Red Light Camera Controversy

My philosophy is this:

1. If the intersection is unmistakably marked that a red-light camera is in effect and it is obvious to any motorist that they will receive a ticket for violating the traffic light, then I can support them, in theory.

2. If the intersection is not marked or marked in such a way that a motorist using ordinary observation fails to see that the intersection has a working red-light camera, then the intent of the red-light camera is primarily for revenue.

The problem with point 2 is that you are punishing the motorist after the fact and in effect inviting them to run the light. The only way that this system would reduce accidents would be after receiving a ticket and the motorist remembers that that intersection is controlled by a hidden camera. Effectively, all the ingredients are already there for a side collision and a hidden camera will not prevent the accident, only record it.

Having an unambiguous and clear sign that a red-light camera is in force will yield a near 100% compliance for that intersection. How many of us would willingly run a light if we know that there is a 100% chance we will be fined $100 to $150?

So, if the intent is to save life and property, then broadcasting clearly that a camera is on the scene will have maximum results.

If you conceal the camera, then saving life and property must be second order to generating revenue (as cited in point #2) and the motives of the local government are dishonorable.

My philosophy is quite different:

Basically, it is against the law to go through a red light, so there should be some punishment for doing so. Unfortunately, it would be near impossible to catch everyone who runs a red light, so the majority of offenders get the "bonus" of not being caught. I don't understand how anyone who does run a red light can complain about getting caught, regardless of the method used to catch them. To me, the only issue that needs to be resolved with red light cameras is to improve the technology and the system to minimize the number of cases where a person is accused of running the red light when they really didn't.

The recurring theme that the primary purpose of red-light cameras is for revenue so to me a lot of sour grapes. Human nature is such that people in general will tend to ignore rules when it suits them unless there is some consequence. Therefore, there has to be some consequence in order to enforce laws. It just so happens that a fine has evolved to be the socially acceptable consequence for minor infractions. Would you rather we utilize public flogging? Or impounding of vehicles? The fact that implementation of the fines adds money to the coffers of the city, the police, the camera vendor, or anyone else is just incidental. If it is actually used to improve roads or provide more law enforcement, it is a bonus!

I also totally disagree with advertising the specific location of things like red light cameras (or radar traps). To me this says that you only have to obey the law at that intersection, but that it is okay to run a red light at other intersections. The silliness of this is even more clear with radar or speed traps. People slow down because they know that there is a radar gun at a certain location, and then speed up as soon as they are past. This doesn't get people to follow speed limits - it just helps them to not get caught. Conversely, red light cameras should be hidden and ideally able to be moved around occasionally - if people never know where they might be caught, then they will eventually follow the law everywhere, and overall safety will be improved.

You'd really enjoy reading Orwell. The purpose of these laws is for public safety, not for revenue generation. That's how they get passed. The issue with the revenue is when you have an entity with no oversight they can start issuing citations that are invalid, all they need is a picture of your car in an intersection then they can say that you ran a red light. If you are innocent you then have a chioce. Either defend your good name on principle (and spend more money than the citation would cost you) or pay the illegitamite fine and support a flawed system. A second matter is that some people are nervous drivers and will spend time looking for cameras instead of paying attention to the road, thus causing more accidents. Or people will upon noticing a yellow light will brake suddenly to avoid the chance that they wouldn't make the light and will again, cause an accident. I have no problem with fines being issued for legitimate citations. I do have an issue with revenue sharing. It opens a door to revenue sharing in other applications. How about revenue sharing for police vehicles, radar guns and (over the top) handcuffs? If you legitimize this then it's a matter of time before someone will try to take advantage. A final issue is what limitations do these cameras have? Can other entities use them? The thought of monitoring everyone closely so that every time someone steps out of line they can be punished is absolutely frightening.

Once some red-light offenders are caught by cameras and prosecuted for the violation, then word will get around, and hopefully, motorists will be more cautious. Whether or not motorists are advised as to which intersections have cameras really has no relevancy to the controversy, because they will soon learn to associate intersections with red-light cameras, so will drive as if all intersections have cameras. (Pavlov proved the theory with salivating dogs.)

Yes but disgruntle dogs didn't set and figure out ways to destroy the bell costing more than the revenue created.

