Bluff City to start issuing warning citations to speeding motorists caught on camera
David Crigger|Bristol Herald Courier
Drivers hit their brakes as they pass Bluff City’s new speed cameras Monday afternoon. A special “warning citation” will be mailed to drivers caught speeding by the cameras starting today. Offending motorists will be fined come January.
Published: December 1, 2009
Updated: December 1, 2009
BLUFF CITY, Tenn. – A flashing light pole caught Kenny Hensley by surprise Monday as he drove up U.S. Highway 11E toward Bristol following an afternoon trip to Johnson City.
Attached to the light pole, about 200 yards from Pardner’s Bar-B-Que and Steak restaurant, is one of two speed cameras Bluff City police officers installed last month to watch drivers who travel the northbound and southbound lanes of U.S. 11E.
And every time its light flashed, Police Chief David Nelson said, the camera caught a vehicle exceeding the highway’s 45 mph speed limit and took its picture.
“If they’re not speeding, they don’t have anything to worry about,” Nelson said.
Starting today, registered owners of speeding vehicles will get a written warning. That grace period will last for one month.
Then beginning Jan. 1, police officers will start citing those caught speeding and they will be charged $90 per offense.
“I think it’s crazy,” said Hensley, one of several customers at Pardner’s for lunch Monday who said they are upset about the cameras.
Speeding has always been a problem on U.S. 11E, Nelson said, especially where the speed limit drops from 55 mph to 45 mph on a heavily traveled 3.8-mile stretch of the highway between Pardner’s and the Piney Flats crossroads.
The city asked Bristol Tennessee Traffic Engineer David Metzger to illustrate this problem by conducting a traffic study in January. Nelson said the study found that 9 percent of the 114,991 vehicles that passed through between Jan. 9 and Jan. 16 were traveling at least 55 mph, 143 vehicles were going 65 mph and another 12 were doing 75 mph or more. The average vehicle was traveling 47.9 mph, according to Metzger’s study.
With these figures in hand, Nelson pushed to install speed cameras, following the lead of police in Mount Carmel and Red Bank, Tenn.
The city’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted 4-1 in April to hire American Traffic Solutions to set up the speed cameras and signed a contract with the company in July.
Under the terms of this contract, Finance Director Judy Dulaney said, the city will charge speeders a $50 civil fine and a $40 administrative fee, which will go to ATS for installing the cameras and collecting the fines.
The board anticipated the cameras would bring in $50,000 of new revenue over the current fiscal year when it approved the city’s budget over the summer. But that number is now not certain because it was based on an assumption that the cameras would go live in August rather than January, Dulaney said.
But whatever amount of money the cameras bring in to city coffers, it will be enough to bother Ernie and Betty Noonkester, who referred to the speed cameras as a “money racket” while at Pardner’s for lunch Monday.
The couple travel 11E every day – he has a delivery route and she works as a nurse in Johnson City – and they’ve got different reasons for not liking the new cameras.
While they may catch speeders, Betsy Noonkester said, the cameras don’t do anything to catch people who drive without insurance, which she said is a bigger problem and more of a burden on taxpayers than speeding.
The cameras also aren’t fair, said Ernie Noonkester, who claims that if a city police officer wants to cite a person for speeding: “They should have to catch you.”
Nelson countered this claim by saying the city makes more money from speeding tickets when it puts a police officer on patrol than it will from a camera. Those caught speeding by officers have to pay $123.50 in fines and court costs, he said.
They’re also charged with a moving violation, the police chief said, which can have a negative impact on a driving record and insurance rates. Speed camera citations are non-moving violations and do not affect a person’s driving record.
Dulaney said speed camera citations can be appealed in traffic court the same way a normal speeding ticket is appealed. But, she said, the citation becomes a moving violation and affects a driving record, if the person is found guilty.
Nelson said the city also benefits from the cameras because they free up officers normally assigned to patrol 11E.
Jeff Huff, a Bristol, Tenn,, resident and Pardner’s patron Monday, cited this exact reason when he explained why he supports the new speed cameras.
