Can the Red-Light Camera Be Saved?

Don't blame the device, blame the operators.

...I will agree with you. If they were not operated so much as a source of revenue but as a safety device, I would be more accepting of them. But, (as a former LEO), until that happens, I will remain skeptical of their use.

And who is blaming radars? Evey negative post about RLC is about improper and illegal use of them by corrupted and money hungry politicians and "law" enforcement.

LSN, you make the camera companies profits directly related to handing out tickets, you give the municipality a portion of the take - and THEN you are surprised that illegal things have gone on???

Doesn't take much thinking to say that the conditions that were set up are "playable."

It's no surprise that the voters have responded the way they did. Expect more locales to do the same.

If you can set it up honestly, then the public will tolerate it, I believe.

Fred

Unfortunately to be able to read the 'full story' you have to subscribe to the WSJ.

How much did you leave out?

This caught my eye:

This week came the coup de grâce. The Chicago Tribune delivered the “first-ever scientific study” of the nation’s biggest camera program. Researchers commissioned by the paper found little or no safety benefit: Mid-intersection “T-bones” declined, but rear-end collisions sharply increased as drivers slammed on the brakes to avoid a ticket

"little or no safety benefit" something often argued here.

You are using a very broad brush when you accuse "'law'" enforcement of improper and illegal use of them [cameras]. I know of no camera sites operated by members of any department or force charged with enforcing the traffic laws. It seems to be quite evident the cameras have to be enabled by legislation within the jurisdiction before being installed and operated. I know of no public safety agency, other than fire departments through their fire marshal offices, that seem to be able to enact legislation. The enabling legislation for the cameras often spells out, quite explicitly, on how they will be used, what variances are allowed and other criteria which the local law enforcement agency is required to follow. Granted, there are often instances where some "grey areas" may exist allowing some interpretation but it still comes down to what the courts (still another independent body) allow or disallow.

You are correct in pointing out the local PD has to enforce the laws on the books, and that sometimes discretion is allowed. Ultimately it comes down to the person reviewing the evidence of the infraction to interpret the evidence and apply the law as they understand it. If the evidence is reviewed and action taken by a person or persons that have a financial interest in the application, then the interpretation usually favors the financial interest. Within the county where I live the officers reviewing evidence from red light cameras do not have a financial interest so the possibility of receiving a camera ticket for a rolling right on red is significantly less than other jurisdictions. (I was told the threshold point depended on several variables including what was visible including traffic, pedestrians and finally speed.) The speed threshold is approximately 8 MPH in the areas where the cameras are operated by the county. I would have to assume (and that is dangerous in and of itself) the same levels of discretion hold for applying when a vehicle has failed to stop at an intersection. A vehicle with its wheels just over the limit line would probably not be ticketed where a vehicle in the marked crosswalk would.

The state has stated the allowance for speed cameras is 12 MPH which translates to stops by a LEO on public roads and highways.

I retired 3 years ago from driving full-time professionally in NY.
After getting 3 tickets when they first installed them. And trying all the tricks. IE: Spraying the license plates. Couple of others. I resigned myself to accepting their intrusion into the cost of my business.
And the fact that they actually cost less.than a parking ticket.

But the whole thing has gotten( as expected) out of control. It's time for them to come up with a smaller footprint. Less police state tactics.

the entire ethical setup of red light cameras makes it close of impossible to be fair to drivers.

As others have stated. The red light private company has it profits tied to issuing tickets, not reduced accidents. As a result, they have a built in incentive to want more tickets issued and unconcerned with accidents.

The politicians have the exact same motivation.

That is why I have always stated that red lights cameras are strictly for revenue generation and have nothing what-so-ever to do with safety.

Prove this to yourself with a simple thought experiment. Let's say city ABC puts in red light cameras for safety reasons, and really does not care or want the revenue generated. Next, lets assume they are very successful - accidents sharply reduced and, ticket revenue is practically zero. How long do you think those cameras would stay in place vs being "retired".

I hope it can't be saved. The sooner red light cameras and speed cameras can be exterminated, the better.

There's a good percentage of drivers who do not come to a complete stop at stop signs. What could possibly change this behavior, that wouldn't entail "revenue?"

We have drones today that cost $49 and can take pics of your neighbors' pool, why the heck would we not have technology deployed along with traffic controls?

If the speed cameras were really about safety then EVERY school zone would have one working during valid school hours or events. And note I said during school hours, not 24/7.

