Advocacy & Safety - Red light cameras.

Starting next month there will be red light cameras installed at 11 intersections in Sioux City. For some reason we have a major problem with people running red lights. Not just right before they turn red when they are still yellow, I mean when they have been red from when the traffic is approaching from half a block away. Also for some reason we have drivers that stop but with half the front end in the intersection & they had plenty of time to stop behind the solid white line. We also have a major problem with drivers who creep out into the intersection while the light is still red after stopping.

I have had motorists who have gone around me to run a red light at an intersection while we were stopped. They went into the oncoming lane & drove through the intersection. I have also had red light runners run the light when I am on the intersecting roadway with the green light & ROW & almost hit me. So if these intersections are along my commute route or in an area I reguarly ride this may make cycling safer in my community.

What do you feel about the red light cameras?

Not sure how I feel about them yet, time will tell. If they help make the intersections safer then no problem I'm all for it. If not then it is a waste of my tax dollars to purchase & maintain them.

I know the ACLU's position on them, they hate them & consider them a violation of civil rights. I don't see how, but ok. The least of my concerns is the ACLU's position on them & I doubt there will be much opposition to them in my area. Even if there is the city will pretty much tell the ACLU where to stick it, the cameras will be installed regardless. They are on public property, paid for with public funds for the protection of the public. What's wrong with that?

I have heard cases where the cameras helped solve a crime & saved lives.

Well, I have been sitting in court, waiting for my business to get called, and watched many people talking to the judge about their third photo red light violation. Why are these people always in a such a hurry? The other thing that came up regularly was drivers being on the phone. Hey, it's dangerous out there and the cameras will eventually slow it down. At least the multiple violators will lose their licenses. bk

I'm not fan of red light cameras. Usually, these cost the city practically nothing. A company comes in and installs them and takes a large percentage of the fine to cover their costs.

We don't have any in my area, almost, but NC law states that fines such as these have to go to the local schools with only a very small percentage going to administrative costs. When the company that installs, maintains, and sends out the tickets for Hickory NC was taken to court, it made some cities rethink them.

I don't care for them because I work in a car dealership. I know that techs have gotten tickets in customers cars before. So, if they run the light with your car...you get the ticket. Then, you have to go to court and prove that you aren't guilty. I also get several cars a week that no paper work is generated for since they are in for preliminary evaluation for problems. Without a work order as proof, you are going to have to pay or convince the dealership that the ticket is their responsibility.

Taking a day off for court may not be a problem for some, but I don't get paid if I'm not at work. It is cheaper to pay the fine. Which is what the city or town and the company who makes the profit from the camera ticket fees is counting on.

Since nobody from the D.C. area has replied, I'll give my perspective based mostly on local news reports. Studies have shown in the area that red light cameras have actually increased traffic accidents. People are afraid of getting caught, so they slam on the brakes, causing the car behind them to crash into them.

My wife got caught by one in heavy traffic in Fairfax county. Resulted in a $50 fine but no points. She doesn't enter an intersection unless she knows that there's clearance any more though. Give and take I guess.

For the record, here is the ACLU's position:


The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose the use of such cameras for enforcing specific traffic violations, provided that the cameras capture only those images that are necessary to enforce the traffic laws. However, we are concerned about what we call 'mission creep' -- that the data collected by these cameras will be used for purposes other than tracking reckless drivers.


I'm pro-camera. I've yet to hear an argument against them that doesn't boil down to "I don't like getting tickets."

One of our company drivers got a ticket from a red light camera... it was set up that not only did it photo the plate, but took a photo in the front windshield as well... It was him, and he was even smiling and laughing in the photo. Kind of hard to argue it!

Here is a summary of the results of some red light cameras in Portland, Oregon. It's a PDF file.

Red Light Summary (http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=33711)

These are just the raw facts... draw your own conclusions.

... And an interesting article from Government Technology that discusses the issue in Portland and Washington D.C., from Jul7, 2002.

Govtech article (http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=18486&issue=7:2002)

For the record, here is the ACLU's position:


I'm pro-camera. I've yet to hear an argument against them that doesn't boil down to "I don't like getting tickets."Here's one. At nearly $300 per ticket, red light tickets are profit centers for certain city areas. I believe the light at 32nd and Harbor (Southbound) in National City CA has been set to periodically flash green for about 3 seconds and then immediately turn red. This would bring in lots of revenue, and most people wouldn't even know it happened until they got their ticket in the mail. The problem is, this turns lights into death traps for cyclists.

