Salem Begins Photo Red Light Program

The system that will lead to fines and citations for local drivers is operated by a private company that actually mails you the ticket.

(SALEM, Ore.) - The Salem Police Department Photo Red Light program is scheduled to begin operation on February 29th. The first intersection that will begin snapping pictures of passing cars is 25th Street SE and Mission Street SE. Cameras will cover both the westbound and northbound approaches.

This controversial program will allow a privately owned company called Red Flex to participate in the ticket writing process. They are the group who ultimately will send it to the person whose car their camera photographed.

The police believe the lights will help, so does Salem's city government, but the photo red light cameras are not popular with motorists who fear the consequences of a ticket. There is also the matter of loaning your car to a friend or family member.

Shannon Atkinson, President of Njection.com, has founded a company based on fighting this technology. "Unfortunately, study after study has shown no significant benefit to the installation of red light cameras or speed traps. It has, however, created a wealth of problems."

He says a report from the Virginia Transportation Research Council, released in June 2007, shows that over a seven-year period, while the number of accidents caused by people running red lights decreased, the number of rear-end crashes increased significantly.

In Toledo, Ohio, as reported by WTVG, the City Council is the center of a controversy concerning red light cameras. Originally, the city received twenty-five percent of the fines. Under the new contract, the city gets back fifty-five percent. That means the city stands to collect $2.5 million each year from violators.

Salem Police say the photo red light cameras operate through the use of sensors embedded in the roadway. These work in conjunction with video cameras beside the road. When the sensors detect that the signal light is turning red and that an approaching vehicle is mostly likely not going to stop, it will record the violation both on a twelve second video as well as three digital still shots.

The driver will be photographed from the rear, showing the vehicle behind the stop line and the red light. The second will show the vehicle in the intersection with the red light and the third will show the face of the driver of the vehicle. The license number of the vehicle will also be recorded at the time of the violation.

The first group that judges your alleged driving offense is the vendor, Red Flex. This private company will "review the images for accuracy and quality." If they think you violated the law by running the light, they will contact the DMV and the state will turn your private background information over to them.

Then finally, they will send your violation to the Salem Police Department electronically and then the process of reviewing the image begins again. If police agree with Red Flex, the citation will then be sent back to Red Flex to be printed and mailed to the violator.

People receiving citations in the mail will be provided with information that will allow them to view the video of the violation online and receive instructions in how to appropriately resolve the citation. The bail for Disobeying a Traffic Control Device is $242.00.

Once the program becomes operational there will be a 30 day period in which only warnings will be issued. The next intersection scheduled to be brought on line with Photo Red Light is Commercial St NE and Marion St NE.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

someone April 14, 2010 11:02 pm (Pacific time)

I like that part about the how to beat the ticket..A few years ago my back tires landed on a redlight for two seconds and didn't even know there was a camera there, cus I have never driven in that part of portland, and was just imagine that, it sucked

Jacob September 4, 2009 8:16 pm (Pacific time)

I HATE RED LIGHT CAMERAS. they are such a joke! the city just wants to make money off of us. and who is keeping tabs on them? What if you slide just a hair over the line when stopping at a red? What if you make it through a yellow, but it snaps an image anyway? Then what? And who even knows what these cameras look like? do they all look the same? With people living paycheck to paycheck in this country--in THIS COUNTY--how will people pay these fines? If someone runs a red light, a flash of a camera will not stop an accident. But if someone slams on their breaks to stop at a red last second, they will cause a rear end crash. Thanks city of Salem. Thanks!

Robert June 11, 2009 10:58 pm (Pacific time)

Not only do these cameras catch people who blast through an intersection on a red light, they get you for not coming to a complete stop when making a right turn! Here in Emeryville, CA the fine: $436.00!

Julie March 21, 2008 10:02 am (Pacific time)

Here's an update on the FAILURE of these cameras and the cost to cities/counties...see this article from today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/?GT1=43001
FYI: "As early as 2001, a California Superior Court judge dismissed 250 tickets issued under San Diego’s camera program, which is administered by Lockheed Martin Corp. under a private contract. Because the evidence is not gathered by an official police agency, it is “unreliable” and “untrustworthy” and therefore inadmissible in court, the judge ruled."
And this is just ONE of many states that are pulling these cameras. Get the picture?