“It’s a good idea,” Huff said, adding that he’s worried about the danger speeders cause for those entering and leaving businesses like Pardner’s.
“This is a pretty straight stretch that people can get going a good speed on,” he said.
| (276) 645-2518
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
This is nothing more than an absurd way to traffic money.
Guess since the officers in Bluff City aren’t devoted to this roadway as much, I want to see them out doing other important law enforcement work…such as busting drug dealers, rapists, thieves, etc.
While you’re at it, patrol our neighborhood road for speeders and I bet you could make a fortune.
Since the officers were so pressed for time prior to the installation of the cameras, I find it hard to believe that they had time to visit and hang out at all the local shell and chevron stations here in Bluff City.
There’s your explanation of this being a money racket….and nothing else.
Cameras Make the Roads More Dangerous
One of the biggest arguments for speed cameras is some kind of urgent, pressing need to make our roads safer and reduce accidents. The problem is, this danger is never expressed in terms of reliable statistics that show that accident rates are “too high.“ The fact is, accident rates have been dropping nationwide for decades. Certainly, it would be fabulous if we could have accident-free roads. The reality is that without banning cars altogether, this Utopian scenario is not obtainable and never will be. As a society, we have to decide what an acceptable accident rate is and decide to strive for that standard. Otherwise, if we decide that no one should ever die in an auto accident, then motorized transportation should be banned and we can all just go back to horses and buggies. The vague goal of “safer roads” is just as unacceptable as a publicly-traded company declaring their goal to be to vaguely “make more money.“ If there is a safety crisis, our officials need to declare specifically what it is and what their goals are so that we can know if they are successful. Without such stated goals, we can only assume this whole thing is a ruse and a scheme to generate revenue.
So if the first argument is that our roads are not dangerous enough to warrant these Draconian measures, the second argument is that these cameras are ineffective and either do NOT reduce accidents or actually INCREASE the number of accidents. We’ve assembled a list of reports, data, and information below to show this.
A third argument about this alleged safety crisis is the concept that trying to change the behavior of drivers (which assumes that cameras are effective in doing this) is somehow going to be more effective/successful than re-engineering the roads and intersections that are alleged to be dangerous and achieving sustained compliance naturally. Workplace safety philosophy dictates that you employ mechanical safe guards and process safety improvement wherever possible so you don’t have to rely on changing worker behaviors and training. On the roadways, this would include adjusting speed limits, adjusting yellow light timing, lane markings and designations, and other rules. For example, it is well-established that intersection accident rates are greatly affected by yellow light times. Why not simply adjust the timing? This solution is very low cost and proven to be extremely effective. Camera operators would like you to believe that red-light accidents are caused by people intentionally running the light, because of course, only intentional behavior can be affected by enforcement. The reality is that most red-light crashes are caused by people unintentionally running red lights. If they don’t intend to run a red light but do anyway, there is little chance that a camera will change that. A camera serves only to document such events and generate money.
Reports showing speed cameras do not improve accident rates or that speed is not major cause of accidents
Essex Police under fire over M11 cash camera (Accidents doubled at camera locations)
‘Dangerous’ speed camera rakes in $500,000 a year
POLL: Is it time to scrap the speed cameras?
City of Tempe Traffic Fatalities Increase 43% Since Camera Program
Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff states that cameras INCREASED accidents and fatalities
Speed Camera Effects Summary
National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, US DOT-NHTSA, July 2008
Speed cameras ‘can cause accidents’
UK Parliament Slams Bogus Speed Camera Statistics
Video of accidents caused by speed cameras
Reports showing red light cameras do not improve accident rates
Texas: Accidents Increase at Controversial Red Light Camera Intersection, TheNewspaper.com, Nov. 24, 2009.
INVESTIGATION: Are one community’s red light cameras effective? Examiner.com, Nov 6, 2009.
Southland city removes red light cameras after ‘rear end collisions have actually increased’ Examiner.com, Nov 5, 2009.