For drivers, how do you defend yourself against an event that happened two weeks ago when you weren't paying attention? Do you remember what you had for lunch two weeks ago.

Here's another one. Psychologist B.F. Skinner demonstrated 50 years ago that punishment or reward is most effective when it is given as close as possible in time to the event that is being punished or rewarded. So what does this say about the impact of deterrence when the punishment comes 2 weeks after the event?

These things are scams for cities to make more money. If they want deterrence, park a police car near the intersection. It would be a lot cheaper than the lights.

Here's one. At nearly $300 per ticket, red light tickets are profit centers for certain city areas. I believe the light at 32nd and Harbor (Southbound) in National City CA has been set to periodically flash green for about 3 seconds and then immediately turn red. This would bring in lots of revenue, and most people wouldn't even know it happened until they got their ticket in the mail. The problem is, this turns lights into death traps for cyclists.

For drivers, how do you defend yourself against an event that happened two weeks ago when you weren't paying attention? Do you remember what you had for lunch two weeks ago.

Here's another one. Psychologist B.F. Skinner demonstrated 50 years ago that punishment or reward is most effective when it is given as close as possible in time to the event that is being punished or rewarded. So what does this say about the impact of deterrence when the punishment comes 2 weeks after the event?

These things are scams for cities to make more money. If they want deterrence, park a police car near the intersection. It would be a lot cheaper than the lights.


My town used to park cars along roadways and it does affect drivers. It was really funny when they parked the car across the street from my work. They sat a mannequin in the driver's seat. I've seen people turn around, stop and have their friends take a photo of them with the mannequin.

... And an interesting article from Government Technology that discusses the issue in Portland and Washington D.C., from Jul7, 2002.

Govtech article (http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=18486&issue=7:2002)


Interesting article. It even mentions that just changing the cycle time of the yellow light reduced accidents, with the biggest reduction involving peds and cyclists.

Here is a summary of the results of some red light cameras in Portland, Oregon. It's a PDF file.

Red Light Summary (http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=33711)

These are just the raw facts... draw your own conclusions.Amazing. They turn on the cameras and immediately there's a reduction in violations. People don't even have to get their ticket in the mail to start becoming repentant. Maybe the city could have saved a bundle just by putting up "Photo enforcement" signs and a little light that flashes from time to time.

At first it looks like a real draw down of violations. But what the comparison with the baseline really shows is that real peace officers are much more effective at identifying violators than automated cameras are. The lights aren't catching more violators -- they're letting +45% off the hook.

I believe the light at 32nd and Harbor (Southbound) in National City CA has been set to periodically flash green for about 3 seconds and then immediately turn red.

....

"Camera's cause more accidents"

Only with road users who have poor driving skills/habits. If you hit someone because they slammed on the brakes, you were following too close. On the other side of the coin, with a tailgater behind them a good driver will slow down to lessen the chance of having to make a fast stop. (and then being hit)


"It might not be me driving my car"

How often does this happen? 99 plus percent of the time the owner was driving. Or a close family member who would deserve the citation.

There's not enough cops to cover all areas. Bring on the camera's.

Amazing. They turn on the cameras and immediately there's a reduction in violations. People don't even have to get their ticket in the mail to start becoming repentant. Maybe the city could have saved a bundle just by putting up "Photo enforcement" signs and a little light that flashes from time to time.

At first it looks like a real draw down of violations. But what the comparison with the baseline really shows is that real peace officers are much more effective at identifying violators than automated cameras are. The lights aren't catching more violators -- they're letting +45% off the hook.

Maybe what it really shows is just the fact that the cameras were advertised before hand was a deterrent? A city doesn't start putting in these lights with no warning at all... there's lots of discussion and plenty of argument.

I think redlight cameras are a great idea.

I also think unmanned, portable, speed detectors, coupled to a camera, with a data link to a control point are another great idea.

The ACLU is way off base being against this kind of technology. Since when is endangering other road users a civil right?

The technology is there to punish bad drivers and it would easily pay for itself.

Time and again it has been demonstrated that people generally will NOT obey laws if they think they can get away with it, and they kid themselves into beleiving that there risk of running a red light, speeding, having a couple of drinks, answering the phone, etc. is negligible.

