Are Red Light Cameras All That Bad?

Getting pulled over by a cop would probably reduce the incidence of license plate pranking if it were to take off as a social phenomenon akin to flash mobbing.

RE: http://www.stopbigbrothermd.org/2008/12/beware-of-prank-spee...

...on the other hand, I'm not a big fan of tasers.

This article appeared in the Sunday edition of the Orange County Register newspaper on 8/30/09
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-tickets-camera-25445...

I was coming to an interesection which I knew had a red light camera. The green light change to yellow just as I approached into intersection. Normally I would have gone through, but knowing there is a camera, I slammed on the breaks. The car behind nearly ran into me.

I like the line "Defendants are reportedly given about 3 minutes each to prove their innocence."

Wow, and here I thought is was supposed to be the other way around. Silly me.

Exactly right. The camera and the camera vendor will just mail you a citation whereas a real live police officer would that all that into account.

Cameras are always bad.

Everyone should read that who drives in California, at least.

Were you the one that blew by me just after the light changed to red Wednesday evening?

Not me. The police officer who ran the system in Fullerton, CA told me "you have the RIGHT to enter the intersection while the light is yellow". So I do.

Not when it's red, though.

Enough Said.

A week later, more letters to the editor about the redlight cameras.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/light-red-cameras-2551144...

FWIW I think Michael Jennings is right. The government is expected to follow the law at all times. Nobody got a government job where their job is to "Lie, cheat and steal". We expect our government to scrupulously follow the law in all cases.

what bugs me about them is.. i'm afraid of the "slippery slope" that could lead to an all-seeing police state

as one who works in the technology industry, i know what is possible with computers and technology - we're almost getting to the point of if-you-can-think-it, we-can-do-it... and that's kinda scary to me

i don't want to have to live in fear of having one little slip up that doesn't really amount to anything but because of the "all seeing eye" of the govt, now i have a ticket and higher ins premium and a fine etc etc

i don't want to live in that kind of society

you can argue "well, just obey the law" - and i say, c'mon.. you know how we live our lives - we just "live" - without having to worry about a momentary indiscretion or lapse in attention or innocent error

you pair "all seeing" technology with these gung-ho law enforcement types and.. you got a recipe for alot of unhappiness, fear, abuse..... and there's nothing the little guy can do about it

these red-light cams enable "law enforcement at a distance" - no expenditure of human energy - its "too efficient" - the unyielding exacting precise eye of the law is focusing its laser attention at you and... you better not come up short!

and i'm afraid theyre just the first step into all kinds of automated computer surveillance that will erase the care-free freedom previous generations used to enjoy

--------------------------------------------------

oh - never actually answered teh question!

yes! i would rather a policeman have to see me, chase me down, pull me over, get out of his car, look me in the eye, tell me what i did, fill out a form, check my record, etc etc etc - i feel, if he's gonna make my life miserable, he's gotta come over here and do it to my face - i'm a real-live flesh and blood human and you're affecting me - that's gotta have some affect on you mr policeman

i don't want it too "easy" for them - i want them to have to work for it

well, just in the interest of clarity, i believe the reason the light has to flash (thus, the picture being taken) at the moment the light turns red, is so all parties (you, law enforcement, the judge) see your position when the light turned - and then there's a second picture taken when you "complete the manuever"

as i understand it, the "completing the manuever" part makes the infraction (or "offense" - whatever) a done deal - all of the elements have to be in place for a conviction

i was surprised once by a red-light intersection - it was in a familiar area that i hadn't been to in years (my college) - i was turning right off a thoroughfare, the light turned yellow-then-red (zikes! that was fast!)

i stopped - but it was too late! i was "in" the intersection! but (!!) i was stopped! then.. "flash-flash!" two flashes from the camera! i remember it - right in my face!

but guess what? i never got a ticket!

a couple years later i had to take traffic school - and they made the point we had to "complete teh manueuver" for there to be a citation issued

thats when i remembered back to those flashes going off while i was stopped in the corner of that intersection - teh second picture didn't record me exiting the intersection so technically i didn't "run" the red

so.. i wouldn't get all wound up about how draconian they are by having that flash go off a millisecond after teh light turns red - its just that the law requires proof that you entered the intersection when the light was red - and then you exited the intersection, thus "completing the manuever"

so conceivably, you could a) simply stop or b) you could stop and then back up and get back behind the limit line - and they wouldn't be able to cite you

Mr SDScorch;

You live in a funny jurisdiction, or your traffic school instructor was having fun at your expense.

