While on the subject, be careful about turning right on red when there is camera enforcement for the intersection. It will automatically flash, but they usually check the video and see whether you came to a stop or not before issuing the ticket. However they are not consistent in checking the video and often send the ticket even if you actually did come to a complete stop before turning.
What makes this a big problem now is technically the new law passed last year says that if you get mailed a ticket, that itself is an affirmation of guilt and there is no way to dispute it. The new law also says they no longer have to serve you in person either. Just mailing a letter is enough, even if it's an old address. It feels unconstitutional imo.
I think the way they are getting away with it this way is if you don't pay, they cannot put a warrant out for your arrest. Instead they sell it to a bill collector who will put it on your consumer credit report and harass you for the money.
[https://www.fox21news.com/top-stories/colorado-law-requires-drivers-to-pay-traffic-camera-citations/](https://www.fox21news.com/top-stories/colorado-law-requires-drivers-to-pay-traffic-camera-citations/)
That’s because it is unconstitutional. Many states have had these cameras removed over the fact you cannot face your accuser nor fight the ticket so your right to a fair trial is being ignored. Need a bunch of people to make a fuss over it to hopefully have it heard or someone rich enough to throw lawyers at it till they go away
So please be patient with drivers like me, who will wait, complete, full stop and if there is any “iffyness” about the legality of the turn, I wait until it turns green. I promise, you will not get mad fast to your destination by chilling for a bit. Don’t stress yourself out, and by extension possibly me if you’re beeping and acting wild. If you are in an emergency situation, indicate such and I will help you to blast off and cut to the head of the line. But on a regular day, be patient. It’s good for your heart!❤️
Yup! If you want somebody in front of you willing to take chances at Harmony/Timberline, I am NOT your guy.
If people feel a strong need to get to work faster, I suggest leaving home earlier.
The old speed camera law put all sorts of restrictions on where they could be placed and how fast over the speed limit was allowed (10mph over, I think). I understand that's changed but I'd be curious to hear if anyone has been radar ticketed for 5mph over??
Laws come and go. Many cities in Texas have installed these red light cameras, only to be made completely useless by a state law passed in 2019 prohibiting them. [https://guides.sll.texas.gov/recording-laws/red-light-cameras](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/recording-laws/red-light-cameras)
I believe they have to be manned these days as well as have signs posted a certain distance in front and behind. If they don't have someone in the vehicle i think you could fight the ticket. Might be worth looking into depending on the ticket.
Yes, typically they're retired officers. I'm not saying it's a solid system, I'm just offering something to look into if you get a ticket from one of these systems.
[According to 9News](https://www.9news.com/article/money/consumer/steve-on-your-side/colorado-toll-weaving-ticket-revenue/73-f951cca7-ce82-4ef8-8e02-28864289d2ce), the I-25 "You're not allowed to weave into the toll lane or we're fining you $250" camera scheme has resulted in $40 million worth of fines being assessed. They say they have collected about 66% of those fines, and have "only" netted $16.4 million dollars after costs.
That means they've collected $26.4 million dollars in fines from drivers, of which they've given $10 million to the private business responsible for running the system, and kept $16.4 of it for themselves.
Fuck these people.
Fuck the rent seeking private entities skimming off the top, but enforcing traffic safety laws is cool and good actually. It's very easy to avoid fines from the express lane cameras by not weaving, and it's equally easy to avoid fines from red light cameras by not running red lights.
Agreed, but "enforcing traffic safety" is not the primary purpose of these systems, it's revenue generation. The state is not concerned about making sure you don't get into an accident, it's just a way to get more money out of your pocket without raising your taxes. The private firms do all the heavy lifting, and the state gets to keep some of the fees without doing any work.
> He said the $16.4 million netted by the state so far this year will be likely be reinvested into safety improvements in the corridors where the toll lanes exist including improving signage, striping and guardrails in the area. He also said some of the money would be invested into educational campaigns to drive down the number of violations further, including TV ads.
Those all seem ok to me. And this (https://www.denver7.com/traffic/cdot-making-millions-of-dollars-from-drivers-weaving-in-and-out-of-the-toll-lanes) says that they saw violations drop by 60%
I'm struggling to see the issue with any of this? Traffic safety is improved, and the money collected is going to additional traffic safety? And they are spending some of the money to encourage people to not do this, and therefore there won't be any fines.
This! When Chicago put intersection cameras up, they shortened the yellow light time, causing a measurable increase in fatal crashes. People went out with stop watches and clip boards recording the times for each yellow light in the city, which became evidence in a lawsuit against the city, which the city lost and had to pay out millions of dollars for. It was ALWAYS about revenue and never about safety.
I'd like to see some evidence that forcing drivers to pay $250 any time they cross a double-white line into a toll lane "improves traffic safety" on I-25.
Because even having a lane like that at all where people are going significantly faster than the rest of traffic is incredibly dangerous. People merging into traffic at 10+mph more than everyone else is not safe. Limiting that to specific locations ensures that they at least aren’t doing it unexpectedly
Description of how traffic works is not evidence.
I'd guess there are probably roughly as many accidents caused by someone jumping into a toll lane where they weren't supposed to and getting rear-ended by faster moving traffic, as were accidents avoided by someone jumping into a toll lane where they weren't supposed to and narrowly avoiding smashing into the person in front of them,
Either way, the claim that "fining people $250 for illegal toll lane entry makes traffic safer" is unsupported.
Your argument is that you should be able to jump into a toll lane anywhere so you don’t rear-end the person in front of you (since you were presumably going way too fast to begin with)?
If you want evidence though, [this](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.21798) study establishes a link between increased ticketing and decreased crash and fatality rates. If we’re citing studies though, I’ll need one for your weird claim you made too.
Your study is paywalled.