The more cameras the better, they should be on every single intersection. The technology also exists to breathalyse the driver before the engine can be started, electronic speed limiting on cars, and cellphone signal blocking while the car is in motion. All these measures should be implemented as well.

For the record, here is the ACLU's position:


I'm pro-camera. I've yet to hear an argument against them that doesn't boil down to "I don't like getting tickets."
Well, I guess you aren't listening then. Many of the critics of red light cameras never got a ticket at a red light before or after the cameras, myself included.

I would have to see numbers to say whether a particular city's implementation acomplished the desired goal. I will say that from what I observed in Baltimore. It was a big flop at least for a while. The situation seems to have improved since then however.

There are two potential problems as I see it:
1. They paid an outside company to run the program and their pay was based number of tickets issued, not on achieving compliance or reducing the number of accidents. So if they got people to actually comply they didn't get paid! As a result they started messing with the length of the yellow to be able to issue more tickets. Lights were timed to have a yellow that was shorter than legally allowed.
2. People became paranoid about getting a ticket and were stopping too abruptly for fear of getting a ticket. This was made far worse by the nonsense going on as a result of the tampering with the length of the yellow.

The net result was a profit for the camera company and less safe intersections.

The obvious answer would be to:
1. Set standards as to the timing of the lights and rigidly follow them.
2. Pay the camera company either a flat fee or pay them extra for reducing the number of violators and/or for reducing the number of accidents.

All of this assumes that the desired result is safer intersections and reduction of the number of red light runners. Unfortunately in some jurisdictions that may be the stated purpose, but revenue may be the actual purpose.

In Fairfax City, red light cameras, while a boon to revenue for the money-sucking vacuum which is the government, increased the occurrence of rear end collisions by 33% at intersections where they were placed. The were removed.

I'm not a huge fan of red light cameras on principle. The fact that it is a 3rd party private firm for one, and the fact that they had to change the law to make them legal for another.

But it is sad these days that at intersections without cameras you pretty much have to count to 10 after getting the green just to be safe. I am amazing how much people run red lights, not even almost red yellow lights but blow through the intersections after it has been red.

-D

Quote:
"It might not be me driving my car"



How often does this happen? 99 plus percent of the time the owner was driving. Or a close family member who would deserve the citation.

There's not enough cops to cover all areas. Bring on the camera's.

I guess the the motto should be: Better to hang one innocent man than risk letting 99 murderers live.

The ACLU is way off base being against this kind of technology. Since when is endangering other road users a civil right?



The ACLU is not against them. Read the quote again.

I am absolutely against them - and any other technology that forces you to prove your innocence.

So you want to improve safety around traffic lights? Easy

Make all yellow lights longer, and make them all the exact same length.

Problem solved.

----

Cameras are the antithesis of this approach. They put dollar signs in people's eyes, often resulting in shorter yellow lights and increased risk of accident around the light - all to generate a few more dollars. Don't be fooled by the "the money is going to schools argument". The budget of the school system doesn't increase when fines or lottery money is added. Their primary funding is just cut and they end up with about the same amount in the end.

Only with road users who have poor driving skills/habits. If you hit someone because they slammed on the brakes, you were following too close.

While that might be the legal definition, anyone who drives in heavy traffic understands the flaws of the argument.

On most heavy-traffic roads, it is impossible to maintain a "safe" distance. As soon as you do, someone will move into the opening. You should have a reasonable expectation that other drivers will behave in a predictable manner. Someone who slams on brakes as soon as a light turns yellow deserves at least part of the liability.

Well, I have been sitting in court, waiting for my business to get called, and watched many people talking to the judge about their third photo red light violation. Why are these people always in a such a hurry? The other thing that came up regularly was drivers being on the phone. Hey, it's dangerous out there and the cameras will eventually slow it down. At least the multiple violators will lose their licenses. bk


Actually, probably none of them will. Because it is impossible to confront the accuser in a photo violation, most of the jurisdictions have intentionally made a red light photo violation a no-points civil code matter, eliminating the burden of proof otherwise necessary to win otherwise. Red light cameras do nothing to improve safety. Their sole purpose is to generate revenue. The best protest is to run every read light in a photo jursdiction on your bike. Put a little dent in the revenue generation.

