Do traffic cameras save lives or violate due process?

[bing101]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/traffic-cameras-save-lives-violate-due-process/


I remember the Red light camera debate back in the 1990's San Francisco Board of Supervisors said this would reduce traffic violations. but other parts of the country some how argued this was to make money for Camera companies,cities and counties. 

[wxfree]

There's no reason they can't do both.  Cameras can both make roads safer and be illegal.

I strongly emphasize rights and have an initial reaction against these cameras.  The legal excuse they make is that traffic violations are civil matters and the right to face your accuser is a right of a criminal defendant.  This, to me, is a cheap excuse, like calling someone a "person of interest" because you want to treat him as a suspect but don't want him to have the rights of a suspect.  Still, traffic safety is a worthy goal.

Perhaps we can propose a compromise, in order to avoid the appearance of evil.  First, we require that yellow light time and other components of traffic signal operation follow the standards set by engineers.  Next, we eliminate private contracts and private profits.  If cities and counties can run traffic signals and traffic enforcement, how is it that they can't handle the two combined?  Further, any revenue generated beyond the cost of administering the system is deposited with the state, possibly for some special purpose like paying for trauma centers; this eliminates the profit motive in the public sector.  If safety is actually improved, at no cost to the city, then it's a worthwhile program that will be continued.  If the city takes down the cameras once they're no longer profitable, then we'll know their true motivation.

[SidS1045]

the profit motive

These three little words are what bothers me about almost all traffic enforcement.  Some jurisdictions don't even bother to hide the fact that traffic violators earn them a lot of money, and when facets of enforcement are farmed out to private firms (red-light and speeding cameras are two of them), the problem gets even worse.  Safety gets subordinated to profit.  That profit, BTW, pays for virtually all expenses needed to run the traffic courts...the salaries of court officers, clerks, judges, court reporters, etc...IOW, a ton of people with a vested interest in seeing the system continue as it is.

Couple that with the fact that in all too many jurisdictions traffic violations are no longer criminal offenses (therefore, no constitutional protections of defendants apply) and you wind up with a patently unfair system.  And all most drivers do is hand over their wallets.  If just 25% of drivers cited for a violation went to court and made the state prove their case, the traffic courts would become hopelessly clogged and would grind to a halt.

Wxfree is exactly right.  Divert all traffic citation revenue to non-traffic- or traffic-court-related areas of government, and watch the system change.

[vdeane]

If just 25% of drivers cited for a violation went to court and made the state prove their case, the traffic courts would become hopelessly clogged and would grind to a halt.

It is for this reason the National Motorists Association will pay all traffic tickets members get if they go to traffic court.  It is also the reason that states like Massachusetts charge a fee to go to court that is often larger than the original ticket.

Wxfree is exactly right.  Divert all traffic citation revenue to non-traffic- or traffic-court-related areas of government, and watch the system change.

Trouble is, then the state could just lower the budget in those areas.  Even charity might not work - you'd have some people saying "we much collect the ticket revenue, think of the children" or something like that.  Doubling the points values and using a points-only system might though.

[Scott5114]

A lot of this assumes that the cameras improve safety. I seem to remember reading that some studies have shown that they don't–they lead to increased rear-end accidents. There's also the fact that some cameras will fine you for not-really-that-unsafe-but-technically-illegal behavior like a rolling stop when you make a right turn on red or coming to a stop past the stop line.

[SidS1045]

A lot of this assumes that the cameras improve safety. I seem to remember reading that some studies have shown that they don't—they lead to increased rear-end accidents.

...especially when, in the name of REVENUE, they short-time the yellow light.

[agentsteel53]

I prefer Mexican mordida, as it is far cheaper. 

[Jardine]

In Council Bluffs Iowa there are signs announcing red light cameras ahead and they still manage to snag motorists to dense to associate the signs and the cameras.

It is EXTREMELY difficult for me to have much sympathy for anyone in that town that gets caught. Seems like folks driving around at that level of cerebral dysfunction NEED a wake up call.

And, it's not like people can run red lights in the privacy of their own homes, they are doing it IN PUBLIC, around other drivers and pedestrians that can be witnesses to the driving foibles.

Considering the dire budget pressures in most towns (another political topic) we are eventually going to realize that police functions that can be automated cheaper than doing it with a person, will be automated.

I wonder what the $$$ would be for the cameras to be monitored by actual people in low wage overseas monitoring centers, to ally the 'it's a machine' complaints? 

