic, BUT I HAVE FOUND THEY SIMPLY ROUTE THE TRAFFIC TO DIFFERENT STREETS WITHOUT SPEED BUMPS, HUMPS AND SO THEY DON’T CURE THE PROBLEM OF SPEEDING ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS BUT SIMPLY MOVE IT TO ANOTHER LOCATION.”
Didn’t Chief Steckler stop to consider, that people might just be avoiding the intersections with the cameras, the same way they avoid the streets with the speed bumps, which would, in turn, dilute the traffic signal related accident statistics?
On another note, I’d keep a close eye on a company that has a police-contract, and installs and maintains the cameras, that generate revenues for both parties involved. Where is the accountability? Where are the checks and balances?
Anytime a police department can sit back and collect a percentage of the fines without having to do too much policing/ticketing, they will! Having cameras that bring in funds and an officer out on the beat issuing traffic-tickets, at the same time makes the police department a whole heck of a lot of money!
I’m happy to say that Livermore doesn’t have any red light cameras… yet! However, we do have those intersection cameras all over the light poles. Most have 4 to an intersection! Seems to be too much to me… but I guess, not too much for the taxpayers!
Happy Fourth of July! Enjoy it while we still got it!
DON’T TREAD ON ME! LIBERTY OR DEATH!
July 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Walter does a good job of explaining one possible flaw in the Chief’s obvious rationalization of these cameras. . . . . Just because the number of accidents reported has gone down is not reliable evidence that the total number of accidents actually occurring has been reduced due to the installation of the cameras - and your Chief of Police is smart enough to know that . .. .
Take his explanation on the speed bump issue - if you measured the number of cars “speeding” on a street before speed bumps and then did the same measure afterwards, the Chief explains that there would definately be fewer cars “speeding” - but they would have gone elsewhere. But - conveniently, in his desire to rationalize these revenue-producing cameras - he ignores the prospect that people are simply driving “around” the camera-protected intersections.
Chief Steckler uses the argument when the question of speed bumps comes up - and I’m guessing he does so because speed bumps cost the city money, but, they dont produce revenue for the city . . .
So far so good. . . . . Now, ask yourself this question - since the Chief likes revenue-producing opportunities - why did he choose to forgo the obvious opportunity to bill residences for “false alarms” ?
He could have made money on this deal - but still he chose not to. Further, city management and leadership didn’t question that decision . .. . . now the question is “Why ?”
July 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
This is an interesting thread. I used t live in a ‘hood that worked hard to get speed bumps throughout its environs (including the street I lived on)— and I can say that it worked! People slowed down. The logistics of the area didn’t allow for folks to race down another street. Our quality of life improved.
I hate the camera lights,,,well,,because I ran afoul of one of those and paid the steep fine. I am certainly more conscious of all yellows and reds now.
All said, I think there are fair arguments on both sides of this issue, but I would support more bumps, more cameras, more islands, more bike lanes, more public transportation and more innovation to address our concerns with transportation and safe streets!
July 4th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
No one could take exception with WarbleFly. All good points - and let’s add to it . . . . we’d like greater level of scrutiny and frugality amongst our city leaders in spending the limited resources we have today. We’d like less “rationalization” of increased taxation as the “only” solutions to these revenue shortfalls. We’d like greater forsight and openness of revenue projections. We’d like much tougher negotations of public employee pension and benefit expenses.
July 5th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Steckler doesn’t do his job to make the city some revenue. He works for public safety and does quite a good job, and doubly so considering Fremont’s challenges. With our huge area and relatively small police force, I can live with red light cameras, which I despise, controlling traffic while police bust up gangs and catch crooks. I do take alternate routes to avoid speed bumps and stop signs, but I’ve never considered avoiding a red light because of a camera. Well-placed speed bumps and stop signs that leave no alternate path can make a difference.
If the city truly wanted to indirectly tax us, they’d ticket before street sweeping and install parking meters in busy areas. Now that would get my boxers in a bunch.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Jon, perhaps you are correct. But the question remains, why does Steckler so quickly rationalize the cameras (which generate revenue to the city) and so quickly dismiss speed bumps (which do not generate revenue to the city) ?
The argument he presents against speed bumps is that they simply “redirect” the speeding behavior elsewhere but he fails to use this same anecdote against the cameras he is in favor of. As an anecdote - it is equally true in both cases and in both cases, hard data would be necessary to prove one way or the other - but the Chief uses it in one case and in another chooses not to. Why is that ?