Only with road users who have poor driving skills/habits. If you hit someone because they slammed on the brakes, you were following too close. On the other side of the coin, with a tailgater behind them a good driver will slow down to lessen the chance of having to make a fast stop. (and then being hit)

Even so, the city should work to reduce accidents and increase public safety regardless of who is at fault. Isn't that the point of ticketing red light runners in the first place?

I am absolutely against them - and any other technology that forces you to prove your innocence.


So you're against using DNA technology to 'force' a ******, murderer, or child molester to prove himself innocent?

What's the difference between a camera or a police officer catching you breaking the law? either way you're getting a ticket and are 'forced' to prove yourself innocent.

I have a watertight plan on how to beat all their technology, and the cops as well, they won't be able to touch you! it's absolutely watertight, you ready?..... DON'T BREAK THE LAW! yes, an ingenous mastermind of a plan, so simple yet so 'out there' that it may just work. ;)

........I have a watertight plan on how to beat all their technology, and the cops as well, they won't be able to touch you! it's absolutely watertight, you ready?..... DON'T BREAK THE LAW! yes, an ingenous mastermind of a plan, so simple yet so 'out there' that it may just work. ;)
++1000

I love it. A brilliant plan.:)

I use this, but I'm afraid it's too much of a reach for most people to grasp.

I am absolutely against them - and any other technology that forces you to prove your innocence.

So you want to improve safety around traffic lights? Easy

Make all yellow lights longer, and make them all the exact same length.

Problem solved.



Actually, lengthening the yellow light time will not, in itself reduce the number of red light violations. Most red light runners I see do so not because they cannot stop their car before the light changes. They do so because they cannot get their car through the intersection before the light changes. A subtle, but significant difference. You could make the yellow light 2 minutes long and put a countdown timer on it and you will still get people running it.

I guess the the motto should be: Better to hang one innocent man than risk letting 99 murderers live.

They don't...at least, here in California. The red light camera also takes a high-res photo of the driver. If you can prove it wasn't you, you're off the hook for the ticket.

I am absolutely against them - and any other technology that forces you to prove your innocence.

So you want to improve safety around traffic lights? Easy

Make all yellow lights longer, and make them all the exact same length.

Problem solved.

----

Cameras are the antithesis of this approach. They put dollar signs in people's eyes, often resulting in shorter yellow lights and increased risk of accident around the light - all to generate a few more dollars. Don't be fooled by the "the money is going to schools argument". The budget of the school system doesn't increase when fines or lottery money is added. Their primary funding is just cut and they end up with about the same amount in the end.

Do you have any proof that yellow light signal times are reduced? That sounds like an urban legend to me.

As for making all yellow lights longer and the same length...that won't solve anything. I've seen drivers run red lights that were clearly red for 3+ seconds before they got to the intersection.

What's the difference between a camera or a police officer catching you breaking the law? either way you're getting a ticket and are 'forced' to prove yourself innocent.The biggest difference is that with the officer you get immediate feedback -- not some mail 2 weeks later. Immediacy has been shown to be a greater factor in deterring crime of all times rather than severity. Psychological principles discovered a half century ago show that the most effective reward or punishment is that given immediately after a behavior occurs.

Actually, lengthening the yellow light time will not, in itself reduce the number of red light violations. Most red light runners I see do so not because they cannot stop their car before the light changes. They do so because they cannot get their car through the intersection before the light changes. A subtle, but significant difference. You could make the yellow light 2 minutes long and put a countdown timer on it and you will still get people running it.

One of the links provided by someone else, contradicts the statement that lengthening a yellow reduces violations and, more importantly, accidents involving cyclists.

Notice that they're having to throw out 44% of potential violations? For the system to work effectively the government needs to enforce two other laws:

License on front of vehicle
No tinted front windows

As a cyclist it would be great if both these laws were enforced, but particularly if tinted windows rules were enforced. They could go down just about any street I bike on and slap fix-it tickets on about a third of the vehicles parked on the roads. But they obviously don't do this. And apparently shops are getting away with tinting windows. Maybe enforcing the laws we already have would be a better place to start rather than privatized mercenary stop lights.

The biggest difference is that with the officer you get immediate feedback -- not some mail 2 weeks later. Immediacy has been shown to be a greater factor in deterring crime of all times rather than severity. Psychological principles discovered a half century ago show that the most effective reward or punishment is that given immediately after a behavior occurs.