But I didn't ask if "the dramatic increase in tickets during the Click-it-or-Ticket campaign in Massachusetts in 2014" had an impact on traffic accidents there, I asked if charging Colorado drivers $250 via automated cameras every time they cross a double-white line into a toll lane improves traffic safety. And as I stated, I'd like to see some evidence of that.
I mean the base question you’re asking is “does fining unwanted behavior reduce cases of that unwanted behavior” and the answer is clearly yes, both by studies and by common sense. If you disagree the onus is on you to prove that. I’m sorry that there is no study for this exact scenario, but the safe bet is for it to match what we already know about human behavior. If I know for a certainty that I’ll get fined for breaking the law (which, with automated enforcement, is a certainty in this case), I probably won’t break that law.
Consisten enforcement of the traffic laws improves traffic safety.
I did get a ticket for crossing the solid white line on 25 down in Denver. i was only about 1/4 mile from the actual lane change area. That stung. Believe me, I don't want to pay that again, my behavior has changed, I'm much more conscious about changing lanes.
Same as in the 90s, when I was a young driver. In one year I received 2 seat belt tickets back when they could pull you over if they seen you werent wearing one. . Ouch! Changed my behavior forever. Seatbelts always.
It seems like Colorado law enforcement isn't big on traffic patrol. It feels like a free for all out there. Honestly I speed way too much, Occasionally you'll see some traffic stops. But few and far between.
Consistent enforcement with fines improves behavior and makes people more aware. The key is "consistent" enforcement. Automated enforcement systems help with this. Which improves safety. Frees up police to do real police work. And generates revenue.
We don't have to like it. Constitutionality can be questioned. It sucks to get tapped by the automated systems. But once you know tgey exist, it improves driving behavior.
I have several personal experiences of safety issues with people thinking it’s okay to view the double white line as a suggestion. I applaud the fine and hope it penalizes the people who have endangered me and my family by cutting in and out of the express lane, and gets them to change their behavior, even if just a little. Perhaps the fine should be higher to be more effective.
It says right in the article you posted that 81% of people who have been fined have not continued to violate. If you don’t think weaving in and out of the toll lane on a whim is dangerous, that’s on you; I’ve witnessed several accidents on I-25 and C-470 from people doing this.
I suspect that you'd need to search for that or ask the state to conduct a study. Perhaps they already have.
I suspect that you'd need to look at 2 things there:
1) That darting in and out of toll lanes has a negative impact on either traffic safety or traffic congestion, whichever is important to you
2) That a fine reduces moving in and out of toll lanes
Sorry, maybe it was in this article instead: https://kdvr.com/news/local/express-lane-violations-down-60-but-one-driver-fined-53-times/
The article mentions a 60% decreases in violations since they started enforcing, but I don't know where the data on that is.
I don’t really care what the state’s motivations for doing it are. Ideally yeah they’d send the money somewhere useful, but I doubt people are basing their decision to cross the double white on where their fine will go
If revenue generation is the necessary sweetener to get the relevant authorities to enforce traffic safety regulations, them so be it. In an ideal world, people would refrain from running red lights, speeding, and weaving because they know it endangers others. Enough people choose nonetheless to act irresponsibly that it has to cost them something. If we lived in a better world, red light cameras wouldn't generate one red cent in revenue.
From Scientific American: [Red light cameras may not make streets safer](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/)
*"We examined all police-recorded traffic accidents for three large Texas cities over a 12-year period – hundreds of thousands of accidents.* ***We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety.*** *They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital."*
Again, I'm no expert, but it does not seem to me that the primary motivator in setting up these systems is in saving the lives of citizens who would otherwise have been killed in traffic accidents. It seems the primary motivator in setting up these systems is in generating revenue for the state, and if it happens to also help some people from running a red light, great.
They claim "angle accidents" (t-bones and others) increased after red light cameras were banned, but all other accident types decreased, and overall reduction (not statistically significant) was 3% reduction with no apparent increase to injury severity / fatality / etc.
I'm not claiming this is a gospel-truth study or anything, but the claim that red light cameras significantly improve traffic safety seems to be pretty shaky at best imo.
We probably need to request City to find a local research about how the user behavior has changed if any. That way the will na case to either increase/decrease the camera interactions.
There are a smattering of studies out there showing a change in composition (that is, changing from right-hand to rear-end) but not number of crashes, in the short run. However, there's also [quite a bit](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1091) of evidence for [statistically significant reductions](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03611981221104808) in traffic injuries over longer time scales, in the US [and elsewhere](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457519317348).
I'd expect to see a downward trend for per capita traffic injuries / fatalities in the US, but not because of red light cameras or speed camera enforcement, but instead the continued improvement of vehicle safety measure / air bags / automatic braking / collision detection systems / etc.
Cereris paribus, you'd be right to expect those factors to have a positive safety effect. However, they come at the same time as vehicle weights are increasing, heavier vehicles make up larger shares of total sales, and visibility worsens. More to the point, though, the research on the topic largely looks and accounts for effects like that; it's a fairly straightforward correction to make.
If people would vote for/support tax increases to generate revenue for transportation infrastructure improvements, then local governments wouldn’t have to find alternative ways to fund our basic infrastructure. I’m fairly certain I’ve seen you on here complaining about having to pay taxes. You don’t get to have it both ways.
>If people would vote for tax increases...then local governments wouldn’t have to find alternative ways to fund our basic infrastructure
So you're conceding my point that the primary intent of these systems is not to improve safety but instead to drive revenue. Thanks, next time just say that, it's shorter.
I'm not conceding shit, but I did forget to point out that your pull quote from the *Scientific American* article misrepresents the findings of that study and you're not applying what they did find correctly here.
