Red Light Cameras & Malfunctions

[Brandon]

I noticed this last night while stopped in the left turn lane (protected signal only) waiting to turn into the restaurant.

I stopped for the arrow signal when it turned red, and was stopped behind the line.  About 30 seconds go by, and a few cars go by in the straight lanes.  They have a green ball.  The red light camera there flashed for at least two of the cars.  Is there a reason why it would flash for two of the cars that went through on a green signal?  And has anyone else noticed this as well?

[xcellntbuy]

I have wondered about the same questions.

I pass through four intersections with red light cameras on my commute to work each day, three in my home city of Coral Springs, FL on University Drive and the fourth at West Oakland Park Blvd. and University Drive in Sunrise, FL.  I thought at one time, the speed of a car seemed to trigger whether these bogus camera flashes occurred.  I have seen the cameras flash at vehicles traveling at 50 mph, at a normal speed slowing down for traffic and then coming to a stop, even personally slowly rolling to the stop line as the only car ready to turn left and sometimes during green light phases.

Only once have I actually seen someone blow through the red light, the camera flashes go bananas and no doubt a $158 Florida ticket will be mailed to registered owner of the vehicle.

[roadman65]

I have seen it go off on Kirman Road in Orlando, FL without anyone running the light.  I was wondering that too.

Also, if your car breaks down over the stop line and is stranded there, will you get a ticket for running a stop light standing still?

[Scott5114]

I want to say the camera output has to be vetted by a human in most jurisdictions to ensure the information would be legally valid in court, to prevent these sort of scenarios.

[KEK Inc.]

I want to say the camera output has to be vetted by a human in most jurisdictions to ensure the information would be legally valid in court, to prevent these sort of scenarios.

The local government and law enforcement on the other hand don't want to say that.

[Duke87]

I do believe that in many cases there is no communication between the red light camera and the signal controller. The timing of the camera is merely calibrated to match the timing of the light, and if something throws either the light or the camera off, then you can get flashes during part of the green phase and, correspondingly, a period on the other end of the red phase where they will be absent.

Different jurisdictions program their cameras differently. In NYC, some cameras are programmed to issue blocking the box tickets as well as red light tickets (the two are different offenses with different penalties). As far as I know, though, these are only installed at locations where there are a lot of offenders for the former (mostly Manhattan). Other cameras will not trigger if you are already in the intersection when the light turns red.

[Special K]

I want to say the camera output has to be vetted by a human in most jurisdictions to ensure the information would be legally valid in court, to prevent these sort of scenarios.

Presumably, there needs to be a human check of the plates before they are processed.  When I got a speeding camera violation, there was an officer's signature on the ticket.

[Brandon]

I want to say the camera output has to be vetted by a human in most jurisdictions to ensure the information would be legally valid in court, to prevent these sort of scenarios.

Presumably, there needs to be a human check of the plates before they are processed.  When I got a speeding camera violation, there was an officer's signature on the ticket.

Presumably.  Riverdale Park, MD got into some deep trouble when they forged a cop's signature: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-12/local/35504353_1_camera-law-camera-citation-camera-equipment

[Road Hog]

I want to say the camera output has to be vetted by a human in most jurisdictions to ensure the information would be legally valid in court, to prevent these sort of scenarios.

In Texas, there is no court to contest red-light camera "tickets" in.

I use "tickets" in quotes because the fines are civil – the city sends you a $75 bill with no court and no appearance date – and as far as I know, there is no penalty for not paying. In fact, some cities have been getting rid of the cameras because people aren't paying and the cameras cost more than the revenue.

[Tarkus]

I do believe that in many cases there is no communication between the red light camera and the signal controller.

It has to do with the fact that doing so would in many cases entail handing control of the signal over to the camera vendor, or would give them means to do so.  The vendors will be inclined to rig the signal timing so as to maximize violations and profit, at the expense of safety.  It's worth noting that some vendors have actually had clauses in contracts forbidding municipalities from lengthening the yellow phase of photo-enforced intersections.

Red light cameras don't technically catch red light runners.  They snap photos when a vehicle travels a certain speed, between two piezo buzzers embedded in the roadway, during specified time intervals, which are calibrated to the red phase of a traffic signal.  There's no real regulation out there on how often vendors are supposed to re-calibrate the cameras, so "green-light camera" situations happen with some frequency.

I want to say the camera output has to be vetted by a human in most jurisdictions to ensure the information would be legally valid in court, to prevent these sort of scenarios.

Technically, police officers in the jurisdiction where the camera is operating are supposed to vet the reports they get from the vendor.  However, often due to the sheer number of times these cameras get tripped, the police departments tend to get overwhelmed, and it's likely they're just taking the vendor's word for it, simply to plow through the workload.

