Red Light Camera Violator of the Week: Red Light Rear Ending
A car is rear ended and pushed through the Belcher Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard intersection, making Clearwater Police's latest Red Light Camera Violator of the Week.
A car is rear ended and pushed through the Belcher Road and Gulf to Bay Boulevard intersection, making Clearwater Police's latest Red Light Camera Violator of the Week.
Clearwater Police posted the video on its Facebook Page March 6. In a comment, Regina Kempeneer Speed said she was involved in the incident.
"She was 83. I was driving the car that got hit," she said.
Other viewers also shared their thoughts:
"People need to wake up and pay attention," Stephni Tran posted. "I honestly feel like Red light cameras make me worry. I freak out when yellow lights turn."
Gavin Cummings added: "Notice you don't see any brake lights on the Lincoln as it pushes the other car all the way down the road. Possible elderly person mixing pedals again."
"I love how the police department posts this, when this shows the flaws in our system," posted Bradyn Freeman. "The people governing/protecting our citizens are supposed to be looking out for us, not making money off of people who run red lights. Imagine if that were a mini van full of kids getting rear ended by a school bus.... Red light cameras=unsafe, unnecessary, and a violation of privacy."
Related Coverage:
- Crashes Increased at Red Light Camera Intersections
- Red Light Camera Revenue Tops $570K in Clearwater
- Pinellas Clerk Asks Clearwater to Stop Writing Red Light Camera Tickets
- Red Light Camera Violator of the Week: Running Red in the Rain
- Cameras Cut Red Light Running in Clearwater
- Clearwater Red-Light Cameras Spy More Than 1,000 Violators in August
- City Approves Red Light Camera Proposal
- Red Light Camera Locations in Clearwater
- Red Light Cameras Running in Clearwater
- Red Light Camera Violator of the Week: On a Boat
- Video: How Do Red Light Cameras Work?
- Red Light Cameras: Legal or Unconstitutional?
Sign up for the free Clearwater Patch email newsletter to stay connected to your community.
Theresa Mikszenas
8:52 am on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
I would like to see the 'second timer' clocks installed instead of the cameras so that as we approach the intersection, we will know how much time there is before a light change and know whether we should proceed or stop.This would be for 'prevention' rather than a 'gotcha'...
Michael D.
8:59 am on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Didn't the officer last week say that there is not conclusive evidence between accidents and red light cameras. Then you see this and read the statements above. Shame on your City of Clearwater.
Jim
11:25 am on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
This was known to be a dangerous intersection - that's how it got picked to have a camera. But as we can see from this video, a camera won't overcome distraction or impairment. There's probably nothing that will overcome impairment, but distraction can be overcome by making the intersection more obvious. Paint "signal ahead" on the pavement. Put up signal lights on the near side of the intersection - with larger backboards. Make the street lighting brighter - just at the intersection. Put up an overhead lighted street name sign, for the smaller cross street. These things should have been done long ago, as soon as the intersection hit the 'most dangerous' list.
David Conkle
2:14 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
These city's with red-light cameras could care less about the safety of their citizens, they're too busy counting the revenues these devices make for the city, state and vendors. Shame on them, vote all city, county and state representatives that support this money making extortion scheme out of office.
Paul Henry
2:09 am on Wednesday, April 24, 2013
"a camera won't overcome distraction or impairment."
Bingo. Why is this video even here? These automated for-profit devices are not "rear end crash" devices. They exist to enforce only one law: red light violations (FS 316.075). The above was a careless driving violation, as evidenced by the first vehicle nearly stopping and then being rear ended by a vehicle that failed to slow.
Having seen the flashes post-collision, I have to wonder if both vehicle owners got an automated for-profit ticket in the mail even though neither driver ran the light? Kinetic violations (movement due to being rear ended) are not included in FS 316.075.
Automated for-profit law enforcement is a bad idea, and it breeds corruption.
"In the future, there is significant revenue to be generated by this venture"
- Former Gulf Breeze Police Chief Peter Paulding