[Brandon]

^^

The flip side of this is that there is now a profit motive for catching an fining people from a private company.  Iffy and questionable violations which may have been let go by a police officer and just not made violations at all now become an instant ticket.  In additions, a high percentage of mistakes can and will be made.  May I remind people of the parked cars that have gotten speeding tickets in Chicago from speed cameras?

I'd say they do not save lives, and do violate due process, and, IMHO, should be banned on a national level.

[PurdueBill]

Haven't there been too many instances of the yellow light becoming shorter once a red light camera is in place?  If the intersection is really a safety problem, then the yellow might need to be LONGER, not shorter.  But that would get in the way of making $$$$ for the vendor and the jurisdiction...

[Brandon]

Haven't there been too many instances of the yellow light becoming shorter once a red light camera is in place?  If the intersection is really a safety problem, then the yellow might need to be LONGER, not shorter.  But that would get in the way of making $$$$ for the vendor and the jurisdiction...

Yes.  If safety is a real issue, a delayed red signal (1.5-2 seconds) can be just as effective at eliminating accidents.  Most places in Illinois use delayed red signals.  The City of Chicago (CDOT) does not.

[Thing 342]

^^

The flip side of this is that there is now a profit motive for catching an fining people from a private company.  Iffy and questionable violations which may have been let go by a police officer and just not made violations at all now become an instant ticket.  In additions, a high percentage of mistakes can and will be made.  May I remind people of the parked cars that have gotten speeding tickets in Chicago from speed cameras?

I'd say they do not save lives, and do violate due process, and, IMHO, should be banned on a national level.

This. If these jurisdictions truly cared about safety, they would spend the extra $$$ to improve police presence.

[vdeane]

In Council Bluffs Iowa there are signs announcing red light cameras ahead and they still manage to snag motorists to dense to associate the signs and the cameras.

It is EXTREMELY difficult for me to have much sympathy for anyone in that town that gets caught. Seems like folks driving around at that level of cerebral dysfunction NEED a wake up call.

And, it's not like people can run red lights in the privacy of their own homes, they are doing it IN PUBLIC, around other drivers and pedestrians that can be witnesses to the driving foibles.

Considering the dire budget pressures in most towns (another political topic) we are eventually going to realize that police functions that can be automated cheaper than doing it with a person, will be automated.

I wonder what the $$$ would be for the cameras to be monitored by actual people in low wage overseas monitoring centers, to ally the 'it's a machine' complaints? 

Red light cameras ALWAYS ticket for any number of technicalities that aren't safety issues.

Hit a yellow that's too short and have the light change a fraction of a second before you hit the intersection?  Ticket.

Stop a hair over the stop line?  Ticket.

Make a right on red?  Unless you're Mr. Perfect, ticket.

Right on red at an intersection that is poorly designed and you HAVE to go past the stop bar just to see if you can make the turn?  Ticket.

Enter the intersection on green/yellow to make a turn (as you're supposed to in some states) but have to exit the intersection on a red?  Not sure about this one.

None of these are safety problems; the t-bone accidents whose accounts are used to get the cameras in happen when someone runs a red that had been red since before they were approaching the intersection.  But all (except possibly the last one) WILL result in a ticket.  Guaranteed.  If I'm approaching an intersection with a camera, I guess what I'd need to do is never make a right on red, never attempt a left turn unless there is no oncoming traffic, and slow down to way below the speed limit whenever near the intersection.  This is the exact opposite of how one is supposed to drive, but I'm not risking a ticket.  My budget is tight enough already.

Plus the cameras are known to be unreliable.  A camera can mis-read a licence plate or even issue a ticket during the green phase if miscalibrated.  And good luck proving your innocence.  Yes, the burden of proof is on YOU.  There's no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" in traffic court.

[Tarkus]

Plus the cameras are known to be unreliable.  A camera can mis-read a licence plate or even issue a ticket during the green phase if miscalibrated.  And good luck proving your innocence.  Yes, the burden of proof is on YOU.  There's no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" in traffic court.

Indeed.  Jurisdictions act as if the technology is always right and try to hide behind their supposed "vetting" process, which, with a high volume of tickets, is going to be very prone to error.

There's also a little known fact that many of the red light camera systems out there actually have a little algorithm built into them, which gets tripped as soon as you drive over the first detector.  It picks up the speed you're traveling, and if you're over the speed that the system thinks is the max at which you can stop in time for the red light, even if you manage to brake quicker, you'll get flashed.  See here.  Of course, being that the systems are run by for-profit companies, they're designed to use the most conservative estimate for braking distance possible. 

