Photo enforcement cameras in Lake Forest Park
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
 |
| LFP traffic camera Photo courtesy City of LFP |
From the City of Lake Forest Park
Speeding and running red lights jeopardize public safety on a daily basis. To counteract this danger the City of Lake Forest Park implemented a photo enforcement program.
The city installed a red light camera and installed a system of sensors to capture speed and cameras to photograph the rear of the violator's vehicle and license plate in school zones.
It is important for citizens to know that photo enforcement violations do not get applied to their driving record. The violations are not recorded by the Washington State Department of Licensing. As with a parking ticket, it does not matter who drives the vehicle, it's the registered owner who is responsible for the violation.
Red Light Cameras
The red light camera is installed at the following intersection in Lake Forest Park: 165th and SR522
School Zone Enforcement
Reduced-speed zones are being used to protect and improve the safety of children walking to and from school. Criteria taken into consideration when setting school zone enforcement standards include the geographical environment of the arterial and school property, age of the students, and speed of vehicles to include standard reactionary time and vehicle stopping distances. The camera system is operational at the following schools:
Lake Forest Park Elementary School has a speed camera and flashing lights will operate:
Monday through Friday 7:30am to 9:30am and 2:30 to 4:00pm
18700 35th Ave NE
18500 40th Place NE
Brookside Elementary School has a speed camera and flashing lights will operate:
Monday through Friday 7:30am to 9:30am and 2:30 to 4:00pm
3300 block of 178th Street NE
The camera system is operational during normal school days. The system is not operational during scheduled school holidays and summer breaks.
Posts
4 comments:
These cameras are annoying. I wish they were not there. The fines are excessive and unjust.
I witnessed a presentation on this subject by a LFP councilmember a few or so years ago. His description came across as boasting how they passed the ordinance in closed session, then had the cameras in effect 24/7, that was until people started complaining. Then, they changed it to limited hours, though as a co-worker of mine who's a resident of LFP told me, his daughter isn't even out of bed at the start time! People still complained. Then, they added flashing lights for when it was in effect. As long as they made $X, they were ago.
This presentation told me that they had a willful disregard for the public and the public process, and that it was all about money. Apparently, this carried over to other issues, for LFP residents apparently agreed, for this councilmember was ousted in the following election.
This is why I've advocated the state legislature should establish a minimum set of requirements to have these cameras, common sense things that public officials apparently need, such as that the ordinance has to be voted on in public, not executive, session; school cameras have to be limited to school days and must have requisite (font size) signage and flashing lights; with a standard mph where the camera is triggered; red light cameras must have "count down" crosswalk timers at their intersections; yellow lights must have a standard length 7 days a week (yes, jurisdictions have changed this); cameras must be turned off where the traffic light is malfunctioning; revenues are restricted to use in the vicinity of schools (for school-zone cameras), such as new sidewalks, and similarly for red-light cameras.
Of course, now cities are having second thoughts about the red light part of these cameras for a variety of reasons: http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-cities-hit-brakes-red-light-cameras.html
First, I support the LFP Police Department unequivocally. And I know many cops who do not support this kind of enforcement. But, yeah, the fines are excessive, especially if your recorded speed is still below the normal legal speed limit.
I found this element of the transaction curious: LFP dissuades people from falsely filing a "Declaration of Non-Responsibility" by providing perjury warnings. So, how do they explain instead of citing registered owners for moving violations, they cite for "parking infractions," which is not true.
They'd likely argue it's so it doesn't show up on your driving record. However, the truth is, they can't cite you for a moving violation because no officer can testify (prove) you were driving the vehicle. Food for thought.
Lake Forest Park has a reputation going back at least 40 years when I started driving of just being anal about traffic enforcement. I mean that. No other city in the greater Seattle area had that reputation even back then. So it should not be a surprise that Lake Forest Park jumped on red-light cameras. LOL
Post a Comment