Government, industry join forces to entrap and endanger motorists.
 16 years
|
Opposing view: 'Unholy alliance'
Government, industry join forces to entrap and endanger motorists.
By James J. Baxter
In his State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the loss of public trust in government. The loss of trust and growing cynicism extends beyond federal and state governments and descends right down to cities, villages and towns. Anyone looking for a good example of why this is happening need look no further than the public-private ticket-camera industry.
The use of ticket cameras to enforce traffic laws combines the profit motive of private enterprise and the power of government. This unholy alliance is perpetuating a hoax of monumental scale, and at great cost to the American public. It's not just the cost of millions upon millions of dollars in automated traffic fines. The more serious costs are the increased number of crashes, injuries and deaths that results from ticket camera installations. And, also, the recognized loss of trust and respect for public institutions, institutions that are supposed to be looking out for our welfare, not entrapping and endangering us to make a profit.
Red-light camera installations have infected hundreds of communities in the U.S. Their use is rationalized as a safety measure — reducing red-light running. They do in fact reduce red-light running in situations where traffic lights are improperly installed, maintained and/or operated. However, in the process, they increase accidents, usually rear-end collisions. Some independent studies show they do not reduce more serious right-angle crashes. (You can see our data at http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/.)
If, and when, traffic light flaws are corrected, the violations all but disappear and accidents decline. However, too often, maintaining revenue flow trumps the fixing of engineering flaws or changing dangerous management practices.
Practices as simple as adding a second or two onto yellow light intervals can virtually eliminate red light violations, permanently, but such changes are vehemently opposed by the ticket-camera industry. Why? The money goes away.
Some have said: "Why not do both, fix the traffic lights and use cameras, too?" The obvious question is, "Why use ticket cameras if there aren't any violations and the cameras just cause accidents?" Communities that have corrected their traffic light flaws have asked this last question and then removed the ticket cameras.
James J. Baxter is president of the National Motorists Association, a drivers' rights group.
Good read. I think this guy is spot on.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/opposing-view-unholy-...
I wonder if the article was read in its entirety
Just saw a story on how much Chicago took in last year, even though it's about public safety and not money-64 million dollars in fines!
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/20100308-chicago-red-light-cameras
I applogize in advance if this posting was not meant to be a slam on red-light cameras.
The way I read the article, the city of Chicago had followed the law in the yellow light timings. A citizen had complained that a particular light for a 30 MPH road was less that the mandated 3 seconds and had posted video supposedly supporting his claim on YouTube. However, the reporter went to that interection and found that, time after time, the yellow light timing was exactly 3 seconds.
Others quoted in the article said that traffic on that street usually runs at 35 to 40 MPH and the yellow light ought to recognize that. Interestingly, the majority of the comments about the article on the website disagreed with that concept, saying that one ought to drive at the speed limit AND stop at red-lights.
Now, I wonder what formula Illinois uses to mandate the timings. A Traffic Engineers formula often pointed to by opponents of cameras - in this thread and on others - would recommend 3.2 seconds for a 30 MPH speed.
Still it seems that the best critics can say is encapsulated by a quote from the article "Critics of Chicago's red light enforcement argued that although the city is sticking to the letter of the law, they said the city's motives seem to be rooted in revenue."
Letter vs Goal
..
Now, I wonder what formula Illinois uses to mandate the timings. A Traffic Engineers formula often pointed to by opponents of cameras - in this thread and on others - would recommend 3.2 seconds for a 30 MPH speed.
...
I assume that the formula you are using is the 1989 ITE article. Correct me if this is not the case.
Adhering only to the letter of the law is truly a valid concern imo. Without at least some proof of effort to increase safety (other than rhetorical) what choice does a logical & rational person conclude when the monetary incentives are as high as they are with the commonly used implementations?
A point of one of my previous posts was to recognize that a simple calculation is considered by every author of a recommendation (that I've read) to be a starting point, not an absolute. The final duration value depends on individual intersection & other local characteristics, and greatly on the primary intent.. safety, or traffic flow, ..or other.
I too would be interested in the actual method used to determine the intervals, as well as knowing if they include a 'red clearance interval' as is generally suggested as an additional safety method.
Further to the calculation article, once the yellow duration interval is arrived at, then it is recommended that it be adjusted for effectiveness.
Here some relevant considerations quoted from the 1989 ITE method:
"The basic application of this proposed recommended practice involves the use of a formula following a kinematic model of stopping behavior to determine the duration of the yellow warning interval.
(...)
Based upon the underlying concept of the kinematic model, this time is intended to permit a vehicle to stop at the near-side stop line. The yellow warning interval calculated in this manner may be followed by a red clearance interval, calculated using a second formula, that is intended to permit a vehicle to clear the intersection.
(... )
It may he possible to use the posted speed limit as the approach speed. Such a policy may not be unreasonable given that drivers approaching at higher speeds are violating the law. Care should be taken to ensure that the speed limit is reasonable.
(...)
The primary measure of effectiveness for the yellow warning interval is the percentage of vehicles entering the intersection after the termination of the yellow indication-that is, during the red following the yellow.
The logic behind the methodology for determining the length of the yellow warning interval is that the duration should provide adequate time for a vehicle to traverse the stopping distance' required by a reasonable driver. (...)"
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.
You are correct; good points
JD4x4,
1989 ITE formula is the one I was using.
Your other points are on target. I saved them in order to have them available later. Indeed, these are the very points that should be made in "Letters to the Editor" by those who do not like the cameras in their area. Whenever the debate came be framed in a way that both sides can work with statistics, then understanding and subtle pressure usually results.
The question should
The question should definitely be raised when the corporation runs contrary to certain issues of grave importance including national sovereignty, in other words, when the interests of the corporation run counter to the general welfare of the American people.
That "if" is exactly what makes this impossible. Who is there to judge what are the interests of such large and diverse body as American people, and what is contrary to them.
The essence is that corporation is non-human by the very definition. It does not have human values and does not have conscience. Its only goal by law is to increase the profit of the shareholders. For that reason alone, corporations should be banned from any interference with the governance of the human beings. But then there's another reason: unlike human beings, the corporation can't be put in jail for a crime.
unfortunatly not only wont
unfortunately not only wont these cameras be removed but eventually in the future they'll add a camera in the front so they can capture your face and use the facial recognition software they are currently developing to identify the driver and issue the points. its a big money market in which the city/ states makes tons of profit from tickets with out even having and officer around. it a way for them to save money from paying officers salary plus health and retirement etc and get maximum ticket effeciency.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY WENT TO COURT TO FIGHT RED LIGHT CAMERA TICKETS AND ACTUALLY WON???
(SERIOUS question i really want to know )
A GPS can take you where You want to go but never where you WANT to be.
Already have them
All of the permanently mounted cameras in my area already take a picture of the front and back of the car. That can let the officers who review the violations see the face of the driver.
An interesting use of one set of the cameras occured earlier this month. After posing as a census worker, a criminal, along with two accomplices, staged a home invasion and beat the residents. Knowing the color an make of the vehicle they were driving, the police review the camera images to see if that kind of car had triggered a violation, the police ran the plates and that led them to the criminals.
Of course, surveillance video is already used to determine who robbed a bank, or gass station, or broke into a vehicle in a mall parking lot.
Do not know how many people in this area have successfully challanged a camera generated ticket. I am trying to find out.