One D.C. stop-sign camera brought in $1.3 million in tickets in 2 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14% of the tickets issued that were contested were overturned. That is a very high error rate by any standard.

86% of $1.3 million is still not too bad. However, that camera is almost certainly contracted. How much does the contracting company get per ticket?

Actually DC does not contract with a 3rd party vendor that takes a share of the revenue - not sure why this is repeated so often.

Montgomery County does this with its school bus camera program but DC does not.

According to the third party, DC recently renewed the contract.

https://novoaglobal.com/washington-dc-photo-enforcement-contract-renewed/

According to this article, it was fixed price in 2017, at $3,000,000.

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/184122/dc-traffic-tickets-the-district-profits-and-residents-pay/

I can find details on the new renewal.

Good catch.

Lockheed did originally have the contract back in 2000, as this NYT article says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/automobiles/frown-you-re-on-red-light-camera.html

I am not sure why people are motivated to lie or just make things up so much about these things. It’s bizarre.

It's really quite odd. Why would someone so insistently do that about an easily provable fact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14% of the tickets issued that were contested were overturned. That is a very high error rate by any standard.

86% of $1.3 million is still not too bad. However, that camera is almost certainly contracted. How much does the contracting company get per ticket?

Actually DC does not contract with a 3rd party vendor that takes a share of the revenue - not sure why this is repeated so often.

Montgomery County does this with its school bus camera program but DC does not.

According to the third party, DC recently renewed the contract.

https://novoaglobal.com/washington-dc-photo-enforcement-contract-renewed/

According to this article, it was fixed price in 2017, at $3,000,000.

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/184122/dc-traffic-tickets-the-district-profits-and-residents-pay/

I can find details on the new renewal.

Good catch.

Lockheed did originally have the contract back in 2000, as this NYT article says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/automobiles/frown-you-re-on-red-light-camera.html

I am not sure why people are motivated to lie or just make things up so much about these things. It’s bizarre.

It's really quite odd. Why would someone so insistently do that about an easily provable fact?

Anything goes in the war on cars, I guess. Facts be damned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14% of the tickets issued that were contested were overturned. That is a very high error rate by any standard.

86% of $1.3 million is still not too bad. However, that camera is almost certainly contracted. How much does the contracting company get per ticket?

Actually DC does not contract with a 3rd party vendor that takes a share of the revenue - not sure why this is repeated so often.

Montgomery County does this with its school bus camera program but DC does not.

According to the third party, DC recently renewed the contract.

https://novoaglobal.com/washington-dc-photo-enforcement-contract-renewed/

According to this article, it was fixed price in 2017, at $3,000,000.

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/184122/dc-traffic-tickets-the-district-profits-and-residents-pay/

I can find details on the new renewal.

Good catch.

Lockheed did originally have the contract back in 2000, as this NYT article says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/automobiles/frown-you-re-on-red-light-camera.html

I am not sure why people are motivated to lie or just make things up so much about these things. It’s bizarre.

It's really quite odd. Why would someone so insistently do that about an easily provable fact?

Anything goes in the war on cars, I guess. Facts be damned.

But is it intentional deceit or an unintentional mental defect? At this point it doesn't seem like an innocent mistake.

[Anonymous]

Studies have repeatedly found in DC and elsewhere that traffic cameras issue far more tickets to black drivers than anyone else. Of course, traffic cameras are championed by almost entirely white cyclists.

Big racial component here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Studies have repeatedly found in DC and elsewhere that traffic cameras issue far more tickets to black drivers than anyone else. Of course, traffic cameras are championed by almost entirely white cyclists.

Big racial component here.

That was when they were mostly in black neighborhoods. The ones people are whining about now are in white neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14% of the tickets issued that were contested were overturned. That is a very high error rate by any standard.

86% of $1.3 million is still not too bad. However, that camera is almost certainly contracted. How much does the contracting company get per ticket?

Actually DC does not contract with a 3rd party vendor that takes a share of the revenue - not sure why this is repeated so often.

Montgomery County does this with its school bus camera program but DC does not.

According to the third party, DC recently renewed the contract.

https://novoaglobal.com/washington-dc-photo-enforcement-contract-renewed/

According to this article, it was fixed price in 2017, at $3,000,000.

https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/184122/dc-traffic-tickets-the-district-profits-and-residents-pay/

I can find details on the new renewal.

Good catch.

Lockheed did originally have the contract back in 2000, as this NYT article says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/automobiles/frown-you-re-on-red-light-camera.html

I am not sure why people are motivated to lie or just make things up so much about these things. It’s bizarre.

It's really quite odd. Why would someone so insistently do that about an easily provable fact?

Anything goes in the war on cars, I guess. Facts be damned.

Or maybe ... somebody is just wrong on the internet? Maybe they got their facts wrong, and there is not actually a conspiracy out there to lie about cars and traffic enforcement?