But the ticket from a camera goes to the registered owner of the car not nessesessairly the offender. Further, no points are assessed against the offending driver.

If the whole issue was about safety, getting bad drivers off the road would be the paramount objective.

We have cars outfitted with breathalyzer devices that prevent the cars from starting if the system detects the driver has some level of alchol in their system.

Just because we have this kind of system doesn't mean we should let the car start, then let the driver put the vehicle in gear just so a ticket could be issued.

These breathalyzer systems tied to cars are in the interest of safety and the deterrent is the bloody car won't start. True, the system can be defeated, but it's not giving out DUI tickets to the registered owner.

I'm sure, with the advent of magnetic stripes and q codes on driver licences, someone will eventually require the drivers licence to start the car. If the RLC and speed cams could interact with the car to figure out WHO'S ACTUALLY DRIVING the car and issuing tickets to THE DRIVER and assigning points to the offender, then I'd be in favor of RLC"s and speed cams.

Until then, every one of them in the country should be ripped out of the ground like an unwanted weed.

Far too many problems associated with these things. If they were to go away completely I certainly wouldn't miss them.

In the interest of fairness, this thread needs some added "light" shines on it.

To start with, let me present the post by bdhsfz6 as he intended it - quoting part of the post by telecomdigest and then adding comments about "Accidents Vs Injuries"

For completeness, I'll add the end of the above quoted paragraph from the Wall Street Journal piece

This closing part of the paragraph is worded in a way (ie., "The Trib cited") data that would seem to justify the end of the sentence. However, the Tribune article made no such claim.

First, let's agree that the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) link is to an "Opinion" piece by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. who also writes for the National Review which describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion." Mr. Jenkins is not intending to recap the "study" but rather pick and choose what portions to highlight for his "opinion".

Although telecomdigest2 quoted the entire article and included the sub-title, the link he provided gets only the first few sentances of the article. A link to the full opinion piece can be found at
http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-can-the-red-light...

I found this link by doing a search for "even at the cost of encouraging more accidents". That wording is found only in Mr. Jenkins article and other references to his "opinion" piece - no link to the Chicago Tribune.

The Tribune article did make several references to "yellow lights"
"The study findings also dovetail with the Tribune's examination of how short yellow light times at Chicago's traffic signals raise the stakes for drivers."

and

"Now the Tribune has learned that Chicago's long-standing reliance on using the lowest possible yellow light time under federal guidelines is out of step with other major cities in the country and a growing body of research that suggests short yellows and red light cameras are a dangerous combination."

It is Mr. Jenkins "opinion" that Chicago has used short yellow lights to maximize revenue at a cost of "encouraging more accidents". Whether the Tribune would embrace Mr. Jenkins' "opinion" I do not know. The study itself did not mention "yellow lights" at all.

Interestingly, Mr. Jenkins make this statement early in the article:

So it appears that Mr. Jenkins admits that RLCs improve safety. To him, the problem is the way the cameras have been misused by Redflex and by politicians. His closing comment is:

I see from the various posts by others that the Study was being interpreted as supporting their beliefs. For example,

[emphasis in original]

Looking at Mr. Jenkins comments as well as the Tribune article (see http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/redlight/ct-red-...), a reasonable conclusion would be that, if yellow lights were set above the minimum permissible levels, safety benefits would improve.

Did the study really say "little or no safety benefit"?

I read the study and I would have reached a different conclusion based on what bdhsfz6 had to say about Accidents VS injuries.

Let's look at what the authors of the study had to say:

For anyone other than a statistician, the report is a hard slog. But, if one looks at the numbers, one could conclude that there is a safety benefit.

For those who do read it, I hope they would immediately conclude that the headlines highlighting only the " 22% increase in rear-end injury collisions" does not tell the whole story well at all.

The study references three approaches to determining cause and effect.
1. Naive Before-After Study
2. Before-After Study with Reference Group
3. Before-After Study with Empirical Bayes Method

Empirical Bayes methods are procedures for statistical inference in which the prior distribution is estimated from the data. This method allows the estimation of the safety benefits at treated sites using information from reference sites. The expected crash frequency at a treated site is a result of the combination of the predicted crash count based on the reference sites with similar traits and the crash history of that site.

The authors of the study concluded by noting the limitations of the study.

Not one of the articles which have been written about this study have mentioned the "Periods" studied - which I find to be very interesting. The authors tell us:

I would love to know why the "After" period was not 2011-2013. I do understand why the 2005-2007 period was chosen because the RLCs were installed in 2008 or 2009 so that data would not be tainted in any way by near-by RLCs.