I'd go for it if the police get the same treatment, not the blind eye of the law. I see the police violate the traffic laws about 6 time a week here. Twice just today.

Brad

The question is: what's the main target? Saving lives? or increasing revenues?

If somebody were really interested in avoiding traffic accidents, the main problem to solve is preventing it, not just recording it and issuing the corresponding fine (Even if traffic gurus say that fining people is a good measure.

Here a little example I've received yesterday. A Police vehicle infringing almost all rules:

• Parking with yellow line (in Spain is a sign of parking not allowed)
• Parking over the sidewalk
• Parking nearest to 5 meters from corner (It makes difficult to other drivers to turn around)
• Parking in a pedestrian crossing area

And surely the driver was a honest policeman!!!

And furthermore, there is a sign which reserves the parking place just for police in the intersecting way!!!!

Where I live, crossing a red light is considered wrong. You don't do it. With or without a camera. The mere discussion seems like a non-isue to me. People lacking the brains to stop before the crossing, will always discus the ticket they get and never understand the fact they put others in danger. The fines should be much higher.

Welcome to CR4,

Crossing a red light is wrong everywhere, as well as to try to recover a loan in "Shylock style", wars, and really a lot of things more.

But there are also many people who don't care the rules (those you call "brainless") and even don't care if they get a ticket or are sent to jail.

All law infringements are usually (if proved) punished, sometimes and somewhere with death penalty, and it doesn't avoid such infringements.

The traffic rules infringement is a common place around the world.

I think the fact you or any of us don't do it doesn't means we shouldn't worry about it and discuss about the possible solutions to improve the situation.

Kind regards

The same people that complain about Red Light Cameras are the ones that when pulled over by an actual officer for running a red light say

"Shouldn't you be out catching real criminals"

The same people that complain about Red Light Cameras are the ones that when pulled over by an actual officer for running a red light say

"Shouldn't you be out catching real criminals"

Not quite!! I've never in my life asked a policeman that, and number many of them among my friends. But where I live (Washington, DC) the company (private) that runs the cameras and issues the tickets is

a) paid a commission for every ticket issued.

b) thus encouraged to lie about the tickets.

c) not ever required to face the accused in court (thus further adding to the encouragement to lie about it in order to make more money).

Have they ever deliberately issued a "bad" ticket? Unknown. Never went to court. But they did issue a string in which the supposed offender was in the same vehicle, according to the camera, in two different places (in one case, three) that were blocks apart, but only milliseconds apart. As far as I know, the cases were thrown out of court, but not before the defendant had to spend money to defend himself (lawyers, time from work, court fees). And none of the money spent was repaid, not even by the company running the cameras.

So ask me if I think they are a good idea. And, oh, by the way, I've never gotten a ticket for running a red light. I don't run them. But I still hate the ways governments set themselves up to gain revenue as easily, cheaply, and lazily, as possible, and then try to hide their real motive behind blather about public safety.

I hate even more the way people react in knee-jerk fashion to things they don't understand enough, by placing blame for wrong-doing on the innocent.

Don't criticize a man till you've walked a mile in his shoes. Its true that then you'll be a mile away from him when you do criticize him. Its also true that then you'll have his shoes. But, finally, its even more true that THEN you might also know why he does what you criticize him for. And you might not even voice the criticism, as a result!

That's a false claim.

I do not get tickets, do not violate red lights, and never get stopped to complain about it.

The argument is one of principle. Most red-light cameras are designed (and sold to the local governments) as revenue enhancement machines.

The company that sells them gets most of the cut and the local government gets the rest. Disputes are handled by a counsel and not a judge, so the victim is denied due process.

The issue is if this constitutes an abuse of the law. The intent of the law (traffic infraction) is to maintain the peace and prevent accidents. However, in the case of the red-light cameras, there is a preponderance of evidence that they are used as a mechanism to generate revenue under the guise of safety.

If safety was the true motivation a simple sign hanging aside the light broadcasting the use of a red light camera would be far more effective toward protecting lives than hiding a camera and hoping that word of mouth does the trick. If that was their argument, then they are guilty of not doing their best work to protect and serve.

It is obvious that the intent is revenue generation (with few exceptions) under the guise of safety. That is an abuse of the law's intent and an insult to our safety.