[Special K]

Presumably, there needs to be a human check of the plates before they are processed.  When I got a speeding camera violation, there was an officer's signature on the ticket.

Presumably. 

Presumably.

[Duke87]

It has to do with the fact that doing so would in many cases entail handing control of the signal over to the camera vendor, or would give them means to do so.  The vendors will be inclined to rig the signal timing so as to maximize violations and profit, at the expense of safety.  It's worth noting that some vendors have actually had clauses in contracts forbidding municipalities from lengthening the yellow phase of photo-enforced intersections.

This is why if you're going to have cameras issuing violations they should be operated and maintained by the jurisdiction responsible for the signal. Sourcing that out just encourages more funny business.

[cpzilliacus]

Baltimore Sun article about the messed-up Baltimore City automated red light camera enforcement program in the Maryland thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4671.msg198766#msg198766

[Compulov]

Red light cameras don't technically catch red light runners.  They snap photos when a vehicle travels a certain speed, between two piezo buzzers embedded in the roadway, during specified time intervals, which are calibrated to the red phase of a traffic signal.  There's no real regulation out there on how often vendors are supposed to re-calibrate the cameras, so "green-light camera" situations happen with some frequency.

How is this possible (logistically -- politically, we know anything is possible)? I would think that at least some of these signals have sensors which adjust the light timing continuously, which would make activating based on timing nearly impossible. Does the camera take a picture of the traffic light at the same time it takes the picture(s) of the car? How would they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traffic light was actually red when the picture was taken otherwise? It seems to me that if I got a ticket, it would be trivial to go to court and make the state/municipality prove that the light was red when I was photographed.

[jeffandnicole]

Red light cameras don't technically catch red light runners.  They snap photos when a vehicle travels a certain speed, between two piezo buzzers embedded in the roadway, during specified time intervals, which are calibrated to the red phase of a traffic signal.  There's no real regulation out there on how often vendors are supposed to re-calibrate the cameras, so "green-light camera" situations happen with some frequency.

I'm pretty sure any of the new Red Light Cameras in NJ don't use in-road sensors, because the state has moved away from anything inbedded in the road at intersections.  And I've never seen anything indicating the road has been cut into at these lights when the camera was installed either.

[vdeane]

It would be nice if the courts upheld the need for the state to prove someone innocent unless the prosecution can prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, but these days it seems the burden is on the accused to prove innocence.

[StogieGuy7]

Red light cameras don't technically catch red light runners.  They snap photos when a vehicle travels a certain speed, between two piezo buzzers embedded in the roadway, during specified time intervals, which are calibrated to the red phase of a traffic signal.  There's no real regulation out there on how often vendors are supposed to re-calibrate the cameras, so "green-light camera" situations happen with some frequency.

How is this possible (logistically -- politically, we know anything is possible)? I would think that at least some of these signals have sensors which adjust the light timing continuously, which would make activating based on timing nearly impossible. Does the camera take a picture of the traffic light at the same time it takes the picture(s) of the car? How would they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traffic light was actually red when the picture was taken otherwise? It seems to me that if I got a ticket, it would be trivial to go to court and make the state/municipality prove that the light was red when I was photographed.

In IL, not only do you have your car and plate photographed, but the equipment also includes a video camera that is constantly recording.  Before sending out a ticket, the municipality is supposed to review the video to ensure that your car actually "ran" a red light (which can include a right on red without adequately stopping or stopping in front of the line).  So, if the timing is off and it's photographing cars running a green light (which I've seen one such setup do in Waukegan), they toss those out before even bothering you with it.

I know of the video because my wife got one of these.  Knowing that she turns right at that particular corner to come home, I set about work on an appeal with a "we'll see about this!" attitude.   Then, the system had me look at the surprisingly high-quality video.  She never stopped before turning right.   So, I brought the ticker back to her; she said "what?" and I solemnly replied "you owe them $100."   

In reading up on these things, it looks like that's pretty much the way they do it in most in IL (except for the city of Chicago, where anything goes!). 

[Tarkus]

they toss those out before even bothering you with it.

Tell that to Redflex and the police department of Port Lavaca, TX--story here.  Here's the "violation" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olpxgNKirl8

I'm pretty sure any of the new Red Light Cameras in NJ don't use in-road sensors, because the state has moved away from anything inbedded in the road at intersections.  And I've never seen anything indicating the road has been cut into at these lights when the camera was installed either.

This intersection in Beaverton, Oregon is a photo-enforced signal.  It's really hard to see any sort of sensors in the roadway there.  They can be pretty inconspicuous.  There have been experiments with other trigger methods, but to my knowledge, just about every installation out there uses embedded sensors.