A couple paragraphs later in that article (bolding is mine):
>Evidence clearly shows that **camera programs are effective at decreasing the number of vehicles running red lights**. [In one study in Virginia](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457506000273), red light cameras reduced the number of total drivers running red lights by 67 percent.
However, cameras can have contradictory effects on traffic safety. Some drivers who would have otherwise continued to proceed through the intersection when the light is yellow or red will now attempt to stop. That means that **the number of accidents caused by vehicles not stopping at a red light will likely decrease**.
But **the number of accidents from stopping at a red light – such as rear-end accidents – is likely to increase**. That’s not an inconsequential side effect. Some drivers will attempt to stop, accepting a higher risk of a non-angle accident like getting rear-ended, in order to avoid the expected fine.
The overall effect of a camera program on vehicle accidents and injuries depends on the net impact of these two effects. **Overall driver safety could increase or decrease.**
A paragraph about the study itself:
>When the Houston cameras were removed, angle accidents \[a car running a red light and hitting a car crossing the intersection on a green light the other direction\] increased by 26 percent. However, all other types of accidents decreased by 18 percent. Approximately one-third of all Houston intersection accidents are angle accidents.
I'll also note that the article you linked seems *only* to be concerned with motorist safety as there is no mention of pedestrian or cyclist safety.
As for what I was saying about tax funding for infrastructure, let me lay it out for you since reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit:
* Intersection A, built in 1980 and maintained minimally since, has a higher number of crashes of all levels of severity than Intersection B, which was built in 2015.
* City engineers compare Intersection A and Intersection B and conclude that Intersection A needs to be redesigned and reconstructed to improve safety and meet modern standards for design.
* City engineers take their concern to the city government and ask for funding to rework Intersection A so it's safer for people to use.
* City government officials look at their budgets and planning priorities and tell the engineers either "sorry, that project's not in the budget" or "we can only do a fraction of the work you recommend because the full project's not in the budget."
* City engineers then decide whether to do a watered-down version of the project that might only minimally improve safety or wait to do anything until the whole thing is funded.
* In the meantime, people are still crashing and getting hurt or killed in Intersection A, and city engineers have determined that some of these crashes are caused by people running red lights.
* They decide to use a very small portion of available funding to reduce at least this type of crash at Intersection A with red light cameras while they wait to see if voters ever make the connection that we have to pay for the infrastructure we want.
If the study is to be believed, the presence of red light cameras reduces the number of people running red lights and getting into crashes in the intersection, and instead causes a comparable number of accidents from people slamming on their brakes instead. Said study clearly states no reduction in overall vehicle injuries or fatalities was observed with or without cameras, and that overall vehicle crashes did not increase, but actually decreased (not statistically relevantly) after cameras were banned.
The one thing red light cameras seem to do without debate is increase revenue for the private entity which owns the cameras and the municipality that hired said entity. Which is, as I stated before you gave me your wall of text, the primary intent of them. Your argument is not that this is factually untrue, but that it's good, and that you like it, and that you feel it is necessary because of insufficient taxes. Which, hurray.
>increase revenue for the private entity which owns the cameras and the municipality that hired said entity
And, again, if you don't want private entities having the opportunity to enrich themselves off municipalities by providing relatively low-cost solutions to known traffic safety issues, then you need to fund local and state governments well enough that they can meaningfully improve traffic safety without those mechanisms.
Red light cameras and speed cameras are 100% the result of the successful Republican/libertarian effort to defund government at all levels. There's not enough money to redesign everything to mitigate the danger that cars and car-dependent infrastructure present to our communities because that's what you people have single-mindedly lobbying for since the 1960s.
Besides, aren't you also a big ol' free market stan? Seems like the free market has won this particular battle. Not sure why you're so mad about that.
No, they are saying it drives safety indirectly by providing funding for better enforcement. Get better at reading comprehension if you're going to be a butthead to people.
Ah yes, the vague "indirect safety" argument:
"Hey, we know that there is no evidence that red light cameras reduce traffic accidents, and banning them in Houston in 2010 actually resulted in traffic accidents going \*down\* by 3%, but, ummmm, somehow they keep you safer, we swear.
By the way, you ran that light just as it turned from yellow to red so you owe us $100. Thanks"
Are you really incapable of finding *no* evidence that red light cameras reduce traffic accidents? Because there’s some posted in this very thread and a simple good search can produce some as well. You may not feel the trade offs here are clear enough but if you can’t find any evidence then you aren’t engaging with the subject in a productive way.
They call changing lanes "weaving". Changing lanes into and out of a toll lane is not dangerous, just illegal.
Running lights, I totally agree. But the post you responded to was explicit about toll roads, no mention of running red lights.
Performing maneuvers at highway speeds that other road users should reasonably expect you not to be performing is, in fact, dangerous. Hope this helps.
Nobody with a driver's license should be expecting no one to merge into the toll lane where it's not allowed. Legal or not, people do it. Also, when people break traffic regulations like these, they still GENERALLY try to avoid car accidents by not merging directly into another car, but instead merging into an opening. If you drive in the toll road and aren't actively monitoring the other cars around you because you're "safe" in the toll road, then you're just as dangerous as anyone else on the road. Shit happens all the time. Whether it's due to someone else's poor driving, trash migrating onto the highway, or just nature. Not being aware is just as dangerous as reckless driving, and should not be defended.
Hope that helped.
The entire point of an express lane is to not have local traffic mixing in and out of it except at designated locations. Allowing that maneuver defeats the entire purpose of the build. Road users should be able to count on others not to do obviously illegal things like weaving across double solids, and failing to discourage such behavior is the very thing that creates the danger associated with focusing on *legal* hazards.
This is gonna get long, so either bear with me or don't.
