Red-Light Cameras Inherently Discriminate

Anyone in the profession care to comment if this may be a valid defense?

Although you may not get a ticket from a RLC, there are other inherent penalties to prevent cyclists from running red lights (i.e. motorists not seeing and hitting them)

I think you are going a little off track. I am refering to the application of the law.

that bicycles carry license plates as do motorcycles. That would make everything non-discrimiinatory again, right?

so a proper jaywalking ticket can be issued...no way the government would abuse that, right?!?!? Oh...wait...nevermind...I know there exists a lot of support on this forum for the Big Brotherish behavior now encroaching our lives but it leaves me cold and resentful of the Nanny State.

JM2C, YMMV

Ted

I knew a discussion regarding the potential for discrimination in how the law is enforced against one group vs another would open up a can of worms. Yes, pedestrians also would have to be included in this argument for this particular topic.

Well said.

Pedestrians are not vehicular traffic. They are not covered under vehicular traffic laws. (Peds. don't need to singnal properly, use turn lanes, come to complete stops at traffic signs, etc.)

Bicycles and cars are both vehicular traffic, and they are required to follow the same laws when on the road and in motion. Yet, bicycles get a "free pass" at red-light enforcement cameras.

(I can tell you an officer would not make this kind of distinction...I have actually been on a bicycle and ticketed for running a red-light.)

So, in my estimation, the cameras do not enforce the law equally among the user groups.

The red light camera may only issue tickets to registered vehicles with properly mounted license plates. Bicycles, not being MOTOR VEHICLES, are not required to be registered. Therefore the camera is not discriminatory. The VTL is, by not requiring bicycles to be registered. Therefore, using that logic, all V&T Laws would be unenforceable. Obviously that argument is ridiculous, as would the argument that police officers should never be able to issue warnings. I mean couldn't you also say that the PO giving a ticket to one guy but then letting the next guy go for doing the exact same thing is discriminatory? Bottom line; if you are looking to beat a red light camera ticket, you need to go to your state's VTL and read the defenses for going through a red TSL. One example in NY would be if a Police officer waved you through. Of course if you don't run red lights you won't need to worry about any of this...

If I run a red on my bike and get ticketed by a PO, I'll be fined and get points on my license? What if I don't have a license?

Very interesting topic, indeed! Gets the synapses firing wildly

I suppose though that while this may in fact be 'discriminatory'.. it doesn't change or make incorrect the camera's enforcement of the law with a vehicle or it's operator. And, while the bicyclist is the one being discriminated against, why would they want to press the issue?

Of course.. maybe a pedestrian that gets hit by a bicyclist might have cause to want action taken...

If you accept the premise that the camera is safety-related, issuing tickets to those who run red lights that are likely to cause injury is rationally related to the objective. A vehicle running through a red light at traffic speed is likely to cause significant property damage, personal injury or even death to someone following the law and proceeding on a green. A bicyclist who runs a red light has significantly lower mass and therefore less force if the bicycle strikes a car or truck proceeding on the green. On the other hand, the cyclist is much likely to endure great harm if such collision occurs. Similarly, a pedestrian crossing against a red-light is less likely to cause physical injury if the pedestrian walks into a motor vehicle. If you have ever had the opportunity to ride a motorcycle, a bicycle or even walk in a major city, it has become increasingly prevalent for motorists to be unaware of those who could suffer grave injury as a result of a collision.

Be careful about mentioning plates for bicycles as our money hungry cities will see the ability to charge say $50 per year per bike, collect fines for not having a plate, and then use RLCs to collect more fines.

I wonder if anyone truly accepts that premise???
I know I surely do not!

The greater risks of fatal consequences for cyclists should be enough of a deterrent for committing such violations.

(However, I prefer to give credit to cyclists for using their bikes instead of cars - though I don't condone any "dangerous cycling" when sharing the road with others.)

Thanks!

Well said x 2.

Well said x 2.

Well said x 3, and finally.

Yes, but if your objective is safety, then the cyclist has very high chance of injury in a collision (much higher than if the same individual was in a car). So, tell me again why does the bicycle get a free pass?

So...if that logic is correct, you should very rarely see a bicyclist run a red light, but we all know that is not the case.

