NEW: Rancor continues to mount among Arnold officials

Mayor criticized for accepting contributions from red light camera consultant
As the first city in Missouri to install red light traffic cameras in 2005, Arnold has been ground zero for controversy over their use.

Proponents of the cameras say they save lives. Critics call the practice Orwellian, a money-grab and possibly illegal.

The simmering debate has been re-ignited by a group of past and present city officials who are banding together to force a public referendum on the issue.
Read More

Now that was an interesting article.

"Vinson said there are other ways to increase safety without motorists bearing the financial burden."

Wait a minute, so a person caught running a red light shouldn't be forced to pay a fine?

Those in politics have always been and will always called regarding who contributes to their campaigns. Last time our Mayor was called because many contractors and builders contributed to his campaigns.
Even though we try to make something out of it can you prove wrong doing? Whats new?

Is that what he said? No! There are other measures, like extending the yellow light which has significantly reduced accidents at intersections, or as was suggested at the meeting by a citizen, count down lights alongside the signal, I have seen that in many municipalities, or a four way red, before any lights turn green. Now that would definitely address the safety of the people with a much lower monetary burden on the citizens. It also would not appear to be the money grab that the red-light cameras are. If they took some of those measures and added a picture of the driver and points on the license, maybe then I would consider the red-light cameras a true safety measure. There are other ways of assuring safety that are more pro-active than the red-light cameras.

I like the idea of extending the yellow, and the four way red. In fact, I think four way red should be the norm everywhere. I am not so sure that the countdown would not be a distraction, or for some more aggressive drivers a challenge.
I still dont think it would be cause to remove the cameras. And again, while I think the reason of innocent till proven guilty is the most legit argument for removing, and I am not convinced of that (look at parking tickets, are they any different?), the reason of 'monetary burden' in my view is bogus. ALL tickets are a 'monetary burden' and $95.00 is pretty light compared to most.
And as I said, yes, it is a revenue tool, but that doesnt exclude it from being about safety too. ALL tickets are revenue tools. And most are also safety tools. This is no different.

But those tickets are issued a long time after the incident occurs, so as a tool, it doesn't prevent them from running the light, it may cause more thought in the future, but does nothing to prevent the initial occurence.

Doris Borgelt wrote:Is that what he said? No! There are other measures, like extending the yellow light which has significantly reduced accidents at intersections, or as was suggested at the meeting by a citizen, count down lights alongside the signal, I have seen that in many municipalities, or a four way red, before any lights turn green. Now that would definitely address the safety of the people with a much lower monetary burden on the citizens. It also would not appear to be the money grab that the red-light cameras are. If they took some of those measures and added a picture of the driver and points on the license, maybe then I would consider the red-light cameras a true safety measure. There are other ways of assuring safety that are more pro-active than the red-light cameras.

Doris,
You are well aware that the city can do nothing to control the timing of the light or make all lights turn red for a short period of time.
MoDot controls the lights not the City of Arnold nor the council.
At least when you suggest these things don't try to blame the city. Put the blame where it belongs on MoDot.
That's just like the light in front of Rockport. Many may wonder why it only working during certain hours. The reason is MoDot has determined that is the only time the lights are needed.

Doris Borgelt wrote:But those tickets are issued a long time after the incident occurs, so as a tool, it doesn't prevent them from running the light, it may cause more thought in the future, but does nothing to prevent the initial occurence.

Yes, but honestly I dont think the longer yellow or 4 way red will completely stop it either.

I think the four way red will keep someone from entering the intersection as quickly and getting hit by someone running it. And I think the longer yellow will mostly stop those rear end panic stops, therefore good tools. I think most red light runners are a) not paying attention, or b) trying to beat that yellow light. What I find interesting is that the thought of spending $95.00 makes them think twice, but the thought of killing or getting killed doesnt

The lights in front of Rockport are only needed when school starts and when it lets out. Why would you think they would be needed any other time than that? Also I was unaware that the lights on Richardson and Vogel belong to MoDOT. Are Vogel or Richardson state roads?

Doris Borgelt wrote:The lights in front of Rockport are only needed when school starts and when it lets out. Why would you think they would be needed any other time than that? Also I was unaware that the lights on Richardson and Vogel belong to MoDOT. Are Vogel or Richardson state roads?

Yes Doris you are correct. The lights are only needed when school is starting, letting out or there is a special function.
However you hear people complain that since the lights do not work at all times they forget about them or that they are not familiar with the area. Of course these are just excuses because if they were paying attention they wouldn't run a red light to begin with and that is not only the red light at Rockport but all red lights.