If you stop in an intersection, the charge is 'obstructing traffic'.

If you cross the line AFTER the light goes red, you've run the light.

Unfortunately, since no one gets points for these offenses nor for speed cameras, it constitutes a 'speed fee', and a 'license to run red lights' with impunity. If you have the money, enjoy yourself.

The other problem is that unless cameras cover all four sides of the intersection, only those going in one direction are targetted - if the police are present during rush hour (for example) they watch everything.

Worse, if a close by intersection is monitored electronically, the police tend to stay away from the entire area.

Speeding 5 mph over the limit at 2 AM is a victimless crime. Perhaps we might consider the drive is the victim if there's a speed cam in place. If the driver of that car is drunk and weaving the speedcam can't tell. But a cop can.

Of course it's all about the money.

you make some good points, for sure

just goes to support my first post making the point that i would rather have an actual police officer on the job than a robot/automated camera/computer doing police work

as for the traffic school instructor comment.. that whole anecdote just goes to explain what happened to me in the real world - where i "thought" i violated the law, but never got a ticket

I think it is pathetic, that this practice of handing out traffic tickets, is allowed any where in the good ole USA! This is being used as a lazy way of getting more money from the people. Sorry, it sucks!!!

Where does the sixth amendment to the constitution come in where I have the right to be confronted by the witnesses against me?

If all they have is a photo and not an actual witness, am I allowed to show that photo's can be manipulated in easy to obtain software and would they then have to prove my guilt by having an expert witness in court proving the photo was not tampered with?

After all, I am innocent until PROVEN guilty, right?

Just wondering.

Actually, I think most of the camera enforcement systems are all video nowadays. They take a continuous video of you driving through the red signal.

You used to be able to see a sample on the Nestor traffic systems website. That's the vendor Fullerton, CA uses.

I know they still have a flash, even the Nestor system in Fullerton. But I don't think they really need it. There may be something in the law that requires it, but clearly if you are taking video a flash serves little purpose.

An ATS representative was pitching the city council at a council meeting and mentioned they were using a 12 MP Nikon camera. That was a few years ago.

Now that I think of it they may take a lower resolution continuous video of the intersection and take frames at high res to be able to see the driver's face and the license, and that may be what the flash is for. At least at night.

I'm not a constitutional scholar so I can't speak to the issue from the legal standpoint, however, I read a somewhat related article concerning how law enforcement operates in the criminal justice system.

Reference: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/paul/being-acquitted-v...

Come on get over it....if you run a red light you are guilty.....Do you think a judge would actually believe that they have someone that was hired to manipulate photos??? If a judge would believe that now I am really scared!!!!

"After all, I am innocent until PROVEN guilty, right? The answer is no when it is not a crime. While painful to your wallet running a red light and getting tagged by a camera is not a criminal matter.

"Do you think a judge would actually believe that they have someone that was hired to manipulate photos???"
At some point in some town someone will prove photos were doctored. The city and the company have a vested interest to get everyone they can.

I believe the flash is when they take the still picture of your license plate/car and along with the video of the entire incident seals your fate.
They do have cameras that can zoom in digitally resulting in virtually no distortion so they could zoom in to read the plate while recording the entire intersection. Some casinos use these higher end cameras right now.

RLC is not for safety, it is for $$$.

Longer yellow and delayed red will improve safety.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

However, that doesn't stop the occasional class action lawsuit from being filed.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/331/story/789486.html --- Drivers sue 19 cities over traffic cameras

And someday someone will prove all the photos in Playboy have been doctored.....come on let's be realistic here...I know there are dumb politicians but I think this would go above being dumb...if you don't run red lights what are you so afraid of...don't worry----be happy!!!!

I suppose you also believe that Dan Rather would never do a news story using faked documents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy

Every municipality has different rules. I think the camera is like a remote for T.V.'s. It makes you lazy--especially big brother. I believe in safety, but also in civil liberties. Imagine if you will if everybody got enough tickets to where they couldn't drive--the federal government would than have massive amnesty days or shut off the cameras to get all the revenue from transportation taxes flowing again. You should ask your next council member how they will vote on this subject--bet they will do a song and dance instead......

You bet they are that bad. I think we're being treated like frogs in cold water with the heat turned up. We won't know what hit us until it's too late.

There is too much "Big Brother" out there already. The electric company is working on "Smart Grids". Smart for whom? The grids will begin to monitor when you turn on your TV, electric blanket, dish washer, etc. You get the picture. Soon we'll be getting tickets in the mail for drying cloths at the wrong time of the day.