..and don't forget the damage he could do to a poor, forgotten pedestrian.

And don't forget the damage s/he can do to our wallets while we foot the bill to take care of them while they're in the hospital and/or hooked up to a machine for the rest of their life.

If they (the bicyclist) are willing to take the risk, then they should be willing to take on the financial burdens as well. I'm referring though to paying for their own medical bills, not in red light revenues. I don't believe bicyclist should be ticketed for running a red light, but they should have a picture taken of their action and decision to do so, so if an accident does occur, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I may be sounding harsh towards bicyclist here, but I also ride a bicycle as well as a motorcycle, so don't think I'm being biased against "them", as I happen to be one of "them" too.

In Hawaii bicycles are REQUIRED to be registered, just like a motor vehicle. I know...I've been ticketed for that, too. Many states and cities have this SAME law. Most people only find out when they buy a new bicycle from a bike shop, and the shop will sometimes register it at the time of sale. (Not sure but I'll bet NYC has the same.)

The arguement that a camera does not discriminate because it only issues tickets to "registered vehicles" is "ridiculous". (Sort of a bureaucratic, "head-in-the-sand" approach --- It isn't registered...therefore it isn't breaking the law. That is a circular argument.)

Discrimination is the act of distinguishing or noting and marking differences. Just because a police officer catches one guy and not the other is not in itself discrimination. If, on the other hand, the officer issued only tickets to men and only warnings to women - then that would be a type of discrimination based on distinguishing differences.
Discretion and discrimination are often confused but are not the same thing...

However, a red-light camera can ONLY distinguish automobiles while completely ignoring other road users covered by the SAME vehicular traffic laws. That IS the definition is discrimination. (I'll wager a bet that of the millions of red-light camera tickets issued - not one has gone to a bicycle or even a motorscooter.)

(I would also wager a bet that MOST/if not all potential red-light camera tickets for motorcycle drivers never see the light of day because the license plate is just unreadable. (Further, ALL motorcycle infractions in states that require a clear picture of the drivers face are no-doubt thrown out.) This gives motorcyclist motorscooters, and bicyclist a highly discrimitory advantage to red-light camera enfocement efforts.

This, too, is counter to the meaning of "Equal Protection under the law".)

I guess some have nothing better to do than to think up ways to find they are being discriminated against. Should a small car be charged the same fine as a large car???? Should a small dogs license be less than a large dogs??? ON and ON and ON....Bicyclists are hard enough to cope with on the road let alone worry about if they are running red lights and putting themselves and others in danger.

Yes, that 14th Amendment is just sooo annoying.

BTW...Do you really have a hard time "coping" with bicycles?

Discrimination would not make sense to me since a single individual could be in both groups. You could be in a car at that intersection, and later on go for a bike ride. Wouldn't it be hard to call that discrimination?

I think you are injecting context into the term "discrimination". (e.g. black/white, male/female, American/Non-American, catholic/jewish etc.) These are the usual contexts for the Equal Protection Clause, but not the only one...

If a government inacts a law that protects its population (in this case the vehicle traffic laws that cover: cars, motorcycles, motorscooters, and bicycles), and you only enforce it against one of those groups (in this case with cameras: the cars); then - the argument would go - you are not providing equal protection under the law. You, me, and everybody else has a right to equal protection from motorscooters, motorcycles and bikes that break the law and run red-lights - not just the cars.

Motorscooters, motorcycles and bicycles are not a "special class" and can do just as much damage as an automobile when one runs a red-light. So, if safety is the "legitimate government purpose" of these cameras then they should include (or attempt to include) ALL the above mentioned vehicles the traffic law covers. Further, incorporating those vehicles in the opertion of the camera is entirely within the capbilities of a state government through manditory registration and larger license plates for all the above mentioned vehicles.

Should a state continue to operate the cameras while refusing to incorporate (or have a plan to incorporate) all those vehicles within the cameras operation (when it clearly has the jurisdiction and ability to do so) - I would say that is definately counter to the 14th Amendment.