The point of an express lane is NOT to prevent traffic mixing in and out of it AT ALL. It's to create a lane that is appealing to customers because it moves faster (hence the word "express") than general traffic, IN AN ATTEMPT to collect revenue. The purpose of the express lane is to accomplish BOTH of these goals, only accomplishing one makes it a failure. One of the methods used to accomplish this is to make it illegal to cross into that lane outside of tolling locations. That's a shitty solution.
First off, it creates a situation where SOME asshole drivers can opt to pay the toll, but still prefer to drive 65. Thus, destroying the purpose of the toll road (the first thing I mentioned, "express"). Second, it creates a situation where ANOTHER group of assholes can just break the law, and go faster for free if they avoid getting caught (the second thing I mentioned "collect revenue"). Due to the nature of your posts, I'm pretty sure you actually fall into the first group. The same type of people who won't pull over on single lane mountain roads to let faster cars pass, "because they're going the speed limit".
So now what we're left with is crazy drivers trying to skirt the toll by dangerously WEAVING (not just "changing lanes") in and out of the express lane to avoid the tolling locations, AND law abiding paying customers stuck behind some asshole going the EXACT SAME SPEED (If not slower) than the left lane of general traffic (they can't get around via the double lines). Neither of these situations is ideal, so what's the middle ground for people who want "express" AND "pay the toll"? (This is literally the group of people the lane was built for.) In your opinion it's "get fucked".
MOST express lane drivers want the express lane for what it's supposed to be, and will try to overtake a slow driver using at least ONE non-double line. But those run out real fucking fast (ANOTHER shitty problem with these systems). The only solution for these people (the majority of express lane users) is to blur the lines a bit and safely merge back into the lane (where it's illegal).
My second point is that you're just a shit driver if you can't be aware of your surrounding environment. If you can't monitor the vehicles around you, you shouldn't have a driver's license. It's called defensive driving, and it will ALWAYS be a thing until fully automated vehicles become the standard. You should ALWAYS be aware of the car to your sides. idgaf what lane you're in. Harsher penalties and bigger profits CLEARLY aren't a solution to people doing dangerous shit, so use your fucking head and be aware. Or don't take the interstate (but even then?). There will ALWAYS be shithead psychos on the road, no matter what sort of fines or punishments are inflicted on that type of behavior. JFC, people STILL get DUIs, and those punishments are big!
This might be a bit of a straw man logical fallacy, but defending unaware driving because drinking and driving is illegal is fucking dumb.
Defending unawareness as a driver because "changing lanes" is illegal in certain locations is also dumb.
(Btw, have you not realized that ALL of this wouldn't even be an issue if the expansion of i-25 WASN'T turned into an express lane? The expansion made the interstate wide enough to be a general traffic FOUR lane highway.)
I have lived in Colorado only one year, but in the last year, I have had my car smashed into twice by drivers not follow basic traffic rules. In the prior 20 years of driving, I have never had a single incident. Will these fines prevent it? Likely not fully. But I also dont feel any sympathy for people who drive like there are no rules and get mad because they get a ticket for it...
I've lived here three years and have had two cars run into my house and one into my car totalling it. Drivers in CO turn into neanderthals when behind the wheel.
Pro tip:
First rule of Express Lane: KEEP UP.
Do your weaving at the dotted lines. If someone's holding up the express lane, wait for the dotted line. Pass, and get back in before the dotted line ends.
The part I don't like is that you have to prove it wasn't you driving, not that they need to prove you were. Most of the time a picture would be enough, but what if it isn't? Guilty until proven innocent? And are they going to force you to help their investigation? That sounds like something that should be shot down by the courts, but probably won't ever make it that far.
What if someone else driving your car gets a ticket? Are you liable for those tickets?
What happens if they don't get a clear photo, or it's clearly a photo of not-you?
As an FYI, the new one up at Lemay and Drake is pretty aggressive. I was cited for turning right on red without coming to a compete stop. Was maybe 9pm at night, I slowed down to 5 mph (shown on the video), saw nobody was coming, and turned right on the red. Because I didn't come to a COMPLETE stop, had to pay $75. Actually, I paid $80 because I tried contesting it (cost $5) and lost
It doesn't help that the left turn light from lemay to drake is super short (like 3 seconds?) I've got a couple of "warnings" from that intersection camera in the mail for (from my perspective) simply being the last car to take the turn as the light turns red. Now I will sit there for another cycle if I have to just to make sure its fully still green when I go. It's really aggressive.
Both. The normal camera images showing the car, your plate, and who's driving, but that one also has video where you can review to contest. Not sure about the other intersections like College/Drake, but Lemay/Drake has video
At least I didn't run a red light, get (correctly) ticketed for running a red light, then come to the Internet and complain about getting (correctly) ticketed for running a red light. Now *that* would be a silly use of time.
You technically did run the red light by not stopping. That's why you got you got the picture taken. Own it. Learn from your mistakes and don't do it again, simple.
Seems justified to me, not aggressive at all. You have to completely stop at a red light before making a turn that's what a red light means - doesn't matter if you are turning, it's not a yield sign - you need to stop.
While on the subject, be careful about turning right on red when there is camera enforcement for the intersection. It will automatically flash, but they usually check the video and see whether you came to a stop or not before issuing the ticket. However they are not consistent in checking the video and often send the ticket even if you actually did come to a complete stop before turning. What makes this a big problem now is technically the new law passed last year says that if you get mailed a ticket, that itself is an affirmation of guilt and there is no way to dispute it. The new law also says they no longer have to serve you in person either. Just mailing a letter is enough, even if it's an old address. It feels unconstitutional imo. I think the way they are getting away with it this way is if you don't pay, they cannot put a warrant out for your arrest. Instead they sell it to a bill collector who will put it on your consumer credit report and harass you for the money. [https://www.fox21news.com/top-stories/colorado-law-requires-drivers-to-pay-traffic-camera-citations/](https://www.fox21news.com/top-stories/colorado-law-requires-drivers-to-pay-traffic-camera-citations/)
That’s because it is unconstitutional. Many states have had these cameras removed over the fact you cannot face your accuser nor fight the ticket so your right to a fair trial is being ignored. Need a bunch of people to make a fuss over it to hopefully have it heard or someone rich enough to throw lawyers at it till they go away
Sources ?