$Two Dollars March 6, 2008 10:08 am (Pacific time)

Godofchaos so how do you hide in the noise(masses)? You develop some clever way of blending in? Heck I'd part with two bucks for some reliable way of learning how.

Godsofchaos March 5, 2008 7:52 pm (Pacific time)

"As far as "Big Brother" watching your every move, well that's been going on for a very long time."James That is why you hide in the noise(masses).

James March 4, 2008 5:59 pm (Pacific time)

Simply observe he rules of the road. As far as "Big Brother" watching your every move, well that's been going on for a very long time.

Pam March 4, 2008 11:29 am (Pacific time)

I'd much rather be rear-ended than broad-sided by some yahoo who thinks the law doesn't apply to him/her. If you feel your "freedom" entitles you to run a red light when you want to, I hope you have the "dignity" to pay your fine without whining. And if I'm going to get a ticket, I'd rather they had solid evidence (a photo or video) - I'll take that any day over the eye-witness account of an over-worked and under-paid civil employee. Eye-witnesses make mistakes. Cameras do not. You don't like this technology? Do you watch sports and instant replays? Or would you rather go back to the accepting the referee's call without technological backup? Is it OK to rob a store just because you can't be seen by employees? But you get busted by the camera you didn't see - that's big brother watching? Why do you think this is different than running a red light? People are more likely to break the law when they think they can get away with it. Would it be different if you ran the light but you didn't see the officer who pulls you over? If you did see an officer at this intersection, would you still have run the light? Can you answer those questions honestly? Please stop whining about "big brother", it is apparent that some people cannot be expected to drive responsibly, and if they are more likely to face consequences as a result of this technology, then that is a good thing. If it generates funds that can be used by the police and fire departments, that is a good thing, too!

Henry Ruark March 3, 2008 10:38 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's another example of new tech adding to demanded community service by hard-pressed police agency: "The Internet now lets us take Cold Case information directly to the public. Anyone can access this Web page 24/7, and we can update it 24/7. The chances of cracking one of these cases just went up a hundredfold." There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder -- and no homicide investigated by the Sheriff's Office is ever closed until it is resolved. Long after the original investigators have retired, these cases remain open." Anyone came to complain about "Big Brother" too-deep eye-at-work on this one ? Technology is what we make of it, since we generate it in the first place...if we have any problem about its use, that is what needs correction, NOT by abandonment of the new technology and/or its further development for more effective and broader usage. We damage our progression in the world when such is the answer to tech-in-use, and that can prove fatal if we allow it to happen too widely and too UNwisely --as in denial of its surveillance vs space-attack -- to which the same "Big Brother eye-in-sky" opposition has also been directed, for same specious reasons.

Henry Ruark March 3, 2008 9:56 am (Pacific time)

Glen: Will bet that one at I-5 stop was at light NOT set with camera... Stats prove by far most such impacts caused by such as you name, and with high percentage due to driver inattention in the following vehicle. Which is why we must NOT kill off new-tech by smearing it with non-relevants. That merely delays the unavoidable necessity for some ways to focus police et al on what they should be doing, rather than on what can be technologiced with due care, and huge savings in time, dollars and sometimes lives, too.

Vic March 2, 2008 2:51 pm (Pacific time)

I agree with Cody, Matt and Glen....giving an inch usually results in giving up a mile. I am not in favor of anyone running red lights, but this seems more like a revenue-raiser than a safety concern. Seems to me a paintball gun could take care of the whole problem.