So, in other words, if "the law of the land" is ALL of these above mentioned vehicle drivers must stop at red-lights, but the state government builds a machine that only tickets one of the vehicles, while always letting the others go free - Then the operation of that machine is quite possibly counter to the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses.

Ok, simply issue license plates for cycles & use the redlight or speed cameras to ticket you folks!

Happy now???

Fred

It has nothing to do with my happiness...

Do you ever play chess? Ever put one piece at risk to save or gain another?

Holding these camera's up to the 14th Amendment does two things:

First, requires the states to argue a "legitimate government purpose" which will probably be safety. That means a a judge (perhaps 9 judges?) will have to look at the governments data and the complaintant data and determine if these things actually are making the intersections safer.

From what I've seen accidents are actually going UP at these intersections, while accidents across the rest of the country have been in steady decline for the past 40+ years...Further, the state govenrments seem overly cautious and scared whitless to release ANY data on these devices and intersection. That's usually the smell that something's rotten..

Second, a court order coming down requiring a state to bring ALL vehicles into compatibility with the cameras (or loose them) is a blessing.

I think the resources to do that alone would out weigh the revenue of the cameras. And further, no city or state council person who votes to put a large 1 pound, visible license plate on your's or your children's bikes - to the tune of say $40 per year - just to keep the red-light cameras in the community will NEVER get voted back into office.

Can you imagine? 6 and 12-year old's getting pulled over and ticketed on our fair, bucolic, suburban streets? Traffic court with another 30 "bicycle registration" violators per session? The Seirra Club and every other "green group" would have a fit...A state curtailing bicycle, moped and motorcycle use through heavy taxation in these times when 65% of Americans are overweight and the globe just keeps getting warmer?

No...No state or city council person would want to touch that with a 10-foot pole. If it came down to big license plates on: motorcycles, mopeds, motorscooters, and bicycles or the survival of the red-light camera program, the red-light camera would loose. If that is the direction of victory, why not move the argument in that direction? Nothing ventured, nothing gained........

Ya, you might loose, too. If so, we become the funny country where everone has to wear big license plates on the back of their bikes. In Iran they have to wear funny hats...

Either way, yes, I'm happy...

I think traffic laws are 'applied equally' to bicycles primarily to discourage bicycles from riding on roads... that's too bad because i'm already at a huge disadvantage in any conflict with the 2,000 lbs of metal.

It sure looks like there are plenty of users with to much time on their hands.. lol

It's funny that you mention this, but Ohio is requiring license plates on ATV's starting in July. I don't see any real use for this other than the extra dollars that it will put in the state's coffers. (Especially since ATV's in Ohio are not supposed to be ridden on any public thoroughfares.)

Go cut the lawn, take the spouse out to dinner, play with the kids, etc. etc. and quit being a worrywart about such idiotic things. Let's worry about discrimination in the way the 14th amendment was intended and not for every little thing that make no sense at all. Insurance companies charge more for the young and old....I guess I am being discriminated against there????? Should everyone pay the same price to see a movie???? How about senior and younger fares on buses???? Let's worry about the things that really matter...

I'm not so sure HawaiianFlyer is just a worrywart, has too much time on his hands, or is just projecting some insightfulness.

I will say that I draw parallels to the point of view from my experience as an old motorcyclist & a smoker. (Yes, I DO have time on my hands ..I'm retired )

Before M/C helmet laws & seat belt laws (they came in that order for legal precedent reasons), helmet law passage was defeated almost everywhere based on negative reaction to government imposition into daily living and requiring one to 'protect themselves'. A new tactic was then used by NHTSA, that based the laws on the argument of 'the cost to society' if a motorcyclist didn't protect themselves and was injured. Motorcyclists being a minority voice in the general population, I gave up resisting helmet laws thinking that surely when 'they' went for mandatory seat belt laws ('they' downplayed these being inevitable) the general public wouldn't put up with them. However.. I wasn't cognizant of just how strong 'legal precedent' actually is. So, don't think for a minute seat belt law passage has it's LEGAL foundation based on saving life. They were passed purely & simply on a cost basis & the legal precedent of helmet laws.

Now, later as a smoker.. I thought 'just wait until we try to outlaw excessive perfume and after-shave', and laugh. However, it's creeping that way too. Hopefully I'll be dead by then & then it's ...over to you guys.