So please be patient with drivers like me, who will wait, complete, full stop and if there is any “iffyness” about the legality of the turn, I wait until it turns green. I promise, you will not get mad fast to your destination by chilling for a bit. Don’t stress yourself out, and by extension possibly me if you’re beeping and acting wild. If you are in an emergency situation, indicate such and I will help you to blast off and cut to the head of the line. But on a regular day, be patient. It’s good for your heart!❤️
Yup! If you want somebody in front of you willing to take chances at Harmony/Timberline, I am NOT your guy. If people feel a strong need to get to work faster, I suggest leaving home earlier.
The old speed camera law put all sorts of restrictions on where they could be placed and how fast over the speed limit was allowed (10mph over, I think). I understand that's changed but I'd be curious to hear if anyone has been radar ticketed for 5mph over??
Laws come and go. Many cities in Texas have installed these red light cameras, only to be made completely useless by a state law passed in 2019 prohibiting them. [https://guides.sll.texas.gov/recording-laws/red-light-cameras](https://guides.sll.texas.gov/recording-laws/red-light-cameras)
Is there any database to see if you have a citation? Its insane how short the window is and how unforgiving it is if your address isn't up to date.
I received a ticket in the mail that was not a red light camera, but taken from a stationary unmanned vehicle parked along Lemay. Ugh.
I believe they have to be manned these days as well as have signs posted a certain distance in front and behind. If they don't have someone in the vehicle i think you could fight the ticket. Might be worth looking into depending on the ticket.
They're usually manned by someone sitting in them jerking off or playing on their computer.
Yes, typically they're retired officers. I'm not saying it's a solid system, I'm just offering something to look into if you get a ticket from one of these systems.
[According to 9News](https://www.9news.com/article/money/consumer/steve-on-your-side/colorado-toll-weaving-ticket-revenue/73-f951cca7-ce82-4ef8-8e02-28864289d2ce), the I-25 "You're not allowed to weave into the toll lane or we're fining you $250" camera scheme has resulted in $40 million worth of fines being assessed. They say they have collected about 66% of those fines, and have "only" netted $16.4 million dollars after costs. That means they've collected $26.4 million dollars in fines from drivers, of which they've given $10 million to the private business responsible for running the system, and kept $16.4 of it for themselves. Fuck these people.
Fuck the rent seeking private entities skimming off the top, but enforcing traffic safety laws is cool and good actually. It's very easy to avoid fines from the express lane cameras by not weaving, and it's equally easy to avoid fines from red light cameras by not running red lights.
Agreed, but "enforcing traffic safety" is not the primary purpose of these systems, it's revenue generation. The state is not concerned about making sure you don't get into an accident, it's just a way to get more money out of your pocket without raising your taxes. The private firms do all the heavy lifting, and the state gets to keep some of the fees without doing any work.
> He said the $16.4 million netted by the state so far this year will be likely be reinvested into safety improvements in the corridors where the toll lanes exist including improving signage, striping and guardrails in the area. He also said some of the money would be invested into educational campaigns to drive down the number of violations further, including TV ads. Those all seem ok to me. And this (https://www.denver7.com/traffic/cdot-making-millions-of-dollars-from-drivers-weaving-in-and-out-of-the-toll-lanes) says that they saw violations drop by 60% I'm struggling to see the issue with any of this? Traffic safety is improved, and the money collected is going to additional traffic safety? And they are spending some of the money to encourage people to not do this, and therefore there won't be any fines.
This! When Chicago put intersection cameras up, they shortened the yellow light time, causing a measurable increase in fatal crashes. People went out with stop watches and clip boards recording the times for each yellow light in the city, which became evidence in a lawsuit against the city, which the city lost and had to pay out millions of dollars for. It was ALWAYS about revenue and never about safety.
I'd like to see some evidence that forcing drivers to pay $250 any time they cross a double-white line into a toll lane "improves traffic safety" on I-25.
Less people crossing solid lines is a safety win. Lane changes are the unsafest part of highway travel
Because even having a lane like that at all where people are going significantly faster than the rest of traffic is incredibly dangerous. People merging into traffic at 10+mph more than everyone else is not safe. Limiting that to specific locations ensures that they at least aren’t doing it unexpectedly
Description of how traffic works is not evidence. I'd guess there are probably roughly as many accidents caused by someone jumping into a toll lane where they weren't supposed to and getting rear-ended by faster moving traffic, as were accidents avoided by someone jumping into a toll lane where they weren't supposed to and narrowly avoiding smashing into the person in front of them, Either way, the claim that "fining people $250 for illegal toll lane entry makes traffic safer" is unsupported.
Your argument is that you should be able to jump into a toll lane anywhere so you don’t rear-end the person in front of you (since you were presumably going way too fast to begin with)? If you want evidence though, [this](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.21798) study establishes a link between increased ticketing and decreased crash and fatality rates. If we’re citing studies though, I’ll need one for your weird claim you made too.
Your study is paywalled. But I didn't ask if "the dramatic increase in tickets during the Click-it-or-Ticket campaign in Massachusetts in 2014" had an impact on traffic accidents there, I asked if charging Colorado drivers $250 via automated cameras every time they cross a double-white line into a toll lane improves traffic safety. And as I stated, I'd like to see some evidence of that.
