Does Las Vegas Issue Tickets Based on Traffic Cameras?

Does Las Vegas (or specifically its suburbs) have photo radar for speeders or any red-light cameras? I was driving to Laughlin a little ways out of Vegas and wasn’t paying close attention and passed a station wagon at an angle on the side of the road and saw a flash of light, like a picture was taken of the license plate. I have gotten a photo radar ticket before where I live and it was the same kinda flash! I never did get a ticket in the mail though (yay), but I was driving a rental car, so maybe that made a difference?

Nope — unless the camera was handheld by a police officer or installed in his or her vehicle.

A 1999 statewide law bans the use of remotely controlled cameras to gather evidence against drivers who run red lights or are involved in accidents. Nevada allows traffic enforcement to use cameras, but only if they’re directly connected to a cop in the field.

The issue has reared its head in every legislative session since 2005, including the current one. Senate Bill 43 would allow local governments to install red-light cameras under certain circumstances: at problem stoplights with warning signs around the cameras, an appeal process for drivers caught by the cameras, a fine of at least $50, and no moving violation against a driver’s record. As of this writing, no action had been taken on the bill.

Major intersections throughout Nevada are under video-traffic-camera surveillance. Drivers routinely run lights several critical seconds after they’ve turned red from yellow, but the cameras don’t impose traffic-infraction tickets-by-mail on violators. Instead, they're used for surveillance purposes only, helping commuters and drivers to make travel decisions based on road conditions. They’re one part of NDOT’s statewide network of Intelligent Transportation Systems, including freeway digital message signs and Highway Advisory Radio.

Red-light cameras have prompted much debate and some controversy. On one side, studies have shown that cameras can decrease red-light running by 40%-50% and reduce the number of injury crashes by 25%-30%. The non-profit Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a nationwide study of red-light fatalities in which it compared 62 cities with populations of more than 200,000 with red-light cameras to those without. Traffic fatalities in 14 cities with red-light cameras fell by 35% between the study periods. The rate dropped by only 14% percent in 48 cities without the cameras.

On the other side, opponents argue that red-light cameras scare drivers into more sudden stops at yellow lights, which actually increases rear-end collisions. A comment we came across from a Californian attests to this, declaring that crossing major intersections can be like "flying through an asteroid belt with people desperately accelerating or slamming on their brakes in frantic fear of an uncontestable fine." Many opponents believe that the red-light cameras address not a safety issue, but a revenue issue, and are an abuse of police powers.

How do you all feel about traffic cameras used to fine drivers who run red lights?

No part of this answer may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the publisher.

Have a question that hasn't been answered? Email us with your suggestion.

Missed a Question of the Day?

Have a Question?

Tomorrow's Question

How about rundowns on Danny Gans and Bob Anderson?

Comments

Kevin Lewis May-26-2019

Abuse

First of all, the cameras are illegal--everywhere. A machine cannot accuse someone of a crime. The principle that there must be a human accuser dates back to the 12th century.

The red light camera scam--indeed, all vehicular law enforcement, everywhere--has always been more about revenue generation than public safety. A few years ago, Tucson spent several million dollars installing robocams at six busy intersections. The cameras weren't catching enough people and not enough revenue was being generated, so they moved the physical trigger point back several feet and made the "violation" interval less than a twentieth of a second. After that, the city started to make fistfuls of money, but word started spreading that the tickets could be successfully challenged, The program was eventually scrapped when revenue dropped because people were fighting the tickets and beating them. Not because the whole scam was unfair. Because the revenue generation wasn't what it was cracked up to be.

KRock S May-26-2019

Hate them

I heard a radio discussion on this and someone from a community that got rid of the red light cameras said the cameras caused as many problems (or more) then they solved.  The solution was to change the timing of all lights so there's a brief period where lights in all directions are red.  A red light runner gets through before the people waiting for green take off.  Made sense to me and doesn't cost anything beyond the labor involved to change the timing of the lights.

Jeffrey Small May-26-2019

Yes, but...

One of the studies showed that the number of accidents remained constant with the red light cameras but the severity was less since the severity of getting rear ended at a light by those who stopped at the yellow were less dangerous than getting t boned in an intersection by a red light runner. There is so much red light running (a young couple died nearby in a t bone crash last year caused by a red light runner) that I am in favor of having the cameras installed--recognizing the due process rights of those accused to have a fair hearing! If you could save a life by having the cameras installed isn't that worth it?

Ray May-26-2019

sad but true

I have more than one comment here. While I disagree with Kevin that the camera scam is illegal, I do agree that most communities use it for revenue more than safety. However, the contention by KRock that a brief delay before the red turns green only works until the drivers figure it out. Then they will be more emboldened and blast through even later. As far as the "statistics" go, they can be interpreted whichever way works for you. More or less crashes, more or less injuries, more or less cost to insurance, more or less revenue for the cities, I'll bet you can find stats to support your conclusion. 

I don't know how many times I have seen someone driving dangerously and I have said "Where is a cop when you need one" not "where is a traffic camera"

Dave in Seattle. May-26-2019

Traffic camera videos.

Seattle has them is school zones marked for 20 MPH.
I got mine in the mail for 31 MPH in a 20 MPH zone and I deserved it and paid it.$189.Yes,I was driving my car.
  On the site you can see the actual video! 
This is way different than a stop light violator.Those cameras should be removed.If I had a paint ball gun......

Jackie May-26-2019

@Kevin

"there must be a human accuser" dates back to the Bible.  However "Circumstantial Evidence" now allows even the death penalty and NO human accuser for any crime or even traffic violation.  Many innocent people have been sent to prison on this principle and every innocent person was sent there was released because it was discovered that a Law Enforcement Officer committed perjury or in the case of traffic violations that the camera timing was faulty.

Roy Furukawa May-26-2019

MGM Properties

If you go to the Mlife desk at your preferred MGM property, there is usually a host on duty there. If you're a table game player you can always ask the floorperson about it too.

James Mason May-26-2019

state trooper for 1 day

One of my greatest wishes was to be a state trooper for one day on the interstate and giving out tickets for driving in the fast lane when unnecessary(too slowly) lol

James Mason May-26-2019

additional comment

I forgot about this one. I contested a ticket and the DA was hot to get me. He brought in a radar gun and it malfunctioned in front of the jury :) case closed

Question of the Day - 26 May 2019

Comments