Note that I'm not saying helmets and seat belts don't do good. Or that smokers have the right to blow smoke toward a non-smoker ... I'm just saying that it's the old high-school 'one bad apple spoils the whole basket', and be careful what you wish for (or ignore). ..And impose on EVERYONE.

There are usually less intrusive options available if we'd spend MORE time thinking & discussing instead of taking the easiest way out.

For those that think there rights are being taken away because of laws trying to protect them they need to really think about it. Don't want to wear a helmet riding a motorcycle or fasten a seat belt while in a car because you were told you have to. Give me a break!!!! I don't think helmet and seat belt laws were passed because one bad apple spoiled the whole basket. That doesn't make sense. Did you not have to "Lay Down The Law" to your kids??? By the way second hand perfume or after shave won't kill you but second hand smoke has the potential to. I am also retired and loving it.

Didn't read & digest the whole thing long enough to understand my viewpoint?

You can surmise all day long about what my reasons are or are not, or even whether I do or do not (any of the items you mentioned). You might be surprised at my lifestyle.

Some people by the way, cannot literally breathe in an elevator where someone is wearing a strong scent.

In any event, no matter how you rationalize it..yes, individual freedoms were/are continually being taken away. I did not make a comment on if it is or isn't just (as in fair) for EVERYONE and worth the restrictions. Because it varies.

By the way, my apologies if you replied before I reposted one of my edits. I just can't seem to proofread as well in the little reply box as after I post.

One last thing.. As long as you and I realize that governments have the authority to only protect us as much or as little as 'we' say it can/should.. and you understand that as little as 30% of 'us' participate in governance (which doesn't mean we should totally ignore 70%).. then we're coming from the same 'place'.

I recall there use to be a law where a cyclist had to register their bike and be issued plates. IS this not the case anymore?

Another thing to consider is that a lot of cities are not common to have cyclist riding around so the law has become lenient for these folks.

Thanks!

I just finished a 12-mile bicycle ride and a 7-mile kayak paddle, and I'm about to put the breakfast dishes away while finishing a cup of coffee. (Is that enough, or should I do more before expressing my POV this morning?)

Do you have anything you wanted to add to the conversation about red-light enforcement cameras?

Or are you just worried I wasn't keeping busy?

That's great.....Hope you didn't run any red lights on your bike trip...keep up the good work and you won't have time to worry about such trivial things. I think RLC's are great!!! If you don't run red lights you have nothing to worry or complain about. So what if they are cash cows???? Catching people breaking the law is a bonus and keeps taxes down...I love the no cell use while driving also...

Hawaiian Flyer may be discussing the application of the law, but regardless, the potential penalties are much more severe for any cyclist that is stupid enough to run a Red Light.

If you're going to go after bicycles, what about snowmobiles, horses, motorized wheelchairs, and whatever else that can share the road?

The differences between a bicycle and a car are vast. A person on a bicycle running a red light would have a lot more to worry about than a ticket. They probably wouldn't be around to get the ticket, so this whole argument seems pretty pointless.

There's a law where I live that you cannot ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. I've ridden my bike on sidewalks lots of times, and I've never gotten a ticket. Does that mean since I can get away with it, a car should be able to drive down the sidewalk as well?

DrewDT hit the nail on the head, a tee-boned cyclist would cure him from running light.. he's not better than other moving Vehicle. Just stop on red and avoid being issued a ticket or being killed.

Twix, if you have the urge to drive your car on the sidewalk and break that law, go for it.. but be prepared to pay the price.

I was premature in saying that the bicyclist was the one being discriminated against. Further reflection convinces me that yes the bicyclist is being treated differently than the auto driver, but in reality the pedestrian may be a better fit if the 'discrimination' term is what we use to describe the apparent disparity in enforcement of this safety-based legislation.

But, I'm betting there are few pedestrian-only forum users available to lend an opinion. If not, join in!

In any event, so it's ok if the bicyclist doesn't get tickets because when he's in violation he's more likely to suffer more than a car/truck driver. It is possible to inflict major damage to a pedestrian (especially a child) with a speeding, red light running bicycle. Now what?