Henry Ruark March 3, 2008 7:02 am (Pacific time)

'Anon" et al: Thank you for thoughtful points, deserving of ID to make credibilities work. Point-by-point here since this represents growing public attitude worth attention: "If someone runs a red light because they are on a cell phone, the radar won't help." Surely WILL help if it leads to remediation by needed response, fine or whatever. "If someone is fleeing from the police and runs the light, the radar makes no difference" Might turn out to be major evidence when culprit caught, important if escape-run costs life as it sometimes does. "If someone intentionally runs the light, that person will be extra careful because we all have an strong, inate desire to keep living." Unfortunately not always true; that kind of self-involved person often is not even aware of despoilation for others...which is why legislature set law in place. "If someone drives through the light intentionally without consideration for the consequences, then the radar will have no effect." Not necessarily; if radar and fair policing process are catch-cause, that can have real impact, esp. if for recurring perpetrator. "It is known that rear enders increase." May be so, but that may very well tie to inattention by those who need awakening, rather than solely to this process now in place. There are some who are NEVER reached until "impact occurs", as with 2/4 upsidehead, unfortunately. "If you have ever been involved in one, you would know that these can also be very serious. They can cause serious injury, they can have serious economic ramifications, and involvement with insurance companies, lawyers, and the court system is no picnic." Undubitably true --but not in any way relevant here since their cause is NOT (usually) the new tech itself but the follow-on personal habit and attitudes of those involved --as psychological studies over the years have shown, in past years sought out for my reports on similar situations. "The photo radar system is both theft by government and dereliction of duty by same." Thst's your opinion, and you are stuck with same, since your points here do not offset the absolute need for precisely what technology can allow us to do --under strong and proper control by the public agencies we set up to do so. IF that control is NOT there OR results in negative consequence, then the right and rational answer is to correct THAT --NOT deny the possibilities allowed us now by the new tech. Ain't open, honest dialog grand ? We disagree, but can be human, decent, even perhaps compromising with each other, on major points (as per mine re psych, otherwise not known to most) needed to make sure the damned thing does get put to work RIGHT ! (NO PUN !)

Glen March 3, 2008 5:57 am (Pacific time)

Anonymous. Your observation about rear ending is interesting. I've been driving for for almost forty years and hadn't been rear-ended until the last couple of years. My wife and I have been rear-ended three times in less than a year. In one instance it was cell phone related (the person dropped his cell phone and bent down to pick it up while his car was still rolling). A second instance was probably cell phone related, although the person wouldn't admit to it. The third instance was at a stop light at a ramp onto I-5. Fortunately no serious damage was done in any of the accidents other than a bit of whiplash.

Anonymous March 2, 2008 9:01 pm (Pacific time)

If someone runs a red light because they are on a cell phone, the radar won't help. If someone is fleeing from the police and runs the light, the radar makes no difference. If someone intentionally runs the light, that person will be extra careful because we all have an strong, inate desire to keep living. If someone drives through the light intentionally without consideration for the consequences, then the radar will have no effect. It is known that rear enders increase. If you have ever been involved in one, you would know that these can also be very serious. They can cause serious injury, they can have serious economic ramifications, and involvement with insurance companies, lawyers, and the court system is no picnic. The photo radar system is both theft by government and dereliction of duty by same.

Glen March 2, 2008 6:45 pm (Pacific time)

Once the genii is out of the bottle it'll be an impossible task to get him back in.

Vic March 2, 2008 2:52 pm (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark March 2, 2008 10:45 am (Pacific time)

Glen et al: IF we NOW discard the broad additional powers that these new and powerful technologies confer on us simply because we fear we cannot use it wisely and well --and under reasonable control as inherent here-- we are really in deep doo-doo. If Einstein et al had then succumbed to such fear, there would never have come about all the many advances of science and then the digital revolution, with precisely the tools we now need to make our world so much better --if we will but grasp them firmly, and use them wisely. Goverance of such powers is one of the great potential assets of a true democracy, when we snatch back from the current incompetents that which is ours to use-or-lose.

Henry Ruark March 2, 2008 10:45 am (Pacific time)

Glen March 2, 2008 8:13 am (Pacific time)

Matt, I'm going to second your motion. While running a red light because someone's brain got sucked into her cell phone is a real problem (I saw an instance of it just in the last few weeks) putting up cameras to monitor violations sounds like a misuse of technology. I love and use technology every day, but just because you can do something with technology doesn't always mean you should. As a culture we have to decide what is good use and what isn't. I worry about the next step and the step after that. When our every movement is monitored and analyzed by an algorithm in some distant mainframe, we may think "Gee, we should have never let this get started."