The three main vendors for red light and speed cameras in the US are Redflex, American Traffic Solutions (ATS), and Xerox (who had run their camera business under the name Affiliated Computer Systems, or ACS, until recently).  Most of the camera system arrangements with municipalities operate on the "BOOM" model--the vendor Builds, Owns, Operates, and Maintains the system.  To give you a bit of an idea of the ethics of these vendors that own and operate these systems:

• Redflex is currently embroiled in a bribery scandal and under federal investigation, having given officials in Chicago and other cities a number of "perks" for being customers.
• Goldman Sachs owns 30% of ATS.  Can't get any more "for profit" than that.
• ACS had a bribery scandal of their own in Canada in 2006, hiring female escorts for officials in Edmonton.  They also threw a temper tantrum and damaged equipment in Washington, DC when they lost a contract there to ATS.
  

Essentially, you have lawbreakers being entrusted to enforce the law.  Corrupt is a kind way of putting it.  And the equipment inside these things is basically stuff you can buy at Best Buy.  They charge municipalities about $3000+/month of "rent" for the use of the equipment.

[Jardine]

As I noted before, Council Bluffs has SIGNS up announcing the damn cameras !!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone too busy texting, talking on their cell phone, putting on their makeup, eating their Big Mac, talking to their friends in the back seat, drunk on their ass or too busy picking their nose to notice the signs NEEDS a ticket.


Anyone wanting to share the road with the above mentioned idjits needs to reconsider their views on this.

[jeffandnicole]

Actually, most jurisdictions that permit red light cameras also must post a sign near the intersection about the camera. 

There are 2 types of red light running that make up the absolute vast majority of cases:

A) The red light runner does it within the first half-second of the light turning red, when nearly all traffic lights have an all-red phase. 

B) The red light runner was making a right turn on red, and did not come to a complete and full stop. 

In both cases, while the driver was in the wrong, they very rarely result in accidents.  Here in NJ, almost every red light camera is installed at an intersection that permits right turns on red.  And when I look at the report that NJDOT has issued on occasion, the 'before' stats show that there's been about an accident a month or less at these intersections before the cameras were installed.  To me, that's hardly justification to monitor the intersection 24/7 and to send out tickets to everyone who failed to completely stop before making a turn.

There are other sites out there, but here's one showing the traffic cameras recording video of accidents.  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/nj_intersection_crashes_are_po.html

Aren't the cameras supposed to stop accidents?  They didn't in these cases. 

[roadman]

too busy texting, talking on their cell phone, putting on their makeup, eating their Big Mac, talking to their friends in the back seat, drunk on their ass or too busy picking their nose

All behaviors that actual police officers could easily catch.

[SidS1045]

too busy texting, talking on their cell phone, putting on their makeup, eating their Big Mac, talking to their friends in the back seat, drunk on their ass or too busy picking their nose

All behaviors that actual police officers could easily catch.

Apparently actual police officers are not efficient enough.  They might also bring that hoary concept known as judgment to the table, thereby reducing the revenue intake...and we CAN'T have that, can we?

[SidS1045]

I'd say they...do violate due process

Yes, they do, but you need to remember that where traffic violations are concerned, most US jurisdictions ditched due process decades ago when they made traffic citations into some form of "civil infraction," where the due process strictures of the Constitution don't apply.  It's a nice, neat, revenue-grabbing system that stacks the deck against the motorist the minute he/she hits the starter on the car.

[nexus73]

Overenforcing laws does nothing to encourage respect for law.  There are states and jurisdictions that have laws against red light cameras because this kind of enforcement ticks off most of the people.  Enough stories about profit, shortened yellow light times to boost ticket giving rates and other pecadillos have emerged to show it's time to shut this whole industry down.  The cure is worse than the problem.

Rick

[vdeane]

As I noted before, Council Bluffs has SIGNS up announcing the damn cameras !!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone too busy texting, talking on their cell phone, putting on their makeup, eating their Big Mac, talking to their friends in the back seat, drunk on their ass or too busy picking their nose to notice the signs NEEDS a ticket.


Anyone wanting to share the road with the above mentioned idjits needs to reconsider their views on this.

Except it's not about whether someone's lazy/distracted/etc. but whether people should get tickets for trivialities that are only 100% avoidable by driving like a 90 year old man, especially given that yellow phases are too short all too often.  As noted, the camera will issue a ticket if you so much as stop faster than it was expecting, which is NOT against the law.  But that doesn't matter, because who do you think the judge will believe - you, or the camera?