It's too much already. This has got to be put to a stop, somewhere, it might as well be red light cameras, then on to something else.

Sorry for the soap box. I guess this question pushed my button.

Your example doesn't even come close to the statement of manipulating photos. You are comparing a one time event that he didn't even know about.

My only point was that photo's are easy to manipulate. So easy there's even a word for it now. Photochop.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/photochop/

Yes

No comment!!!

I noticed a Red Light Camera in La Jolla that flashed every car that stopped legally at the red and then proceeded to make a right turn at that intersection.
I wonder if they will all get tickets since they clearly went into the intersection while the light was red but it is legal to do that to make a right turn in California unless there is a "No Turn on Red" sign prohibiting that.

I haven't seen other red light cameras in the area behave this way. They usually flash cars right after the signal tuns red, not when it has been red for a while.

I imagine it would be hard to fight it if they were ticketed sine the phot will show them clearly entering the intersection when it was read and the motorists may not remember that specific turn 30 days later when they receive the ticket.

Red-light cameras catching 300 violations daily in city

From The Conroe Courier, Conroe, Texas
01/24/2010

http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2010/01/25/conroe_courier/...

And your point is.. WHAT :?

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Let's see if I get this right.

You're on vacation some thousands of miles away from your home. Someone steals your second car that WAS parked in your driveway. For the next ten days, (before you get home), your car is driven all over the place.. to and including "Red Light Running" of let's say...... six or seven times a day/night over a ten day period.

Let's see now. Seven x ten = seventy x $135 = $9,450.

Sounds right to me. The owner of the car SHOULD be made to pay $9,450 for having his/her STOLEN vehicle running that many red lights. After all.. and as YOU said, ie:

"It's the car owners responsibility for whatever happens in his/her car".. NOT

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

The problem with all of this is the presumption of guilt.

The U.S. court system is based on: innocent until proven guilty.

The red-light (and speed-cameras - basically lazy law-enforcement methods used by the govt) are based on: guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.

So, you get an automated ticket and then you have to go to the trouble to prove that it's not you in court instead of them proving that it's you. Their proof is a picture. They have your tag and may/may not have a picture of you in the driver's seat. They don't really care as they just want you to pay the ticket. For you, though, you have to prove it's not you. Even if they have a picture of someone in the driver's seat and even if that person looks like you it doesn't seem to me that it actually proves it's you. A cop pulling you over asking for identification proves it's you.

They'll assume guilt because they want their revenue and, my guess, is that the courts will go right along with it. I like what Phoenix residents have been doing to those cameras. That kind of resistance will get through to them because it makes it tougher/more work for the authorities to collect the fine/tax. They'll eventually give up because they're really just looking for easy ways to raise revenue and fighting it isn't easy (and the whole point of these cameras, ultimately, was an easy way to raise revenue under the guise of 'safety').

What gets me is that from the local/state/federal level: I still have yet to hear any of them say anything about reducing spending. Obama gives it some lip service but then he talks about increasing it even more elsewhere. It's out of control and all I hear of is, "tax this," and "tax that," - never do I hear, "Oh, crap - we need to cut back."

Once it can be proven that the vehicle was stolen while its' family was on vacation, then all violations from cameras should be voided!!!!!!

I only heard my Nuvi said when I approach the Red Light Camera, "Revenue Enhancement Camera Ahead!"

Not sure it's bad or good.

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/5856/1797329178000d23e2c3...

I agree, this is guilty until you prove you are innocent. Wouldn't it be great if you prove you were not in the car and the city and it's henchmen (camera company) have to pay you the fine - better yet double the fine for your time and effort.

It's one of the things that really bugs me about the endless new laws - the legislatures pass them with little thought because they made some grand political gesture about how great it will be for the community, but, if you're caught in it, you have to go prove your case against a law that should never have been there in the first place. Let's so you go so far as to have the law overturned (which would be many dollars out of your pocket to do so), the legislature has already passed another 100 laws while you were do it.

They really don't have any accountability for bad laws. We have all the responsibility (time/financial) of dealing with their bad laws. There is, essentially, very little risk to them passing random crap and so they do.

Now there's an idea! I like it.

agreed

Brad Bishop: remember the essence of politics and politicians is not to actually accomplish something, but only to SEEM to accomplish something. Putting in red light cameras SEEMS to do something, with the added bonus of minting money. In a choice between that and fixing traffic flow problems--which takes more effort and is less easily pointed out--which will a politician (or bureaucrat) do?