I'm not actually going to drive down a sidewalk. I was saying that to make a point. Basically, the point of this whole conversation is, bicycles get away with going through a red light. It's not fair, and it's discriminatory. Bicycles can also drive down a sidewalk and get away with it. So if a bicycle can do it, so can a car. It's not fair if a car can't do it too.

No, because the SAME sidewalk law applys to cars as well. (I believe that is my argument wiht red-light camers - the same law stop-light law applies to both vehicles.)

Application of the law is a one way street. You don't get to BREAK the law just because someone else got away with it, as you argue. But in the same vein - the govenment doesn't get a free pass to apply the law unevenly either. (If the city council created an order for the local police department to stop enforcing the sidewalk/bicycle codes on the books then pedestrians could argue they are not receiving protection under the law.)

So, if you build a machine that tickets only cars and allows all: motorcyles, mopeds, motorscooters, and bicycles to go unenforced (e.g all the other vehicles covered by the SAME law) - then you are possibly running a foul of the 14th Amendment. This is not because the cars ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH IT, TOO (a "boo-hoo", poor me argument), but the argument is the law is no longer being APPLIED to those above mentioned groups that the law COVERS...especially if it is within the governments authority and jurisdiction to bring those vehicles into compliance, with better registration and licensing of those vehicles.

I think you are, as most people do, confusing discretion with discrimination. If an officer sees, but does not ticket a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk he could argue "discretion" as the cyclist was - at the time - creating no public nusance or hazard. However, if a cyclist is blasting down the sidewalk running down little old ladies, then the officer would be out of line NOT issuing a ticket. Similarly, an automobile driving on the sidewalk is a automatically a public nusense and hazard and gets a ticket, too.

A red-light camera has no discretion, and further it can only discriminate automobiles for enforcement at the red-light. It does not even have the oppurtunity to apply the law to all users. That is not in the public interest...

I don't think you have a handle on the term "discrimination" when APPLYING a law. Roads were designed specifly for these other vehicles, too. (Ever seen a bike lane...) So, in a larger sense if you begin applying methods and tactics that ONLY enforce the laws against automobiles and ignoring all the other users, you will probably start designing roads just for the autos and marginalizing the other users, too.

That too would not be in the public interest.

I'm not for bicycles on the road, they belong in bicycle lanes. We have some of those but not enough. I see at least 8 out 10 of them not obeying the Law ie: not stopping at red lights, not wearing helmets and so on. They do not get tickets, don't pay road tax, as in insurance, can't keep up with the flow of traffic, they are dangerous because they take up a lane consequently bring traffic to a crawl trying to pass them. Its a health thing among other things, so our Government gives them the right. Certainly not safe.

Discrimination is good. Lets kill all the
terrorists

I agree, bicycles should not be on the road...for their own safety! I know that if I were a cyclist, I'd stay as far away from the drivers as I could, it's scary out there what you see on the road behind a wheel............!!!

HawaiianFlyer's last paragraph says it well (IMO) about the difference between the enforcement of the law being discriminatory, as opposed to who it discriminates for as well as against.

In one sense it discriminates in favor of a cyclist by not applying the law at all while applying it to others. In another sense it discriminates between a cyclist and a car/truck

But in the more commonly recognized sense of discrimination (discriminating against), it's the pedestrian road user by not offering him the same potential protection from offending cyclists as it does from offending cars/trucks.

Regardless, seems likely that the most of current red light (and speed) cameras are 'discriminatory' due to design or lack of other legal requirements (lack of identification regulation parity).

Now, of course I'm of the opinion that there is probably a more fair way to achieve road & intersection safety while having less restrictive impact on all road users. But I know most of the arguments against one of the fairest (officers). The most used of which seems to be cost/budget.

[sigh] It's such a shame that there isn't anything less important that my government couldn't spend my money on and divert it to better safety for pedestrians.

It really doesn't affect me though. I try not to speed or run red lights, and I rarely walk anywhere except on my dead-end street and in parks, trails, etc. And I usually do wear a (shorty) helmet on my motorcycle, even when I ride to PA or Delaware where it's not required.

Guess I'm just an antagonist.