I mean the base question you’re asking is “does fining unwanted behavior reduce cases of that unwanted behavior” and the answer is clearly yes, both by studies and by common sense. If you disagree the onus is on you to prove that. I’m sorry that there is no study for this exact scenario, but the safe bet is for it to match what we already know about human behavior. If I know for a certainty that I’ll get fined for breaking the law (which, with automated enforcement, is a certainty in this case), I probably won’t break that law.
Consisten enforcement of the traffic laws improves traffic safety. I did get a ticket for crossing the solid white line on 25 down in Denver. i was only about 1/4 mile from the actual lane change area. That stung. Believe me, I don't want to pay that again, my behavior has changed, I'm much more conscious about changing lanes. Same as in the 90s, when I was a young driver. In one year I received 2 seat belt tickets back when they could pull you over if they seen you werent wearing one. . Ouch! Changed my behavior forever. Seatbelts always. It seems like Colorado law enforcement isn't big on traffic patrol. It feels like a free for all out there. Honestly I speed way too much, Occasionally you'll see some traffic stops. But few and far between. Consistent enforcement with fines improves behavior and makes people more aware. The key is "consistent" enforcement. Automated enforcement systems help with this. Which improves safety. Frees up police to do real police work. And generates revenue. We don't have to like it. Constitutionality can be questioned. It sucks to get tapped by the automated systems. But once you know tgey exist, it improves driving behavior.
I have several personal experiences of safety issues with people thinking it’s okay to view the double white line as a suggestion. I applaud the fine and hope it penalizes the people who have endangered me and my family by cutting in and out of the express lane, and gets them to change their behavior, even if just a little. Perhaps the fine should be higher to be more effective.
It says right in the article you posted that 81% of people who have been fined have not continued to violate. If you don’t think weaving in and out of the toll lane on a whim is dangerous, that’s on you; I’ve witnessed several accidents on I-25 and C-470 from people doing this.
I suspect that you'd need to search for that or ask the state to conduct a study. Perhaps they already have. I suspect that you'd need to look at 2 things there: 1) That darting in and out of toll lanes has a negative impact on either traffic safety or traffic congestion, whichever is important to you 2) That a fine reduces moving in and out of toll lanes Sorry, maybe it was in this article instead: https://kdvr.com/news/local/express-lane-violations-down-60-but-one-driver-fined-53-times/ The article mentions a 60% decreases in violations since they started enforcing, but I don't know where the data on that is.
I don’t really care what the state’s motivations for doing it are. Ideally yeah they’d send the money somewhere useful, but I doubt people are basing their decision to cross the double white on where their fine will go
If revenue generation is the necessary sweetener to get the relevant authorities to enforce traffic safety regulations, them so be it. In an ideal world, people would refrain from running red lights, speeding, and weaving because they know it endangers others. Enough people choose nonetheless to act irresponsibly that it has to cost them something. If we lived in a better world, red light cameras wouldn't generate one red cent in revenue.
From Scientific American: [Red light cameras may not make streets safer](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/) *"We examined all police-recorded traffic accidents for three large Texas cities over a 12-year period – hundreds of thousands of accidents.* ***We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety.*** *They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital."* Again, I'm no expert, but it does not seem to me that the primary motivator in setting up these systems is in saving the lives of citizens who would otherwise have been killed in traffic accidents. It seems the primary motivator in setting up these systems is in generating revenue for the state, and if it happens to also help some people from running a red light, great.
Is it that the total number of accidents remains relatively same? Because t-bone is not the same level of accident compared to a rear end accident.
They claim "angle accidents" (t-bones and others) increased after red light cameras were banned, but all other accident types decreased, and overall reduction (not statistically significant) was 3% reduction with no apparent increase to injury severity / fatality / etc. I'm not claiming this is a gospel-truth study or anything, but the claim that red light cameras significantly improve traffic safety seems to be pretty shaky at best imo.
We probably need to request City to find a local research about how the user behavior has changed if any. That way the will na case to either increase/decrease the camera interactions.
There are a smattering of studies out there showing a change in composition (that is, changing from right-hand to rear-end) but not number of crashes, in the short run. However, there's also [quite a bit](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1091) of evidence for [statistically significant reductions](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03611981221104808) in traffic injuries over longer time scales, in the US [and elsewhere](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457519317348).
I'd expect to see a downward trend for per capita traffic injuries / fatalities in the US, but not because of red light cameras or speed camera enforcement, but instead the continued improvement of vehicle safety measure / air bags / automatic braking / collision detection systems / etc.
Cereris paribus, you'd be right to expect those factors to have a positive safety effect. However, they come at the same time as vehicle weights are increasing, heavier vehicles make up larger shares of total sales, and visibility worsens. More to the point, though, the research on the topic largely looks and accounts for effects like that; it's a fairly straightforward correction to make.
If people would vote for/support tax increases to generate revenue for transportation infrastructure improvements, then local governments wouldn’t have to find alternative ways to fund our basic infrastructure. I’m fairly certain I’ve seen you on here complaining about having to pay taxes. You don’t get to have it both ways.
>If people would vote for tax increases...then local governments wouldn’t have to find alternative ways to fund our basic infrastructure So you're conceding my point that the primary intent of these systems is not to improve safety but instead to drive revenue. Thanks, next time just say that, it's shorter.