I am trying to work through your comments to see how a red-light ticket in the mail become "guilty until proven innocent". Have you gotten a ticket this way?

Grand juries indict on probable cause. Would seem that a picture of your car with your license plate is probable cause that your car violated the law (regardless of who was driving).

If your car was stolen and you reported it to the police, then the police report ought to get you off in traffic court, should it not? Admittedly, you are out your time and effort to go to traffic court, but there WAS "probable cause".

They send you a ticket based on your license plate.

The things that bother me:

They never appropriately identified the driver. I highly doubt they'll look at the plate of the vehicle and match it up with the driver's license. I suspect they just mail out the tickets and hope that they'll just get paid. It may have been me driving. It may have been my son who looks like me driving. It may have been my daughter or a friend. The problem is that they assume I'm the guilty party and it's all based on their laziness to actually have a cop out there and stop the driver.

Some have argued, "Well what about parking tickets?" I think those are wrong too if you can't prove who committed the crime. Yeah - it kind of breaks things in terms of people parking and getting a ticket when it really was them but why should an innocent person have to deal with it when it was someone they loaned their car too. It's between the driver and the state. the onus is on the state to prove who did it, not on me to prove I didn't do it. Yes, I realize it's not going to change because I say this - I'm just making the argument.

Let's say a cop pulls the person over for driving. Now you have the whole "License, please..." conversation going on and the cop has correctly/appropriately identified the driver and the cop can make the judgment call on whether the ticket was valid:
- was there some kind of emergency?
- was there some kind of traffic situation that warranted it?

With a cop pulling you over or sitting on the side (and maybe not pulling you over) you have a person making that call. To the red light camera: You were there - they have your tag - you must be guilty. No thought of who is guilty (the driver) or the reasons. Just send out the ticket. With a cop if you get pulled over you have an immediate recollection of events. With a red-light camera you don't. You may think, "Wait - I think I was at that intersection that day. I don't remember running the light though or what was going on..." What kind of defense can you come up with if you just get a 'you broke this law 3 weeks ago' notice in the mail. You may have been avoiding an accident or something like traffic was flowing through but then suddenly stopped and you were stuck in the middle. Most of the time most of us avoid that by not entering the intersection but I think we've all been there where it looked clear like you could go through but then it suddenly stopped short and you were left with your butt hanging in the intersection. That kind of stuff a cop can help with.

It's like speeding - there may be times when it's appropriate to speed which, technically is breaking the law, but a cop sitting there would be able to say, "Yeah, he was just trying to pass the other vehicle and as soon as he passed he was back down to a normal speed.." or, "he was trying to avoid an accident.."

It is a money machine!

Brad,
My son in law got a ticket a year or so ago for running a red light in a car that was listed as owned by my daughter. Using the ticket number, she went to a website and could see pictures of the back and front of the car. It was clearly her car and it was apparently her husband driving.

I sort of feel like you are objecting to cameras on emotional grounds rather than logical or factual grounds.

I agree with the comments by a_user posted on 4/14/2009 at 8:00 at the bottom of the first page of this thread. he said "The study did state that there was an increase in the number of rear end collisions BUT THE NUMBER OF SERIOUS ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY INTERSECTION INTRUSION DECREASED."

It would seem that my city has benefited by not having any fatalities at the locations of red-light cameras since their installation. I have seen various studies where the selective quoting by camera opponents was something like "read end accidents increase when cameras are installed" only to read the entire report and find exactly what a_user stated.

What is the benefit of a life saved? For that person and family it is immeasurable. For the camera opponent, well - who knows?

Have you looked?
Here's two but there are more. No, I'm not going to start a list. If you want to know you'll put aside your own emotions, find them, & evaluate the pros/cons logically & factually yourself.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jan/06/red-light-camer...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-sub...

By "It would seem .." are you referring to your mention in another post that a local (police officer?) told you that there were no fatalities at the intersections after the red light cams were installed? Regardless, what were the fatality numbers before? What were the injuries before/after?

That conflicts with your plea against being emotional, does it not?

Just to clarify my comments were regarding the findings of the VA Tech study report and do not necessarily carry forward. After all, one way of looking at both studies and surveys is to ask "What do you want it to prove?" Studies and data can be manipulated in virtually any manner to achieve the desired results - the climate change data put forward by the global warming faction is a prime example of sound scientific data being manipulated with intent to produce the desired outcome.

The various studies coming out of Washington regarding current social issues is another fine example of data being manipulated to "prove" a point of view.