Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

News
Sep. 06, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

North Las Vegas plans to put cameras at some intersections

By LYNNETTE CURTIS
REVIEW-JOURNAL

North Las Vegas is moving ahead with plans to place cameras at some intersections to collect data city officials hope will convince state lawmakers to let police use cameras to cite drivers for traffic violations.

The City Council agreed on Wednesday to let police place "red light" cameras at two undisclosed intersections, a move that has been criticized by civil liberties officials.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Phelps galpal gets exposure on Web
  • NORM: Robin Gibb in airport standoff
  • DOUG ELFMAN: Comedian says his arrest a joke
  • NORM: Web site shows life of Mazzeo
  • NORM: Knievel will try jump at Mirage
  • NORM: Wynn coveted cathedral's land
  • Las Vegas police use saturation strategy to cool 'hot spots' of crime
  • FATAL MAULING: Trigger for attack possibly food
  • Judge absolves juror who contacted killer
  • Mesquite casino to close temporarily



    • "You can't change what you can't document," Councilwoman Stephanie Smith said. "I see this as saving lives."

    North Las Vegas Police Chief Mark Paresi joined Las Vegas police Sgt. Robert Roshak in saying data gathered at the intersections will help convince lawmakers to allow the use of cameras in traffic law enforcement.

    Although the Nevada Legislature hasn't banned surveillance cameras, it has banned the use of red light cameras to ticket drivers.

    In the past, "we never had statistics," Roshak said. "We didn't have enough good information to counter some of the questions we were asked" by lawmakers.

    Las Vegas police are considering putting data-gathering cameras at two intersections.

    No tickets will be issued or disciplinary action taken against drivers caught on camera disobeying traffic laws, Paresi said.

    The goal will be to measure the magnitude of the problem of drivers disobeying traffic signals. Results would be given to the Legislature in 2009.

    "We were involved in over 4,500 traffic accident investigations last year in North Las Vegas," Paresi said. "We had 29 (traffic-related) fatalities. Our traffic carnage continues to rise at a rapid rate."

    Paresi believes red light cameras will eventually help decrease those numbers.

    Mark Etzbach, a spokesman for Redflex Traffic Systems, said such cameras have made "a tremendous public safety impact" in other communities.

    "Culver City, California, has been able to maintain a 65 percent reduction in right-angle collisions" since cameras were put into place, he said.

    Other cities have experienced up to 95 percent reductions in accidents at such intersections, he said.

    Nevada legislators have in the past said red light cameras are an invasion of privacy.

    Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, agreed.

    "Do we really want more cameras?" he asked. "The real question is how that information is going to be used, who it is going to be used by and what are the safeguards."

    Lichtenstein said cameras can be used to track people. "All sorts of data are being collected, and very poor track is being kept of them. The public doesn't know where it is ending up."

    North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Montandon asked whether the cameras could be used after an accident to help determine fault.

    "They are not to be used for anything but this study," Paresi said.

    Police will conduct a six-month "blind test" using the cameras, then add signs alerting drivers to the cameras' presence to see if there's a slowdown in red light running.

    The data will help create "a pretty succinct picture of red-light running in North Las Vegas," Paresi said.

    The cameras will be provided free for the initial testing, he said. If city officials choose to use the cameras for red light enforcement, they must pay for the cameras' use.



    Leave Your Comment 16 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    David wrote on September 12, 2007 11:04 PM: Today the cameras merely serve an advisory purpose. Tomorrow the cameras will be mandatory and located on every street cornoer. Then, the cameras will get facial recognition technology and will compare everyone's face against known criminals (with an 80 percent match leading to police being dispatched).

    Then we will be just like Great Britain (or other totalitarian dictatorships), where they have no constitution and no Fourth Amendment rights. And no Sixth Amendment right to confront your accuser.

    Tyranny starts with small steps. We are already primed for this living in Las Vegas where we are videotaped every day.

    If we allow the cameras today, then we can be assured that Big Brother will be spying on our grandchildren.


    Cetan'sapa wrote on September 07, 2007 09:56 PM: Ref. to "say what" and the front license plate...check again the law as of October 2006 front plates are not required...read the law for the specifics.


    Cetan'sapa wrote on September 07, 2007 09:54 PM: As a photographer, if I take photos of individuals in a public place, I must have them sign a release to use the image - by law. What gives the City of North Las Vegas the cart-blanc to violate my privacy rights, I have not seen nor will I sign a release for their use.


    urban sarcasm wrote on September 07, 2007 02:29 PM: I don't normally agree with the ACLU (the American Criminal Liberties Union to me), and I don't agree with their argument, per se, on this one. I am, however against red light cameras. No, I don't run red lights. A red light is 2 maybe 3 minutes long and I leave my house early enough each day to compensate for that. I just don't think putting a camera up for every stinking crime we have is the answer. Cameras certainly don't stop people from stealing at Wal-Mart. Cameras don't stop bank robbers, they don't stop people from holding up 7-11's. Wait for the downtown camera statistics, I'm sure it won't change much. The ACLU has placed all kinds of restrictions, basically saying "You can have your cameras, but you can't watch them". Pretty soon there will be a little camera in my rear view mirror to prevent me from picking my nose while driving. It's just not the answer.


    John wrote on September 06, 2007 10:04 PM: I used to lobby at the Legislature in Carson City, most of the senior legislators are queers. They spend all their time dodging issues and waiting to see who is the next female lobbyist. Red light cameras invade no ones privacy, take a picture of the license plate only, make it a civil penalty like a parking ticket and end of story. No matter who was driving, again like a parking ticket a simple fine. Legislators simply are morons in Nevada, but hey Nevadans you get what you pay for. You want good leadership and wisdom, give them a real salary.


    Chris wrote on September 06, 2007 07:41 PM: Wow I can tell this thread is filled with the exact people that love to run lights.


    John wrote on September 06, 2007 03:20 PM: I'm all for red light cameras if there is a maximum fine of $50, no points ever, and the signal must maintain a yellow signal for at least 5-10 seconds before switching to ensure no rear-end collisions.


    DaveR wrote on September 06, 2007 01:01 PM: Not to worry!, if this system is operated in the same manner as the current $15,000,000 traffic camera system (you know, the ones that are supposed to monitor vehicle traffic and control the lights accordingly, but the traffic lights are really still on timers...), then it won't work!


    say what wrote on September 06, 2007 12:53 PM: there here...ever notice how many autos with no front plate??? even nevada plates...i saw a front plate with only bmw on it...


    NLV Resident wrote on September 06, 2007 12:49 PM: It's been documented that when cameras are installed, signal timing is changed to generate more income. And since the ticket is given to the "car" rather than the driver, it doesn't affect the driver's record; therefore, less inclination for someone to fight it. So, it generates more money for the local government, which means more money for salaries by union negotiators.


    Read All Comments