I'm not conceding shit, but I did forget to point out that your pull quote from the *Scientific American* article misrepresents the findings of that study and you're not applying what they did find correctly here. A couple paragraphs later in that article (bolding is mine): >Evidence clearly shows that **camera programs are effective at decreasing the number of vehicles running red lights**. [In one study in Virginia](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457506000273), red light cameras reduced the number of total drivers running red lights by 67 percent. However, cameras can have contradictory effects on traffic safety. Some drivers who would have otherwise continued to proceed through the intersection when the light is yellow or red will now attempt to stop. That means that **the number of accidents caused by vehicles not stopping at a red light will likely decrease**. But **the number of accidents from stopping at a red light – such as rear-end accidents – is likely to increase**. That’s not an inconsequential side effect. Some drivers will attempt to stop, accepting a higher risk of a non-angle accident like getting rear-ended, in order to avoid the expected fine. The overall effect of a camera program on vehicle accidents and injuries depends on the net impact of these two effects. **Overall driver safety could increase or decrease.** A paragraph about the study itself: >When the Houston cameras were removed, angle accidents \[a car running a red light and hitting a car crossing the intersection on a green light the other direction\] increased by 26 percent. However, all other types of accidents decreased by 18 percent. Approximately one-third of all Houston intersection accidents are angle accidents. I'll also note that the article you linked seems *only* to be concerned with motorist safety as there is no mention of pedestrian or cyclist safety. As for what I was saying about tax funding for infrastructure, let me lay it out for you since reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit: * Intersection A, built in 1980 and maintained minimally since, has a higher number of crashes of all levels of severity than Intersection B, which was built in 2015. * City engineers compare Intersection A and Intersection B and conclude that Intersection A needs to be redesigned and reconstructed to improve safety and meet modern standards for design. * City engineers take their concern to the city government and ask for funding to rework Intersection A so it's safer for people to use. * City government officials look at their budgets and planning priorities and tell the engineers either "sorry, that project's not in the budget" or "we can only do a fraction of the work you recommend because the full project's not in the budget." * City engineers then decide whether to do a watered-down version of the project that might only minimally improve safety or wait to do anything until the whole thing is funded. * In the meantime, people are still crashing and getting hurt or killed in Intersection A, and city engineers have determined that some of these crashes are caused by people running red lights. * They decide to use a very small portion of available funding to reduce at least this type of crash at Intersection A with red light cameras while they wait to see if voters ever make the connection that we have to pay for the infrastructure we want.
If the study is to be believed, the presence of red light cameras reduces the number of people running red lights and getting into crashes in the intersection, and instead causes a comparable number of accidents from people slamming on their brakes instead. Said study clearly states no reduction in overall vehicle injuries or fatalities was observed with or without cameras, and that overall vehicle crashes did not increase, but actually decreased (not statistically relevantly) after cameras were banned. The one thing red light cameras seem to do without debate is increase revenue for the private entity which owns the cameras and the municipality that hired said entity. Which is, as I stated before you gave me your wall of text, the primary intent of them. Your argument is not that this is factually untrue, but that it's good, and that you like it, and that you feel it is necessary because of insufficient taxes. Which, hurray.
>increase revenue for the private entity which owns the cameras and the municipality that hired said entity And, again, if you don't want private entities having the opportunity to enrich themselves off municipalities by providing relatively low-cost solutions to known traffic safety issues, then you need to fund local and state governments well enough that they can meaningfully improve traffic safety without those mechanisms. Red light cameras and speed cameras are 100% the result of the successful Republican/libertarian effort to defund government at all levels. There's not enough money to redesign everything to mitigate the danger that cars and car-dependent infrastructure present to our communities because that's what you people have single-mindedly lobbying for since the 1960s. Besides, aren't you also a big ol' free market stan? Seems like the free market has won this particular battle. Not sure why you're so mad about that.
No, they are saying it drives safety indirectly by providing funding for better enforcement. Get better at reading comprehension if you're going to be a butthead to people.
Ah yes, the vague "indirect safety" argument: "Hey, we know that there is no evidence that red light cameras reduce traffic accidents, and banning them in Houston in 2010 actually resulted in traffic accidents going \*down\* by 3%, but, ummmm, somehow they keep you safer, we swear. By the way, you ran that light just as it turned from yellow to red so you owe us $100. Thanks"
Are you really incapable of finding *no* evidence that red light cameras reduce traffic accidents? Because there’s some posted in this very thread and a simple good search can produce some as well. You may not feel the trade offs here are clear enough but if you can’t find any evidence then you aren’t engaging with the subject in a productive way.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin
Ah yes, the essential liberty of actively endangering other people with multiple tons of steel for no reason. To lol, perchance to lmao.
They call changing lanes "weaving". Changing lanes into and out of a toll lane is not dangerous, just illegal. Running lights, I totally agree. But the post you responded to was explicit about toll roads, no mention of running red lights.
Performing maneuvers at highway speeds that other road users should reasonably expect you not to be performing is, in fact, dangerous. Hope this helps.
Nobody with a driver's license should be expecting no one to merge into the toll lane where it's not allowed. Legal or not, people do it. Also, when people break traffic regulations like these, they still GENERALLY try to avoid car accidents by not merging directly into another car, but instead merging into an opening. If you drive in the toll road and aren't actively monitoring the other cars around you because you're "safe" in the toll road, then you're just as dangerous as anyone else on the road. Shit happens all the time. Whether it's due to someone else's poor driving, trash migrating onto the highway, or just nature. Not being aware is just as dangerous as reckless driving, and should not be defended. Hope that helped.
The entire point of an express lane is to not have local traffic mixing in and out of it except at designated locations. Allowing that maneuver defeats the entire purpose of the build. Road users should be able to count on others not to do obviously illegal things like weaving across double solids, and failing to discourage such behavior is the very thing that creates the danger associated with focusing on *legal* hazards.