However, I wonder whether the authors of the study would have liked to have had other data to work with. Any number of factors could have changed in the span of time that the analysis considers.

It is always amusing to me how numbers can be massaged. Here is the data that makes up the conclusions of this study.

                              Before               After

     Type            -RLC-     -Ref-     -RLC-   -Ref-      -Est-
Total Crashes     1228       540     1064     503      1016
Rear-end             190         90       296     132        242
Angle & turning    646       262       425     191        501
Other                  392       188       343     180

Notes: I have used -RLC- as an abbreviation for the Treatment site crashes; -Ref- for the Reference site crashes; and, -Est- for the Estimated crashes based on the statistical analysis. Data is taken from various tables in the Study.

Now you can take what follows with a grain of salt.

I am going to use data from the study and present it in a different way than all of the articles I have read which purported to report what the study said.

It is true that rear-end injury crashes were up 22%. One gets that percentage by the fact that the 296 actual accidents in the RLC group were higher than the expected number of 242 by 54. But - note that no article that I have read talks about the "number" - only the percentage. No article has compared the number of rear-end crashes to the number of right-angle crashes to get a comparison. Note that we would get the same percentage increase in rear-end crashes if the expected crashes had been 100 and the actual had been 122. The absolute numbers do matter.

The reason this is pertinent is that most people accept the conclusion of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that rear-end crashes result in less economic loss than right-angle crashes. A comparison of the costs of right-angle versus rear-end crashes was carried out in 2005 (see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/). It showed that the (then) economic cost of a right angle crash was $64,468. Likewise, they said that the economic cost of a rear-end crash was $53,659.

Had the authors of the Tribune study wanted to use these numbers to calculate economic value, they could have multiplied the decrease in right angle & turning crashes of 76 (which is 425 minus 501)by 64,468 to get a savings of $4,899,568. This would be offset by the increase in the cost due to rear-end crashes of 54 (which is 296 minus 242) times 53,659 equals $2,897,586 - a net savings of $2,001,982.

Even without using economic costs, you can see that the treatment sites had 22 fewer injury crashes (76 less right-angle minus 54 more rear-end).

No article that I have read reports on some other pertinent comments by the authors of the study.

I interpret this paragraph to be saying that the authors conclude that there are situations where RLCs provide safety benefits and that their data bears this conclusion out.

Study Shows Red Light Cameras, Shorter Yellow Light Times May Cancel Out Safety Advantages

http://chicagoist.com/2014/12/23/study_shows_red_light_camer...

It's astounding to correlate things that are not related, the presence of a rlc increasing rear end collisions.

I will say it again, 4 y.o. children can stay onside in ice hockey, and soccer. To insinuate that grown a** licensed drivers cannot stop a vehicle, or proceed safely, when a light is yellow, is preposterous.

Being a proponent of Automated Traffic Enforcement, I know these comments will appear odd, but the fact remains that - for the first few years - rear-end accidents will increase (when compared to pre RLC data) whenever a red-light camera is installed.

Opponents blame the RLC which is, I agree, preposterous. As I have posted before, if a driver slams on the brakes to avoid a child chasing a basketball into the street and is rear-ended, the blame is never assessed to the child. The blame is the driver who was following too close (and likely speeding) and could not stop in time.

Note that the fact that comparative data shows that rear-end accidents increase when RLCs are installed means that there were rear-end accidents at the intersection before the RLC. I have never heard anyone loudly complaining that Traffic lights or stop signs were the cause of rear-end accidents, have you?

What this means boils down to the fact that opponents of RLCs ran out of reasons to oppose them. All they have, for the most part now, is that they are "Revenue" generators - which of course they are (as are all of the other ways that municipalities obtain revenue by the fact that one owns and drives a vehicle).

They are a perfectly legal way to catch those who disobey traffic laws. However, opponents (if most were willing to think about it) are really concerned that they will get caught - because they know how they typically drive and know the number of times they look up and see the red light as they enter into the intersection.

Reading the excerpt of the WSJ article, even without seeing jgermann's reaction first, I too felt the WSJ writer had an axe to grind against RLCs and was choosing to exaggerate the findings of the study and the research team's and Tribune's conclusions about it.