Canada: Cameras Increased Accidents, City Wants More, TheNewspaper.com, Oct. 21, 2009.
San Bernardino pulls the plug on red-light camera, The Press-Enterprise, Oct. 6, 2009.
Peoria officials question the value of red-light cameras, AZCentral.com, Aug. 31, 2009.
Alternative Article with Data.
California: Costa Mesa Red Light Cameras Increased Accidents TheNewspaper, Sep. 3, 2009
Red-light Cameras Increase Crashes, Florida Researchers Find, Science Daily, Mar. 12, 2008. See the report by the Florida Public Health Review.
A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents, David Andreassen, Australian Road Research Board, February, 1995.
The impact of red light cameras (photo-red enforcement) on crashes in Virginia, Nicholas J. Garber, Virginia Transportation Research Council, 2007.
D.C. Red-Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents, Washington Post, Oct 4, 2005.
The Red Light Running Crisis, Is it Intentional?, Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, May 2001.
Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas, Mark Burkey, Ph.D. & Kofi Obeng, Ph.D. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University, July 2004.
Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, December 2003.
California: Another City Dumps Red Light Cameras, TheNewspaper.com, Oct 23, 2008.
With all of this information available, one has to wonder why our officials have chosen to ignore it. The obvious answer is the revenue. I believe that the real problem is the process. Districts have equipment vendors come in to meetings and give slick presentations promising safety and revenue which sounds “win-win” and “can’t lose.“ The real problem is that the officials never or rarely seek out any information as to why they shouldn’t install the equipment in order to counter the slick presentation. The key is public awareness, which is why we are here.
More Evidence
‘Dangerous’ speed camera rakes in ?500,000 a year
Nov. 14, 2009 Telegraph - Article
Excerpt:
Crashes have risen by almost a quarter and casualties have almost doubled since the camera was installed on a busy stretch of the M11 in Essex, in 2000.
Now, details revealed under Freedom of Information legislation, show that the device results in up to 9,000 speeding tickets a year, enough to raise around 500,000 [pounds].
Florida: Early Data Suggest City Traffic Cameras Ineffective
Nov. 7, 2009 The Newspaper - Article
Excerpt:
An early look at the performance of the red light cameras in Temple Terrace, Florida shows that they have done nothing to improve safety. Instead of merely repeating city claims on the topic, investigative reporters for the Tampa station WFTS ordered accident reports and checked the data for themselves. Although the program has been operational for a year, police only released enough data to produce a limited snapshot of the effect on accidents.
Over the first five months of the program, accidents decreased citywide by 13 percent compared to the same period a year earlier without cameras. At intersections with cameras, however, the number of accidents more than doubled from six to fourteen. Contrary to claims that red light cameras decrease accident severity, the average police estimate of damage costs for each accident increased by twenty percent after cameras were installed.
Arizona: Witnesses Blame Accident on Speed Camera
Oct. 9, 2009 The Newspaper - Article
Excerpt:
The panicked reaction that some drivers have to the sight of a speed camera may in fact be a significant cause of accidents. The group CameraFraud.com yesterday released an Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) accident report that describes a July 25 incident in which a gray Chevy Camaro collided with a red 1994 Toyota 4Runner SUV on Interstate 17 in Yavapai County, sending two people to the hospital. Although DPS maintains that it hired an A ustralian company, Redflex Traffic Systems, to operate speed cameras to improve safety, the department’s own report tells a far different story.
Texas: Study Finds Slim Justification for Camera Installation
May. 12, 2009 TheNewspaper.com - Article
Excerpt
An independent engineering survey found red light cameras would be inappropriate at all but two intersection approaches in Abilene, Texas, results which disappointed city leaders. Last Wednesday, Lee Engineering presented a detailed report to the Red Light Camera Citizen Advisory Committee which had formed in compliance with a 2007 law designed to force officials to think twice before rushing to activate cameras during a budget crunch. The study suggested that engineering improvements might even make cameras unnecessary at those two locations.