That's fantastic, would work great if you can position enough officers at each and every intersection, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to catch every red light violator just like the cameras can.... My point is that 2 weeks delay in feedback is much more of a deterrent than no feedback at all, and lets face it drivers that run reds know they run reds, its not like they need to be informed - what they do need is to be taught that it will not be tolerated and they will be hit in the hip pocket every time they do it.

Hit them with enough tickets & points and eventually they'll either run out of money, lose their license, or wise up and start obeying the law, whichever comes first. Either way they'll comply with the law and stop putting people's lives in danger needlessly.

They don't...at least, here in California. The red light camera also takes a high-res photo of the driver. If you can prove it wasn't you, you're off the hook for the ticket.

Still you end up taking a day off to go to court to prove it wasn't you and that you are innocent. Again, they count on you not fighting it and just paying up.

Did Uncle Bob borrow your truck to move furniture and ran a light, two months ago? You just got the ticket. If a police officer stopped the truck, Uncle Bob would get the ticket.

See the difference here? The assumption is that we always drive our own cars and if the car runs a light, you are guilty. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality. You are guilty until proven innocent.

No wonder the Patriot Act passed. Better to presume guilt and search everyone...better to wire-tap phones, than risk a terrorist attack....give up your rights, no matter how small, and you open a door allowing the restrictions of all freedoms.

That's fantastic, would work great if you can position enough officers at each and every intersection, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to catch every red light violator just like the cameras can.... My point is that 2 weeks delay in feedback is much more of a deterrent than no feedback at all...No. Immediacy is far more powerful than severity. As for the costs ... its like $100,000 to install a light plus ongoing maintenance. For that price you could have an officer handle 5 light stops and leave a decoy vehicle the rest of the time. She doesn't have to be there every single time -- just often enough to instill uncertainty. The time that she is there she will catch more violators than the machine -- the machine misses 45% of violators.

Another thing -- they send the ticket by uncertified mail. Which means a violator may never get the ticket. Got a girl friend who's borrowed your car and sees your mail before you do?

Cities like these because it gives them a backdoor to privatization of services, allowing them to do an end-run around unions and union rules. Its not about safety -- its about big business and revenue generation.

A couple points to various replies:

1) If a third party company is running the cameras, they should NOT have access to change the timing of the yellow light. Talk about a conflict of interests.
2) The yellow light duration is based on speed limit and road conditions, they CAN'T all be the exact same length. a 10 second red light is plenty for a neighborhood intersection with one lane of traffic each way. It would NOT be enough for a road that's 45 mph, 3 lanes of traffic each way.

One of the things I've noticed about the larger intersections around here is that the yellow light is NOT sufficient to allow me to clear the intersection on my bike before the cross traffic gets a green, even if I'm past the line before it turns yellow. It's timed for cars moving 45 mph, not bikes moving 15-20 mph.

Notice that they're having to throw out 44% of potential violations? For the system to work effectively the government needs to enforce two other laws:

License on front of vehicle
No tinted front windows

As a cyclist it would be great if both these laws were enforced, but particularly if tinted windows rules were enforced. They could go down just about any street I bike on and slap fix-it tickets on about a third of the vehicles parked on the roads. But they obviously don't do this. And apparently shops are getting away with tinting windows. Maybe enforcing the laws we already have would be a better place to start rather than privatized mercenary stop lights.

Everywhere that I've EVER lived it has been illegal to tint your front window (Other than that band along the top)

That 44% that's thrown out includes emergency vehicles, vehicles that don't have permanent license plates (too many positions to paste up the temp tags, plus a lot of people post them inside the dark tinted back window) and vehicles where the position of the sun at the time caused too much glare to get a good pic.

Still you end up taking a day off to go to court to prove it wasn't you and that you are innocent. Again, they count on you not fighting it and just paying up.

Did Uncle Bob borrow your truck to move furniture and ran a light, two months ago? You just got the ticket. If a police officer stopped the truck, Uncle Bob would get the ticket.

See the difference here? The assumption is that we always drive our own cars and if the car runs a light, you are guilty. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality. You are guilty until proven innocent.

No wonder the Patriot Act passed. Better to presume guilt and search everyone...better to wire-tap phones, than risk a terrorist attack....give up your rights, no matter how small, and you open a door allowing the restrictions of all freedoms.