I also agree that when it comes to RLCs or shortened yellow lights, it is a driver that is at fault in a rear-end collision and not the city. The guiding principle is that every driver has a responsibility to maintain a safe distance and speed such that he or she can stop the vehicle safely even if the vehicle ahead slams on its brakes for no good reason.

It's not hard to foresee a scenario in which RLC enforcement leads to increased accidents. Two cars in sequence, the one behind too close or with a distracted driver, the one in front stops abruptly (maybe even unnecessarily as he may have been able to proceed safely into the intersection without tripping the camera) while the driver behind accelerates to beat the light. Clearly the driver behind is at fault even if the driver in front stopped abruptly but with unnecessary caution.

Nonetheless if the goal is improving traffic safety, reducing incidents, injury, death, and property damage, it is not clear to me that using traffic enforcement cameras are the best or even a good way to do that, particularly when there are incentives that can lead a municipality to shorten yellow lights. Even with drivers behind generally at fault, we still have a decline in safety and its results to deal with.

We probably don't need to run an experiment to see what would happen if we kept shortening yellow lights one-tenth of a second at a time until they were so short that no one traveling within the speed limit could stop in time to keep from running the light. With traffic in the opposite direction getting a green and drivers trying unsuccessfully to stop, it seems very likely that at some point the incident rate is going to escalate dramatically.

Increasing yellow light intervals--at least until they are so long that no one pays them in any heed--is more likely to enhance safety than RLCs with shortened yellows to drive revenue. RLC companies are not likely to welcome an increase in yellow light timing--it's not in their financial interest. Chicago was a city caught shortening yellows at some intersections, though I don't recall that being observed in the study.

So now it's ok to say that RLCs are mainly for creating money stream to cities? It's interesting, because you for long time insisted, that it was purely for safety. Looks like proponents of RLCs already run out of excuses. Reality of bribes, tampering with traffic light settings, braking law by cities came to light and nobody believes in "it's only about safety" lines. Every time RLCs are defeated in any jurisdiction there is whimpering from authorities about lost of revenue. And not even one of them says even single word about safety.

So now RLC proponents changed tone. It's all about criminals, as you say. Who cares, they break the law. But you don't worry, when law is broken by authorities, as we all know it' just a few bad apples, they were following orders, it's for greater good of ultimate safety, keep going, there is nothing to see, etc. We heard it all.

You ever heard expression "useful idiot" (in it's political meaning, not meant as personal slur)? Because that how I see your argumentation in favor of RLC. When you lost "safety" footing, you say that it's those "criminal motorists" that make RLCs necessary. And you are trying glossing over law braking with "greater good" yell.

Where it may lead? After September 11th security apparatus in US (but not only) grow at rate never seen so far. It was to battle "terrorists". But now we are all "terrorists". And definition of terrorism was so broadly extended, that even giving money to person on street may be interpreted as "material support" to terrorists.

So I'm sorry, that I will not buy in your excuses about "grater good" in RLCs, that should make me overlook blatant corruption and law braking by authorities, because I know history enough to remember where abating it leads. As it was said by Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Authorities start small, but if they are not stopped on time, there grow to a point, that stopping they is impossible.

I do not ever recall "insisting" that RLCs were "purely for safety".

As a matter of fact, I am having trouble recalling anyone on this site insisting that cameras were purely for safety.

There have been many links to articles where officials of municipalities have been said to have made such a claim.

If you really want to turn my statement of "run out of excuses" against me, then it would be necessary to show that I have actually claimed that cameras were purely for safety.

I will provide you with threads or specific posts showing that I note that cameras generate revenue and that I agree with that aspect.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/43190

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39440/#comment-322408

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/43719/#comment-380791

(link no longer available)

I will respond to other of your comments when I get back from an errand.

I know that I have not changed tone - nor do I feel that others on this site who favor cameras have changed tone.

You are implying that we (and specifically I) overlook actions by officials when they break the law or game the system. I am not aware of comments by any of us that would seem to fit your comments.

Indeed, whenever laws are broken or actions taken that are inappropriate, I know I have been quick to denounce them because I did not want to let anyone - as you have just tried to do - have any ability to make such claims.

You may have "opinions" of how proponents feel but you will need to back that up by pointing to comments any of us have made.

I disagree that proponents of RLCs have lost "safety" arguments.

A review of thenewspaper.com articles over the last few years will find very few articles claiming a lack of safety benefits. Whenever anything is reported, it is pulling "facts" out of total context and making comments like the recent claims that the Tribune Study showed that rear-end injury accidents were up by 22%.