Henry Ruark March 1, 2008 6:35 pm (Pacific time)

Matt, O-C et al: Story makes it completely clear that proper and comprehensive process is in use. (S-N accuracy demonstrated here, again.) Here's key phrase: "If police agree with Red Flex, the citation will then be sent back to Red Flex to be printed and mailed to the violator." That describes professional check on violation by police, precisely as if they were at the spot -plus both video and still-shots showing vehicle in violation, right at the real point-of-decision. No matter who processes all of this, the evidence is clear and convincing: This vehicle broke the current controlling law, for whatever reason. Farming out part of the process is probably more cost effective than laying that much more load on an already depleted police presence; and the final decision is precisely as it would be if the police participants did the entire job themselves. Do you object to contractors handling such work ? If so, how about Bush II use of nearly as many private profit contractors in Iraq, as here ? Nearly 30,000 of them, close to same total as G/Is. Happens they are NOT held accountable, either, under our armed forces laws OR the Iraq or Afghanistan ones. IF we to object to this clear and sensible process, now and here, what possible way can police project their real role without many-more cops, at much higher cost ? Perhaps it might be wisest to just make damned sure to obey the law, which was made for very good reason and properly by our elected representatives than to force still further and higher costs, even more frustrating confrontation and confusion by "fighting for our liberties" when they are being protected rather than attacked. There are other good uses for confrontational-citizen time and effort, obviously.

Matt Johnson March 1, 2008 5:47 pm (Pacific time)

I think I have to side with odotiscorrupt on this one, not withstanding the good points made by Hank and Pam, but has anyone noticed that Salem drivers are fairly good about not running lights? LA and Las Vegas are nightmare cities when it comes to this but every time I visit Salem I see mostly conscientious drivers. If this was a city project and not some Haliburton-like private contractor making a nice living off people's tax dollars then maybe I would feel differently. I think police need plenty of funding and support, but this is just another way to automate life and take the human element out while the city makes money off its citizenry. The only question is, what will Salem come up with next? They have already created a fairly boring city with little for people to do. Sorry, it just seems like a confused place and I fail to see how clamping down on people remotely through the eyes of big brother is the answer. And what about our privacy? Why does this company get to see people's driving records? Are they qualified? Remember the sheep approach is easiest, but it sometimes leads to the slaughterhouse.

Henry Ruark March 1, 2008 4:45 pm (Pacific time)

O-Corrupt: You seem to overlook fact you are just as dead if smashed by driver ignoring light. Any constant commuter these days encounters every day some such silly, selfish fool more involved than wise-and-careful which is why I gave up several years ago (at 88), after 50 years without a scratch. I feared "the other kind" much more than I did anything else, and now that I ride with someone else see same-dangers every time-out. Red Light means STOP, and in no way threatens any "human right", requiring only care and concern for all --which is why our legislators wrote the law as they did --and should.

odotiscorrupt March 1, 2008 10:02 am (Pacific time)

No Pam, I do not think it is ok to run red lights - but our freedoms and dignity are far more important than this cash cow that only offers imagined benefits.

Pam March 1, 2008 9:26 am (Pacific time)

It sounds like you think it's OK to run red lights. Why shouldn't you be ticketed and pay a fine? Pay attention to traffic (get off your phone) and drive responsibly.

odotiscorrupt February 29, 2008 12:30 pm (Pacific time)

The following info was taken from the web. I am not encouraging illegal actions (please research the legality of the following recommendations before taking action - you should also consider the possible ramifications of resisting), but I want everyone to know that they may still have rights under the Constitution. "It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket and they cannot prosecute you on that. What the legal system wants you to do is just send in the fine and not ask any questions. This can be a big money maker for some communities. One other form of defense to utilize on your behalf is the fact that when you are accused in court you must be faced by your accuser. Obviously the computer cannot appear in court as a defense method for the prosecution. Also, you do not have to identify yourself as the driver of the vehicle because it would viloate your sixth anemdment rights against self incrimination." - Norman G. Fernandez, attorney at law, and Jes Beard, attorney at law in Chattanooga, Tennessee, "How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR.

Cody February 29, 2008 9:49 am (Pacific time)

To me, this seems more like evolution of our Big Brother...

[Return to Top]