When our driver ran a red light, we got the ticket in the mail. Along with the ticket was a nice, hi-res photo of him in the driver's seat, right next to the photo of the license plate. Argue that.

Everywhere that I've EVER lived it has been illegal to tint your front window (Other than that band along the top)
I don't think his post was if it's legal or not, but that it isn't enforced.

The best protest is to run every read light in a photo jursdiction on your bike. Put a little dent in the revenue generation.
I seriously doubt the bike will trigger it. Hell around here even those intersections with bike sensors that suppose to trigger green light don't do it.

I am for any method that stops violators as long as it is fairly implemented. It is no wives tale that some camera implementations were not fair and were definitely set up to produce violations. Entire systems have been taken down at the behest of citizens when it was shown the the implementation was designed with an aim towards maximizing revenue from violations rather than improving traffic safety.

. . . and the idea isn't unique to camera enforcement, either. In a little burg called Westerville, OH, on Route 36 between Columbus and points to the west (a lot of little burgs on that old road), there was a cop who made his living trapping innocent drivers as they come through. It's been a long while ago, but, as a teenage driver, I remember reading about it. You didn't want to drive through that town, especially late at night and especially if you were a young, new driver.

Here in Philly, they installed cameras on Route 1 at intersections that were noted for collisions that were caused, in part, by drivers outright running lights or stretching/anticipating their "right of way" (one direction stretches, the other anticipates, and they meet in the middle).

I don't think there are any statistics comparing safety prior to and after their implementation, but, there was a dramatic drop in recorded violations after the grace period expired (when they were first installed, violators were issued warnings rather than citations). Whether that tells us anything meaningful or not remains to be seen. The grace period was well-publicized, so, the stats might just have been the result of drivers who knew that, for that period, they could run the light and not be fined. Who knows?

Cameras are absolute chroniclers, but, if you are one who tries to abide by the law, my guess is you'll fair just as well against a camera as with a live officer.

I remember once, when I lived in Michigan, after a heavy snow storm, I was on a back residential street, approaching a stop sign at an intersection where I had to go uphill to get to, then get through the intersection.

Knowing how slippery it was (and this was in the days before front wheel, 4-wheel, all-wheel drive), I purposely pulled up to the sign, then, seeing that there was no traffic other than me and a cop parked down the street, I proceeded through the stop sign "without stopping."

Sure enough, "Barney" pulled me over for running the damned stop sign. I didn't show him much respect at all, and he finally admitted that he had no intention of giving me a ticket. There was no way anyone, given the equipment we had back then, could have moved through that particular intersection after having come to a complete stop. At the time, I challenged the officer to demonstrate the maneuver for me, then chastised him for having pulled me over under the circumstances. We parted in a friendly manner, but, I bet he didn't stop anyone else at that intersection until they snow melted away.

Now, I'm not so certain how I might have fared with a camera - but, I'm guessing I could have done almost as well at explaining a situation like that, either in court or in writing. I've done it with the EZ-Pass cameras on the PA Turnpike. There are situations where you may get "caught" when you are not breaking the spirit of the law. Reasonable communities will offer you an avenue for redress. Money-hungry ones will get you sooner or later no matter what system they use.

The hyperbole on this forum does sometimes grate on me, however. You don't have to advocate against DNA testing as a tool to convict ******* to legitimately oppose the use of stop light camera enforcement. There are more reasons take a position against camera use than just the notion that one desires the ability to break the law with impunity.

Caruso

Still you end up taking a day off to go to court to prove it wasn't you and that you are innocent. Again, they count on you not fighting it and just paying up.

Did Uncle Bob borrow your truck to move furniture and ran a light, two months ago? You just got the ticket. If a police officer stopped the truck, Uncle Bob would get the ticket.

See the difference here? The assumption is that we always drive our own cars and if the car runs a light, you are guilty. Unfortunately, that isn't the reality. You are guilty until proven innocent.




That has nothing to do with red light cameras. All traffic infractions are guilty until proven innocent as you describe them, even those issued by a police officers in person.

The biggest difference is that with the officer you get immediate feedback -- not some mail 2 weeks later. Immediacy has been shown to be a greater factor in deterring crime of all times rather than severity. Psychological principles discovered a half century ago show that the most effective reward or punishment is that given immediately after a behavior occurs.