It seems to me that most reports of the last several years have, in fact, demonstrated that there are safety benefits from cameras. As I recently posted concerning the "first ever scientific study" of Chicago RLCs, the overall conclusion of the Study would indicate safety benefits. Accidents were down - when rear-end and right-angle were considered in total - and I showed that injury costs were down (had the Study wanted to comment on that metric).

I have never claimed that the safety benefits were dramatic - but, in my opinion, they do exist when one takes the time to read reports in their entirety.

You are now stepping into politics and my understanding is that such is not permissible as a discussion topic on this site.

I leave it at that.

I'm surprised how pro-RLC this article is. One simple example, how does providing kickbacks to politicians get euphemised down to "blundering into a procurement scandal"? I expect more from the WSJ.

Bottom line is this:
if your front wheels are NOT past the stop line BEFORE the light turns red then you are guilty and should be ticketed.
If the first picture the camera takes of your vehicle shows your wheel PAST the stop line then you are NOT guilty.
The first picture MUST show your wheels behind the stop line AND the light red - if it does not then challenge the ticket.

end of story.

If u r guilty do not use corruption as an excuse. U r guilty. Fix the system, the lives u save my be your family's.

Would a cop give you a ticket if the car stops an inch past the line? Not likely.

Why should a camera be different.

And if an ambulance comes up behind you near a RLC, lights flashing, sirens screaming, horn blasting, patient clinging to life, do NOT go a millimeter past that line if that's what's required to let the ambulance past. Better to sit tight with the ambulance behind until the light changes in a few minutes. Otherwise you would be "guilty" and "unsafe."

Because a camera doesn't have the ability to be discerning. It is a machine and either the conditions to activate it are present or not. If you activate the machine because you meet the conditions, then it turns on, like a light switch, electricity either flows or it doesn't. There is no "Well, did the human mean to turn the switch on or not? I don't think so so I'll wait until they flip it six more rimes."

With the number of posts and all that has been written here in the forums on the subject of red light cameras, it is clear that there will never be a consensus of opinion, for or against. At best we can agree to disagree.

For those opposed to the use of RLC’s, I ask that you consider this: Of the thousands of deaths that occur at intersections each year, how many could have been prevented through the use of RLC’s? There is no possible way to tell for sure but if that number were just 1, and I’m certain the actual number is much higher, that justifies the use of RLC’s in my mind.

If your child were run over and killed in an intersection by someone running a red light, would you still oppose the RLC program? I doubt it. Would you care if the town installed the RLC’s to make money and that there is some graft involved in the program? I doubt that as well. Would you care if the RLC system issued an occasional unwarranted ticket? I don’t think so. Would your child still be alive if that intersection were RLC equipped? I suspect you would be asking yourself that question for the rest of your life.

Please consider the feelings of all the families out there for which this is a terrible reality today and the fact that there is a remote possibility you could be one of them in the future.

You could eliminate all traffic deaths by eliminating cars altogether. That doesn't mean we should do it.

To be honest, when RLC's were first proposed for my area here on Long Island, I was opposed because I hated the money grab and big brother implications. However, I was forced to change my position around that time due to a few incidents that happened to me while driving and bike riding, all involving people running red lights. By the grace of god I was able to avoid the offending vehicles and suffered nothing more than a rapid heartbeat. It forced me to be a convert to pro-RLC since I suddenly realized it was a problem and it could very well kill me. In the four years or so we have had RLC's here on Long Island, I have NEVER gotten cited for red light running because I use the POI file and I just refuse to try and beat these protected intersections. Plus I do not make right-on-red's at RLC intersections so that removes any ambiguity about timing. The pictures and video will always show me waiting for the green light.

again, probably < 2% of the people who keep posting here, have actually even gotten a ticket. < 35% likely even pass through a rlc intersection on a daily basis.

Yet opinions go up like all cars could be eliminated as a solution that we shouldn't use. Everything is so extreme.

I pass through depending on my route 5 per day, and have never gotten a ticket in 4.25 years. The reason is there isn't any reason to do anything differently, whether the cameras are there, or not.

In the big picture, the general public doesn't care one way or another about rlcs (they way they do about other controversial issues).

with your perspective !!!!

RLS and speed cams will be a thing of the past as the technology changes.

I doubt whether many of them even know they're there and if they do know, they're not paying enough attention to remember they're there. Because of that, I'm not really sure why rear-enders would dramatically increase. I'm sure there are many folks who really pay attention to where RLCsare and there are folks like us here who have GPS reminders but I personally know virtually no one in either of those categories.