[Anonymous]

I got 2 traffic camera tickets in DC and I ain't paying sh$T

[Anonymous]

DC has been way too over zealous into turning cameras into a source revenue, instead of using cameras primarily as a tool for promoting safety. As a result, a backlash is brewing and whenever government goes overboard public backlash should be expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it was needed!!

Exactly. That's why it's there.

Doesn’t sound like it’s helping to correct driver behavior if so many tickets keep getting issued. Is it well signed so drivers are aware of the camera?

Yeah, there's an obvious hexagonal sign in an obvious color. If you see it, then come to a complete stop behind the painted line, as legally required. You'll be fine.

Do you need to come to a complete stop and count four seconds to assess the intersection and safely move forward? If yes, then this camera is not helping to improve safety. Camera revenue should approach zero over time if it’s improving safety. Revenue should remain high if the purpose is to collect money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on a corner where people constantly blow through the stop sign, I think the argument "images show the brake lights were on" is idiotic. Plenty of people slow down at stop signs (brake lights!) without stopping. It's not a slow down sign.

Make a complete stop, behind the line. If that seems outrageously onerous to you, you're a bad driver. These stop signs are in residential neighborhoods and I don't care that you're in a hurry.

I don’t care that you choose to live in a city on a busy road. So there’s that. It’s onerous and a money grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on a corner where people constantly blow through the stop sign, I think the argument "images show the brake lights were on" is idiotic. Plenty of people slow down at stop signs (brake lights!) without stopping. It's not a slow down sign.

Make a complete stop, behind the line. If that seems outrageously onerous to you, you're a bad driver. These stop signs are in residential neighborhoods and I don't care that you're in a hurry.

I don’t care that you choose to live in a city on a busy road. So there’s that. It’s onerous and a money grab.

Well then go fishtailing in your boring suburb. We don't want your road rage here.

Also, I'd rather have DC raise fines on crazy speeders so that ordinary residents don't have to pay as much in taxes. Seems like an excellent tradeoff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on a corner where people constantly blow through the stop sign, I think the argument "images show the brake lights were on" is idiotic. Plenty of people slow down at stop signs (brake lights!) without stopping. It's not a slow down sign.

Make a complete stop, behind the line. If that seems outrageously onerous to you, you're a bad driver. These stop signs are in residential neighborhoods and I don't care that you're in a hurry.

I don’t care that you choose to live in a city on a busy road. So there’s that. It’s onerous and a money grab.

Well then go fishtailing in your boring suburb. We don't want your road rage here.

Also, I'd rather have DC raise fines on crazy speeders so that ordinary residents don't have to pay as much in taxes. Seems like an excellent tradeoff

DP but if your goal is to prevent traffic on your busy street in the city, it sounds like the suburbs may actually be the environment you are looking for?

Serious question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on a corner where people constantly blow through the stop sign, I think the argument "images show the brake lights were on" is idiotic. Plenty of people slow down at stop signs (brake lights!) without stopping. It's not a slow down sign.

Make a complete stop, behind the line. If that seems outrageously onerous to you, you're a bad driver. These stop signs are in residential neighborhoods and I don't care that you're in a hurry.

I don’t care that you choose to live in a city on a busy road. So there’s that. It’s onerous and a money grab.

DP. It is a stupidity tax. So I really do not care if you think it is a money grab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on a corner where people constantly blow through the stop sign, I think the argument "images show the brake lights were on" is idiotic. Plenty of people slow down at stop signs (brake lights!) without stopping. It's not a slow down sign.

Make a complete stop, behind the line. If that seems outrageously onerous to you, you're a bad driver. These stop signs are in residential neighborhoods and I don't care that you're in a hurry.

I don’t care that you choose to live in a city on a busy road. So there’s that. It’s onerous and a money grab.

DP. It is a stupidity tax. So I really do not care if you think it is a money grab.

Well then it is certainly working as designed, in a predatory manner. If the goal was safety and not revenue, then the city would be implementing “stupid” proof solutions, like speed tables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on a corner where people constantly blow through the stop sign, I think the argument "images show the brake lights were on" is idiotic. Plenty of people slow down at stop signs (brake lights!) without stopping. It's not a slow down sign.

Make a complete stop, behind the line. If that seems outrageously onerous to you, you're a bad driver. These stop signs are in residential neighborhoods and I don't care that you're in a hurry.

I don’t care that you choose to live in a city on a busy road. So there’s that. It’s onerous and a money grab.

Well then go fishtailing in your boring suburb. We don't want your road rage here.

Also, I'd rather have DC raise fines on crazy speeders so that ordinary residents don't have to pay as much in taxes. Seems like an excellent tradeoff

DP but if your goal is to prevent traffic on your busy street in the city, it sounds like the suburbs may actually be the environment you are looking for?

Serious question.

You got it backwards. City dwellers like me want to live in a vibrant and walkable urban environment. It is your out-of-state suburban road rage that doesn't belong here. Just stay in your boring suburban hell hole and race around there.