July 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Well, he’s not writing a peer reviewed academic paper. He was responding to a discussion on the Niles egroup and he gave his well informed view, one which makes sense to me. Have you ever avoided an intersection to avoid a red light camera? I never have, and if I did, it would involve huge detours around major intersections. However, I avoid stop signs and speed bumps all the time. I take Hillview to 2nd Street when heading south into Niles so can avoid the stop sign crossing Second at H, as well as waiting for pedestrians and traffic in downtown Niles. For the record, I make it a point to drive ~25mph on 2nd. I rarely take Isherwood because of all the darned stop signs.
I urge you to take the Citizens Academy, given by the Fremont Police. http://www.fremontpolice.org/academy/academy.html It will help you see the police perspective.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:39 am
JON SIMON! I WANT YOU TO… STOP BOOTLICKING!
No, he’s not writing a peer reviewed academic paper… but his comments can and should be criticized by the public.
Once again Jon, you’re on the wrong side of the issue! But hey, look on the brite side of things… even though the school board thing didn’t work out, you could always shine up your Citizen’s Academy Junior-G-Man Badge and hit the beat. Think of how many tickets you could write, how much funds you could generate. You and Steckler could be best buds! Chiefs always like yes-men!
July 7th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“The argument he presents against speed bumps is that they simply “redirect” the speeding behavior elsewhere but he fails to use this same anecdote against the cameras he is in favor of.”
Does somebody have traffic counts for the intersections before and after cameras were installed? And traffic counts for nearby intersections in the same time period?
Does somebody have a list of the intersections with cameras, and suggested bypasses?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I’m attaching a story I wrote last year about red light cameras in Fremont and Union City. Fremont info is toward the bottom. It doesn’t give every intersection. Also Fremont has moved the camers to different intersections but kept their casings in place, so some intersections like Stevenson and Fremont boulevards looks like there’s a camera, but doesn’t actually have cameras. At least it didn’t last year. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070607/ai_n19295576
July 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I think red light camera’s are a good thing if used in a ethical manner.
Fremonts red light vendor is not a ethical vendor.
A example is the entersection of Fremont Blvd and Automall. Three of the right turns are yield signs, the 4th has no stop sign, but you are suppose to stop if not, you get your picture took. Yes, I have recieved a ticket there. I was going 16 miles per hour as I made the right turn.
I am also disapointed in our politicians and city manager for not monitering the vendor more closely. They are probably to busy counting there money from unethical use of traffic camera’a resulting in tickets at about $400.00 dollars.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Gosh, I’m with Jon Simon on this one. Don’t want to get a ticket? Obey the law. I don’t care if they have them at each and every intersection, and the mafia is getting rich off of it. My only complaint is that there isn’t enough money available for more traffic enforcement (rolling stops, for one). And I’m not being self righteous - I got caught on a rt-hand turn (going 13 miles an hour - big whoop - I could’ve killed a pedestrian). Way to turn lack of personal responsibility into paranoid diatribe.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Be glad you don’t live in France - on the freeways outside of Paris they have speed sensors and cameras that take your picture and send you a ticket if you are exceeding the speed limit.
Obey the traffic laws and you won’t get in trouble.
And Coyote Bill - was the light red? If so, I think making a right turn is legal in CA AFTER you come to a complete stop (unless of course there is a sign saying “no right on red”).
As Queenbee said, not being self righteous - I’ve received my share of tickets - and they were all valid (as much as I protested that they weren’t at the time
July 8th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I want Amnesty for all red-light runners in America! Those hardworking people are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families by getting to work on time! Who cares if they break the law in the process?
Comprehensive Traffic Reform is my #1 issue in 2008!
McCain, Obama, are you listening? You’re both big Amnesty advocates!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vIuNNXcnnD70&feature=related
July 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Here is the link again, sorry!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNNXcnnD70&feature=related
Viva Reconquesta! Viva NAU!
July 12th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Wow, Jon Simon - I’m sorry that you feel that expecting our city leaders to drive decisions from fact-based information as opposed to anecdote-based opinions is such a lofty expectation . . . . If you truly held the experiences and knowledge of these individuals in high esteem, I think you would see my request as a minor hurdle - not a lofty “peer review”.
Mine is not an opinion that is made from (as you suggest) an uninformed position. Like you I have conducted P.D. ride-alongs in at least two Bay Area cities and have participated in a month long leadership program sponsored by our local Chamber of Commerce. I had great respect for many of the tasks that all of the public offices had to perform. I also found that there were instances where improvement was possible - if matters could be brought into the light of day.
That said - I think that speed bumps and red light cameras may be a good thing. However, a proper response to the question of effectiveness of either mechanism will include data or information - it will NOT be relegated to opinion.
That tax-paying constituency expects this kind of discipline from its leaders is hardly the equivalent of “peer review” and your sarcasm adds little in the way of constructive comment to this topic.