Every time Philadelphia, PA puts another camera online all the local news stations get in a story on it, including a few on the street interviews with 'regular' folks, not scientific for sure, but the interviews they choose to show most folks are against them.

I drive a truck in and around the city and come across the cameras constantly, most have a walk signal with a countdown clock on the traffic signal pole, if the counter is close to zero I start slowing to a stop even though the light hasn't changed to yellow yet (does when the timer hits 0). I've seen many trucks trigger the camera because a car slowed/stopped to turn and the truck got hung up partially in the intersection but with some wheels behind the line then proceed after the car turned so as to not partly block the intersection. Don't know if they got tickets or not but I'm not chancing it and lose half a days pay over something not really my fault.

If it's a non-issue, why have folks gone to the trouble to put bans on these things on ballots in quite a few places. I think most people don't like the concept of them and want them gone.

And like I've said, 4 y.o. children are able to stay on side in ice hockey and soccer, it takes coordination, but not much, it's learned behavior. It is not hard for a licensed driver to relate to a yellow light, and make a stop, or proceed decision.

Does one stop shoplifting because there's a camera recording all movement within a Target or Trader Joe's store? Not really, the vast majority didn't intend on shoplifting anyway.

Just like a 4 y.o. waiting at the blue line, they can have part of their body over the line, and leave part of their skate behind.

With a motor vehicle, since a person reviews the pics/video, even if part of the vehicle is beyond the line but did not proceed on red, no ticket.

I said

"I've seen many trucks trigger the camera because a car slowed/stopped to turn and the truck got hung up partially in the intersection but with some wheels behind the line then proceed after the car turned so as to not partly block the intersection"

what I thought was obvious was the light had turned red in the meantime thereby triggering the camera. The truck had to proceed after the light changed because it was partially in (blocking) the intersection, the wheels behind the line triggered the camera. Like I also said, no idea if a ticket was issued but the camera did flash. I've seen this more than once.

Why would there be a ticket if a human reviews the video or pic? UPS is #1, FedEx is #2, are their drivers confused as to what to do when there is a RLC? FedEx routinely passes through Grays Ferry and 34th, they don't seem to be too confused or concerned....they seem to drive as if the cams don't even exist, as they would at any other intersection.

Not sure what your UPS/FED-EX comment has to do with mine, they are not the only trucks in the world. As for the human checking the photo's that would be one reason the ticket might not be issued, depends on the camera angle catching the car in front of the truck. Like I said I have no idea if a ticket is issued, only that I've seen the camera flash when a trucks rear tires trigger the camera, basically through no fault of their own.

I get that you are for the cameras, many are not, myself included. There are many studies on both sides of the issue.

and can be rigged, will eventually be rigged, its just human nature. Red light/Speed Cams are just corruption waiting to happen and much of it is already happening!!!

This is a pretty negative and cynical view of society. But you do have a point--Bill Cosby has been targeted and his reputation severely damaged by human nature.

Again, how many people here have been wrongly given a ticket? I have yet to see one person step forward, and provide the evidence. One person did make that claim, and when asked to provide more detail, he (or she) disappeared.

I pass through 5 of them daily, or more depending, and in over 4 years, have never gotten a ticket. I also have a habit of proceeding on yellow when it makes sense, and pulling into the intersection on green, and completing my left turn on red.

In my own personal experience, the system works, because I have seen many flashes over the last 4 years. Also, on business trips to DC, passing through MD, I have never gotten a ticket. One time, I was going at least 33 in a 25, and when I could not confirm how much leeway DC offers, I felt pretty certain I was going to get an expensive ticket.

Of course you were not thinking of yourself when you made this statement but, like many people, you attribute evil intentions to most of the rest of society.

You produce (or if retired, have in the past produced) "revenue" and yet, you and your co-workers did not bow to your lesser nature and collude to defraud the provider of your earnings.

Why is it then, that everyone else is out of step?

I don't really expect an answer, and am not picking on you, but trying to make the point that the vast majority of us are trying to do the right thing - and this includes those in charge of camera operations.

Of course, there will always be those that try to game the system, but I would ask you to be careful in expressing such a negative view of society. If you and others continue to make such statements over and over, there will be those few who will conclude that - if everyone else is gaming the system and getting richer, then I ought to do so myself.

Could one of those turn out to be you or one of your family?