Lastly, you and I could be a victim of someone running a red light. Is it not in our best interest that the police department utilize the most effect methods to protect us? I think we should demand that they do!

That is why I take the stand I do.

On the question of cameras at intersections. If you run a red light while going for your license you fail the test and have to sit again. After obtaining a license you run a red light you get a fine. Obvious conclusion it must be more dangerous to run a red light without a license than with one.

In the USA red light cameras (or speed cameras) bring up several constitutional issues that I'm not sure have been resolved. The first is that you are denied the ability to cross examine your accuser in court. The second is that the ticket is assigned to the vehicle, not the perpetrator.

The other issue is the "profit sharing" between the government and the company operating the camera equipment. The company has a financial interest in issuing as many citations as possible and isn't necessarily held accountable in court. The question of fraud and false pretenses remains.

Of course I agree with the fellow from Belgium that people should just stop for red lights. But that's just too simple for most people to comprehend.

Then there's the one about the guy who receives a photo in the mail of his car running a red and a hefty fine is enclosed. Thinking he'll be a smart ass, he mails in a photo of a cheque. About a week later he receives a letter from the police and opens it to find inside a photo of a pair of handcuffs.

I know, I know, it's an old one, but a good one.

In the UK, in order to respond to the complaint that speed cameras are for revenue generation by local authorities, the government has laid down criteria for the siting of them. One of the criteria is the number of serious accidents occurring at the proposed site. If the number of accidents is above a certain figure then it's OK to put a camera there.

This seems a good approach. No-one like the idea of a 'big brother' approach to road safety and no-one like the idea of milking the motorist (apart from those who pocket it). But if red light and speed cameras can be sited well then they can help to make the careless driver to think a bit more about the implications of unsafe driving.

As a father of three children I'm grateful for anything that will protect them from someones stupid driving mistake.

is it red light camera or near-infrared camera (close to red light)?

what wave length does it work?

That's an interesting question!

Actually, it is a camera that is placed on a pole at an intersection where there is a traffic light. There are several techniques, but basically, it takes snapshots of cars passing through the intersection. It uses ordinary light, not infrared.

Employees of the company that maintains it reviews all the pictures and looks for possible violators. If they spot one, it is forwarded to the police department for review by a traffic officer. If the officer also believes there is a violation, he will notify the company that in his opinion there is a violation.

The private company that maintains the camera then sends a "ticket" (actually, it is a bill or invoice) to the owner of that car.

The privaate company gets most of the fees and the local government where the camera is stationed gets the rest.

I always thought we had some underdevelopment degree compared with the US, Canada, UK, etc. but now some doubts corrode my mind.

Here in Spain, there is no intermediate company → all benefits go to increase the government (local, statal...) incomes.

The cameras are triggered by a radar (sonic waves) sensors when the car overpass the red light or the allowed maximum speed. The photograph taken is sent to you with the proposal of fine and includes the exact day, time, speed, place and your car identification plates, the serial number of radar and calibration date. You can submit a complaint if you were not the driver, but you must identify him, so the fine goes to him.

A more sophisticated radar like device is now being installed on national highways, that we call differential radars, in this case two radars/cameras with plates identification capabilities are mounted over the road and some kms away. They detect you when passing below each one and a central system divides the distance between the two devices and the time spent getting the "average" speed. If that speed is greater than allowed, you're lost.

But the question still remains: All this engineering advances really reduce the accidents in a significant amount or rather increase the incomes (in a significant amount, of course)

Kind regards

oh, I see, there are lots of such camera and measure speed instruments in our China urben and street suburb.

Some of them are ordinary digital camera, others are near infrared camera which can work in the evenning and night with help of infrared lightning installed the pole close them.

the ordinary camera work with help of flash lightning, when this electronic eyes find vechicle get out of line. but most of them form a net and input to police office to monitor the traffic situation in time. most of them have auto zoom irris. an d are color type. but all has this or that fault.

I was told the trafffic control system is good at Spain, usa and britain. we import some their system and use in large cities.

but most of system is not as good as news reports ssid.

anyone out there has interest to cooperate some small system with us?

I wish to seek for investors.

I simply resent having to live in a perpetual 1984.