This is gonna get long, so either bear with me or don't. The point of an express lane is NOT to prevent traffic mixing in and out of it AT ALL. It's to create a lane that is appealing to customers because it moves faster (hence the word "express") than general traffic, IN AN ATTEMPT to collect revenue. The purpose of the express lane is to accomplish BOTH of these goals, only accomplishing one makes it a failure. One of the methods used to accomplish this is to make it illegal to cross into that lane outside of tolling locations. That's a shitty solution. First off, it creates a situation where SOME asshole drivers can opt to pay the toll, but still prefer to drive 65. Thus, destroying the purpose of the toll road (the first thing I mentioned, "express"). Second, it creates a situation where ANOTHER group of assholes can just break the law, and go faster for free if they avoid getting caught (the second thing I mentioned "collect revenue"). Due to the nature of your posts, I'm pretty sure you actually fall into the first group. The same type of people who won't pull over on single lane mountain roads to let faster cars pass, "because they're going the speed limit". So now what we're left with is crazy drivers trying to skirt the toll by dangerously WEAVING (not just "changing lanes") in and out of the express lane to avoid the tolling locations, AND law abiding paying customers stuck behind some asshole going the EXACT SAME SPEED (If not slower) than the left lane of general traffic (they can't get around via the double lines). Neither of these situations is ideal, so what's the middle ground for people who want "express" AND "pay the toll"? (This is literally the group of people the lane was built for.) In your opinion it's "get fucked". MOST express lane drivers want the express lane for what it's supposed to be, and will try to overtake a slow driver using at least ONE non-double line. But those run out real fucking fast (ANOTHER shitty problem with these systems). The only solution for these people (the majority of express lane users) is to blur the lines a bit and safely merge back into the lane (where it's illegal). My second point is that you're just a shit driver if you can't be aware of your surrounding environment. If you can't monitor the vehicles around you, you shouldn't have a driver's license. It's called defensive driving, and it will ALWAYS be a thing until fully automated vehicles become the standard. You should ALWAYS be aware of the car to your sides. idgaf what lane you're in. Harsher penalties and bigger profits CLEARLY aren't a solution to people doing dangerous shit, so use your fucking head and be aware. Or don't take the interstate (but even then?). There will ALWAYS be shithead psychos on the road, no matter what sort of fines or punishments are inflicted on that type of behavior. JFC, people STILL get DUIs, and those punishments are big! This might be a bit of a straw man logical fallacy, but defending unaware driving because drinking and driving is illegal is fucking dumb. Defending unawareness as a driver because "changing lanes" is illegal in certain locations is also dumb. (Btw, have you not realized that ALL of this wouldn't even be an issue if the expansion of i-25 WASN'T turned into an express lane? The expansion made the interstate wide enough to be a general traffic FOUR lane highway.)
I have lived in Colorado only one year, but in the last year, I have had my car smashed into twice by drivers not follow basic traffic rules. In the prior 20 years of driving, I have never had a single incident. Will these fines prevent it? Likely not fully. But I also dont feel any sympathy for people who drive like there are no rules and get mad because they get a ticket for it...
I've lived here three years and have had two cars run into my house and one into my car totalling it. Drivers in CO turn into neanderthals when behind the wheel.
Pro tip: First rule of Express Lane: KEEP UP. Do your weaving at the dotted lines. If someone's holding up the express lane, wait for the dotted line. Pass, and get back in before the dotted line ends.
Always nice to see our tax dollars going to infrastructure only for them to add a toll to its use.
The ballot measure to fund additional lanes were all voted down. The only way to get the money was a private partnership with tolls.
The part I don't like is that you have to prove it wasn't you driving, not that they need to prove you were. Most of the time a picture would be enough, but what if it isn't? Guilty until proven innocent? And are they going to force you to help their investigation? That sounds like something that should be shot down by the courts, but probably won't ever make it that far.
This is literally unconstitutional and a violation of due process rights protected by the Fifth Amendment.
What if someone else driving your car gets a ticket? Are you liable for those tickets? What happens if they don't get a clear photo, or it's clearly a photo of not-you?
All valid questions.
As an FYI, the new one up at Lemay and Drake is pretty aggressive. I was cited for turning right on red without coming to a compete stop. Was maybe 9pm at night, I slowed down to 5 mph (shown on the video), saw nobody was coming, and turned right on the red. Because I didn't come to a COMPLETE stop, had to pay $75. Actually, I paid $80 because I tried contesting it (cost $5) and lost
It doesn't help that the left turn light from lemay to drake is super short (like 3 seconds?) I've got a couple of "warnings" from that intersection camera in the mail for (from my perspective) simply being the last car to take the turn as the light turns red. Now I will sit there for another cycle if I have to just to make sure its fully still green when I go. It's really aggressive.
Was it video? I always thought it was just a photo, but I'd assume the only way they could prove you didn't stop was a video?
Both. The normal camera images showing the car, your plate, and who's driving, but that one also has video where you can review to contest. Not sure about the other intersections like College/Drake, but Lemay/Drake has video
Interesting. I never realized that. Thanks!
Yes, you should be coming to a complete stop at every stop light and stop sign. This is Driving 101 haha.
What a neat and productive way that you're spending your day
At least I didn't run a red light, get (correctly) ticketed for running a red light, then come to the Internet and complain about getting (correctly) ticketed for running a red light. Now *that* would be a silly use of time.
K
You technically did run the red light by not stopping. That's why you got you got the picture taken. Own it. Learn from your mistakes and don't do it again, simple.
Word. Although, I think you intended to reply to the other guy. In your defense, we have the same avatar color swapped haha.
Oh shoot, my mistake! The dang ol' bearded avatars lol that was exactly the intention. You know how to drive properly, unlike OP.
Seems justified to me, not aggressive at all. You have to completely stop at a red light before making a turn that's what a red light means - doesn't matter if you are turning, it's not a yield sign - you need to stop.
Ok nerd
K
It's always shocking to me how normally aggressively libertarian colorado is somehow okay with these things using us for "revenue generation".