And what percentage of burglars, *******, vandals, etc. are "immediately" arrested?? :rolleyes:

Enforcement of the laws, and the imposition of the consequences, are based on a system of careful deliberation and checks and balances..."psychological principles" are irrelevant.

As a cyclist, I like the idea of cameras recording the various goings-on at the large intersections. Most motorists know that the cameras are there, as it has an amazing calming effect on them. As far as privacy goes, I think courts at various levels have ruled that you have no reasonable expectation of it, when you are in public. Of course, I could be mistaken on that. I have read that if you live in any urban or suburban area today, you are taped and/or photographed as often as fifty times per day, like it or not. Of course, this brings up the question, "who watches the watchers?"

That aside, Massachusetts state law still requires that a sworn police officer must observe a motor vehicle violation first hand. That officer must then personally hand you the civil citation, and you must sign it in his presence. So, what's the point of the cameras in use here? They're installed at intersections that have a history of lots of accidents. The photo / video footage is then used to determine what happened, and who is at fault.

Still you end up taking a day off to go to court to prove it wasn't you and that you are innocent. Again, they count on you not fighting it and just paying up.

Did Uncle Bob borrow your truck to move furniture and ran a light, two months ago? You just got the ticket. If a police officer stopped the truck, Uncle Bob would get the ticket.

No wonder the Patriot Act passed. Better to presume guilt and search everyone...better to wire-tap phones, than risk a terrorist attack....give up your rights, no matter how small, and you open a door allowing the restrictions of all freedoms.

Sorry, but I don't see how the presence of a red light camera amounts to me "giving up my rights". From my perspective, it's just a cost-effective way to enforce the already existing law, and (hopefully) reduce the frequency of idiots running red lights.

And, if "Uncle Bob" is clearly visible in the red light photo, he should step up, admit it was him, and take the hit on his license. I would assume that most jurisdictions provide for that sort of thing, without having to spend "a day in court".

And what percentage of burglars, *******, vandals, etc. are "immediately" arrested?? :rolleyes:
Yes, which is one of the things that's wrong with our current system. And why prevention (bars on windows, carry your own mace, anti-graffiti barbed war, etc.) is often better than our criminal justice system. In the case of these other crimes its almost impossible to catch the perpetrator in the act. In the case of traffic crimes it is fairly easy and you can (from their statistics) catch about 3 an hour -- until the message sinks in.


Enforcement of the laws, and the imposition of the consequences, are based on a system of careful deliberation and checks and balances..."psychological principles" are irrelevant.Yes. Its a lousy system based on crummy unproven ideas from 200 years ago. A system which still depends on that most fallible of recording devices: Human memory. Which may be why we have the highest incarceration and recidivism rates in the developed world. To not incorporate ideas of behavior that have been known for 60 years is itself criminal.

The goal should be to prevent traffic violations. The best way to do this, barring automatic engine cut-offs, is with real police officers.

Cities aren't interested in reducing traffic light violations. They're interested in busting their own unions and making revenue.

"Big Brother" is watching you?

That has nothing to do with red light cameras. All traffic infractions are guilty until proven innocent as you describe them, even those issued by a police officers in person.

I'm sorry, but it has everything to do with the issue. If I'm driving my car and I run a red light and an LEO pulls me over, I get a ticket. If my father inlaw is driving my car and runs a red light and a LEO pulls him over he gets the ticket. I'm presumed innocent because I am innocent, since I wasn't there.

With a red light camera, if my father inlaw runs a red light....I'm presumed guilty and am legally responsible for the infraction and fine.

I just don't see why this is so hard for people to grasp. It is really quite simple.

Let's try another scenario. Lets say there is a law that states everyone must wear a bicycle helmet, adult and child. You loan your bike out to a friend, who refuses to wear a helmet. An officer pulls him over, your friend doesn't have any ID, but the bike has a registration number from the LBS. The officer records that, traces the bike to you through that registration number and sends you a ticket. Who was guilty...you for loaning out your bike? When you loaned out the bike, did you intentionally give up your right of innocent till proven guilty? In the eyes of the law you did and no matter whether you accept the punishment or fight it, you gave up that right also.

(And yes, my LBS does tag bikes with a ID so that it can be traced to the original purchaser. They even looked up my 1989 HR Comp for me last year.)