“Based on crash and violation data,“ the study stated, “the report identifies only two approaches that would warrant consideration of photo enforcement in the event that implementation of physical and signal timing changes are unsuccessful at reducing red light running.“
CBS News uncovers suspicious activities regarding red light cameras between the cities and the camera vendors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igXpBRq-ASQ&feature=player_embedded
I don’t live in Bluff City, I live in Piney Flats and have for years. I do resent the fact that Bluff City will be lining their pockets with our money.
If that were a way of saving lives I would be all for it! But PLEASE, this is nothing but a money making scheme!
EVERYONE that passes those cameras should slow down to 35 mph! If everyone would do that, and take a stand together, it wouldn’t take long for them be in the red on those cameras. I would love to see them collect not one penny for their hair-brained scheme!
I for one refuse to give them my money! So, I will be the one going a S-L-O-W but safe speed at the cameras…be nice please…It doesn’t take long to get past and resume a safe speed…. :o)
our speed limits all over the tri cities area are extremely low, its amazing how many open stretches of four lane highway are 45 and 55 mph, its crazy this is 2009, everytime i drive it seems im having to ride my brakes just to keep from speeding, and why is it in this area you cant just mind your own business and drive, either your about to rear end someone who is moving no where near the flow of traffic or you could be doing 25 over limit and someone is trying to run over you. Ive noticed even at 2 or 3 in the morning still someone will try to play games with you, its crazy
I drove through there yesterday and the general population of cars were running 55 or more right up until the speed strips in the road and they slowed down to the speed limit, then after driving over them sped right back up to 55 or more. I wonder in Bluff City thought of that? I am sure their police men have more free time right now.
the worst thing with all of it is going to be getting a ticket for doing 46 in a 45 mph zone. some of us who cannot afford newer vehicles do not have cruise control, and any vehicle with any miles on it will be out of calibration. so if my saturn says im doing 43 then i may be going 48, thats wrong by any terms, and you cannot fight it. communism at its finest. stop watching everything we do, and watch people who need it. drug dealers, murderers, rapists, pedophiles. real criminals, not me for owning a 15 year old vehicle.
You make some interesting claims, wleo, since red light tickets can indeed be contested (I know, one of our kids tried once ... turns out he forgot to mention to us he’d failed to stop at that red light before his right turn), and the cameras trigger when a vehicle goes through once the light has turned red. How could you be so incredibly unlucky?
I say drive the speed limit and forget about the speed cameras, Life Goes On.
I had read all the comments about the speed camaras on 11e in bluff city! I am a native of piney flats i lived there 31 years of my 33 year life, i go to piney flats sevral times a week to see my mom and ad and freinds. I see speeding as a problem on 11E it has always been a problem, oneperson made a commint about how many people got killed right there well none that i know of but how many wreck have happened when someone is pulling out of KFC oe Burgerking or even out of jonesboro rd and someone tops the hill doing 60 as someone is trying to cross the hwy!!!!! Yes i do think the cameras are a joke I think that Bluff city shold still partol the hwy as well!!!! And as the chief stated if you are not speeding you have nothing to worry about. The establishments of piney flats will not suffer revanue loss because most of the folks that eat at the resturants etc are still going to go and hang out and chat just like always.
Everyone bashes Bluff city well if you dont live there what do you care and if you do live there and dont like it MOVE!!!
I live in Bluff City and travel this section of road several times a week. I understand exactly what they are doing! It would be to easy to raise the speed limit so they figure the best way to get money out of people is to put these little toy cameras up and send in the mail a bunch of tickets that by what they are stating you can not even contest. Thats not far. I myself got a ticket in Kingsport for running a red light, and in the picture they sent to me via mail the light was yellow not red, and they wouldnt let me fight it. I personally beleive that our law enforcment has become lazy and they are trying any thing they can to get a buck off the people in our community. Whats next stop sign cameras or road spikes to make you stop. I still say those little toy cameras that were installed will cause more accidents then without them. Oh and by the way, go by them at night, the flash alone will distract any driver….......
Advertisement