I would think that at least some of these signals have sensors which adjust the light timing continuously, which would make activating based on timing nearly impossible. Does the camera take a picture of the traffic light at the same time it takes the picture(s) of the car? How would they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traffic light was actually red when the picture was taken otherwise? It seems to me that if I got a ticket, it would be trivial to go to court and make the state/municipality prove that the light was red when I was photographed.

The vendors have proprietary software programs which take into account the adaptive nature of signal phasing, so it's not a complete shot in the dark, but they're still not exactly synchronized with the signal--it's all just an educated guess, based upon software and sensor data.  It's also worth noting that while many systems are now operating on video footage, to back up the stills, there are still some systems (namely, certain Xerox/ACS systems) which operate just off Polaroid-type stills.

Additionally, in some cases, the cameras can also go off when a driver legally stops for a red light, if they traveled over the initial sensors faster than the preset trigger speed on the algorithm. Some vendors will try to milk this (especially with right-on-red citations).  See here.

It seems to me that if I got a ticket, it would be trivial to go to court and make the state/municipality prove that the light was red when I was photographed.

Some camera systems rack up absurdly high numbers of violations, beyond what the municipality running the photo enforcement program can handle within their respective court system, so they'll often subvert due process in the name of expedience.

[Duke87]

Why would you want every ticket to have to go to court? That's awfully inconvenient for everyone involved, especially if the defendant doesn't live close to where they were caught.

It isn't a "guilty until proven innocent" situation. The citation is merely a charge like any other. You can plea guilty or not guilty to it. If you plea not guilty it goes to court and they present the evidence against you.

The problem isn't that due process is being violated. The problem is that camera systems can be prone to errors and municipalities don't do their due diligence to ensure that all citations issued are valid - figuring (correctly) that most people will just pay up rather than bothering to fight the ticket.

[vdeane]

The "guilty until proven innocent" situation here is that traffic court judges often require the motorist to prove that they did not commit a violation rather than for the police/ticket agency/whoever to prove that you did.

[SidS1045]

The "guilty until proven innocent" situation here is that traffic court judges often require the motorist to prove that they did not commit a violation rather than for the police/ticket agency/whoever to prove that you did.

Quite correct.  Most traffic violations are no longer considered criminal citations, but rather "civil infractions," which means the burden of proof is on the alleged violator.  Some traffic courts in Massachusetts will actually notify cited motorists that, if they wish to appeal the cite, they are assumed to be guilty.

Cliff's Notes:  Where revenue is the object, the Constitution just gets in the way.

[Compulov]

I wasn't suggesting you go to court on every ticket. If you ran the light, and you know you ran the light, just pay the damn ticket (assuming there's no points). Maybe I just think too highly of our court system. There's also the matter of camera (both red light and speed, depending on the state) having different penalties than cop-issued tickets. That was the one reason a number of judges in the Phoenix metro area started throwing out speed camera tickets en-masse. Your penalty should be based strictly on the crime, not based on whether it was a cop or a camera which caught you.
FWIW, at least in NJ and PA, even if you *are* guilty, I tend to favor going to court -- at least in the case of moving violations. More often than not, you can negotiate a higher fine for a non-moving violation and save yourself the trouble with the insurance company later on. I'm not sure if this really applies to camera tickets, though... are those held against you by the insurance company?

[cpzilliacus]

Chicago Tribune: City dropping red-light camera firm as probe heats up

Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced today he will axe the city's embattled red-light camera vendor when its contract expires in July, citing new investigative findings that the company gave thousands of dollars in free trips to the former city official who oversaw the decade-long program.

Emanuel announced the action against Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. following the Chicago Tribune's report today that the chairman of Redflex's Australian parent company resigned this week and trading in the company's stock was suspended amid an intensifying investigation into allegations of corruption in its Chicago contract.

[cpzilliacus]

WTOP Radio: Rockville [Maryland] sees massive jump in red-light camera tickets

Red-light camera tickets were up 343 percent between Aug. 1, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2012 compared with the same period in 2011, according to an analysis by WTOP and AAA Mid-Atlantic.

In those five months last year, police issued 15,133 tickets, compared with 3,423 in 2011.

"This is outrageous," says John B. Townsend II, AAA Mid-Atlantic's manager of public and government affairs.

[SidS1045]

I wasn't suggesting you go to court on every ticket.

If you won't, I will.  Make them prove it, even if you know you're guilty.  Clogging up the court systems like this just might make some people take a second look at a system which is all about generating revenue, with the safety of motorists a distant second.