I disagree with the current implementation of red light cameras. I have never been cited for running a red light, however there are times I have. (The most prevalent of these being at three in the morning with no traffic in sight and good visibility.) First, he constitutional issues must be resolved (much like the laws regarding seatbelts). Second, there must be clear requirements for installation. These should be installed at intersections with a certain number of accidents per cycle caused by parties running a red light or similar language. Last there should be no profit sharing.

The Seatbelt issue is even a more perverse incentive. A Statute not passed by the people that in the State of Washington (Corporation) that has a adhesion statute that mandates how the revenue is to be divided. But the magistrate (thinks he is a judge) claims that it is not revenue in contradiction with the statute.

Do I think the Red Light Statute will be any different. NO. The reading of the statute will tell all. If you actually know the laws few statutes will hold up in an article 3 court regardless of guilt or common sense. But how many Americans know their rights? Not many.

Brad

I have two sons that work for a traffic camera company, does that mean I am unworthy to be be a member of CR4?

No but they would be dishonest if they mislead the public to the accuracy of the system if they knew better.

The problem with the revenue schemes of the public servants/masters is a lack of peer review. Even finger prints used in court have no set standard for their use. Smeared prints are morphed back to shape but the standards of that morph are not set. You are told no two sets are alike but this is also false.

It is not the red light system I resent but the abuse of power and the erosion of civil rights. A bureaucratic government will take until the pubic push back and when the public quits pushing back will resume taking. Of course I rather be responsible for myself, I'm a little old for a baby sitter. The police on the other hand are out of control and above the law.

ps the only time I have ever been mugged was by a cop.

Brad

Hi all,

Just one data. I think all of you have heard something about world economical crisis.

Well, the Madrid City Council has reduced the budget for children schools, aged people help, etc.for the next year. Curiously, they have foreseen that traffic infractions incomes will raise a 50%.

Do they think in traffic safety?

Opinions are free and can change. Facts use to be extremely stubborn.

If the average citizen were aware of the sophistication of surveillance they are subjected to routinely the mentioned controversy wouldn't exist.

The former statement could be construed to mean the general populous may be some what ignorant of the privileges that have been granted to the state entities which may be thought as curbing individual rights and restricting movement without observation.

Realize the level of RF information will soon provide the means of your shirt to tell the wash how the shirt requires the cleaning be accomplished.

If you feel the level of personal privacy has diminished or your comfort zone of being surveyed has been exceeded. You should have paid attention, hindsight is 20/20 eh?

But seriously these advancements can be very beneficial but there could be a significant down side too depending what the interpretation of is is

Point of law, red light cameras, Qld Australia.

A motorist pulled over by an officer using a radar gun, has the right to have the radar gun immeadiately sealed, and independantly tested for accuracy.

Any challenge to a red light camera shall suceed as it cannot be shown by independant test the camera was accurate at time of photo, it only can be presumed to be accurate at time of photo, presumption of accuracy has no weight under law.

On a recent business trip to Chicago I drove the company vehicle through a series of toll gates and paid like 90 cents a pop every 5 or so miles. A month later the company gets an $88 dollar fine for failure to pay the toll with a picture of the vehicle license plate enclosed. I know I paid all of the tolls. That is just the kind of stooge I am.

What do you do? You pay the stupid thing and chalk it up to life in the big city and vow to stay away as much as possible.

I once had a similiar problem, with prepaid toll system with electronic data collector. According to me I was in credit, according them I wasn't. So I began exercising my rights of stopping and demanding a receipt each time from nearby pay booths, caused traffic havoc to them but the law was on my side. Seems we dont have that problem anymore.

You need to wait until the light turns green before proceeding otherwise the camera takes you picture and billing is the result lead foot

I knew it had to be my fault....

Nah...You're from out of the area...The relay is attuned to the average temperament of the populous

After starting from one light going under the expressway only to watch the light on the other side turn red I've decided that traffic lights are a plot by the oil companies to make us burn more gas by stop and start driving.

In fact I found another section of road near home where there are lights every 100 yards that like to turn red in sequence. Go 100 yards; stop. Go 100 yards; stop.

It's no wonder people run red lights.

These cameras have nothing to do with road safety at all.

They are deceptively named.

They are installed to rake in the money, that's all they are there for.

Kind Regards....