If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then death is the only refuge of a camera-craving road safety campaigner. As far as these well-meaning advocates are concerned, if a single roadside surveillance device saves a single life, then it’s fully justified. Never mind scientific distinctions between “speeding” and “inappropriate speed.” Never mind government studies that place red light running near the very bottom of the list of accident causation. Never mind concerns about the erosion of personal privacy. One life trumps all.
In fact, when it comes to red light cameras, it’s 850 lives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates 850 people were killed by motorists running red lights. The number looks– is– horrific, but it’s slightly less than two percent of all 2006 U.S. traffic fatalities. Throwing resources at this area of road safety seems, at best, counterintuitive.
Of course, red light cameras are one area where the money spent is dwarfed by the money the system generates for its operators– both civil AND commercial. It’s a paradigm that helped convince some 250 U.S. communities to install red light cameras, with California and Texas leading the way.
Campaigners are delighted. Richard Retting, senior transportation safety engineer for the Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) claims “the jury is in”: red light cameras save lives. But the IIHS’ recent and highly touted red light study followed a two-step approach. First, researchers extended the yellow light cycle. THEN they added red light cameras.
The study claims that violations dropped by 36% after the yellow light change, followed by a 96% reduction in the remaining violations. Yes, but– the IIHS failed to provide any data whatsoever on actual accidents.
And no wonder. In the last six years, Washington, D.C.’s red light cameras caught over 500k violators, generating some $32m in fines. The Washington Post unearthed the resulting safety stats.
“The number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame.”
If road safety campaigners are going to manipulate data and then say it doesn’t matter because a single life may be saved, opponents should be free to discuss the camera’s impact on personal freedom without recourse to scientific fact. Because with each camera install, no matter how “good” the case for a particular system may be, we lose a bit of our freedom.
Make no mistake: red light cameras and fixed speed cameras raise important constitutional questions. Does the presumption of innocence that forms the backbone of our judicial system extend to electronic surveillance? How can it be argued that a camera monitoring the speed and/or position of every car that passes does NOT violate that tenet?
A Georgia car owner who swears they weren’t driving when their car was caught by a red light camera can sign an affidavit to that effect, and avoid the fine. But they must also name the person who ran the light. What happened to their right to remain silent?
The Constitution of the United States specifically prohibits the government from conducting “indiscriminate search and seizure.” What could be more indiscriminate than a red light camera watching every single car that passes?
How about a live video camera that monitors the speed of every single car that passes? Or one that can instantly read and identify every license plate, connected to a network of such devices?
Ask the people of Great Britain. The government is adding hundreds of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras to their roadway system– complementing the tens of thousands of surveillance cameras installed in virtually every municipality in the entire country. Great Britain is now the most surveilled country on the face of planet earth– and their road safety is decreasing.
Now that the English are finally rebelling against the “safety camera” system, the government is sure to change tack and switch to video speed cameras. They can then claim the cameras are an important aid to anti-terrorism. But it can also be argued that red light, fixed speed, surveillance and ANPR cameras are a slippery slope to government tyranny.
Years ago, I was setting up computers for a training session for local police detectives. We talked about the burgeoning on-line world, replete with stalkers and all the rest of what’s truly bad about the ‘Net. As I was about to leave, I naively remarked to one detective: “Well, I don’t do anything wrong, so I’ve nothing to hide.” His reply woke me from my innocent mental slumber: “Don’t be so quick to give up your freedoms.”
94 Comments on “Freedom for Sale In the Red Light District...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Excellent editorial, Glenn.
Although the life-saving benefits of such systems are nebulous at best, the revenue that they generate (after a short “payback period”) is guaranteed. I’m pretty sure that’s how the company markets these things.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one seems sure about who actually wrote the above quote, but never the less, it still holds true today.
As a recipient of a red-light violation ticket in Georgia, I can say that if they are making $70 dollars off of every ticket given out, they are banking hard off this one.
It wasn't even a red-light violation in your typical flying-across-the intersection sense. It seems designed to catch stragglers lurking in the middle of the intersection who are attempting to clear out and make a left turn before traffic begins coming the other way. I was sent a neat little letter with 3 digital image frames of my car in the middle of the intersection at different time-points after the light turned red.
The letter also explains on the back, that if the fine is paid, then no infraction will go on your driving record. I think this is even further proof, they just want you to pay your $70 bucks and not risk tarnishing your perfect driving record. I paid mine because I was guilty of said crime, and now if that light turns yellow, I never try to squeeze through, I'm stopping–I learned my lesson, maybe saved a few lives…
It’s always been about revenue generation. These devices are the greatest things a municipality can have in their possession since it grants them the ability to make money without making the unpopular choice of raising property taxes. It’s a win-win situation, except the loser ends up being the hapless driver.
The second that these things show up anywhere near me in Ohio, I will devote a serious amount of time and effort towards removing these tin plated terror devices, as well as any politician who decided they would be a good idea (but doing so legally, not like by purchasing a shotgun and going to town on them).
I may have to wait until a bunch of drivers get nailed by these parsimonious, pocket-raping "safety dinguses," to get enough support, but I'm sure there will eventually be a way to get rid of these things once and for all.
Can anyone see him…..Big Brother is watching. All of the systems are in place for them to monitor our every movement. This is no conspiracy theory it is reality. Autos with black boxes, EZ Pass, GPS, speed cameras, etc. it is all there and real. It is only a matter of time because remember driving is a privilege not a right. And as stated above – it is to save a life!
Excellent editorial about something we take for granted; our personal freedoms.
Sorry to be the devil’s advocate here. But where I come from, running a red light is considered to be a serious and dangerous offence. Personally, I like to drive over a junction quickly without having to fear that some idiot on his cell phone will hit me from the side.
I don’t see the connection to the topic of speeding. If we were talking about anti-speeding radar, then I’d be on your side. Driving fast can be virtuous; where is the virtue of running a red light?
If you are saying that issuing a ticket for running a red light should be constrained by fairness, legal proof and proportionality, then I am OK with that. On this side of the pond, your ticket is accompanied by a photo of your licence plate and of your face. (I have a collection…) Anybody wishing to check the maintenence record of the particular machine can get it.
The police should be forced to persue violations with proportionate and fair methods. Driving is a privilege; people who drive recklessly shouldn’t whine about tickets.
Let’s hope Al Gore (and other misguided Democrats) don’t read this article, or they’ll be on it like a lion on a wilderbeest.
Phony Tonys’ “revenue in exchange for holiness” policy is becoming a theme for all socialist governments.
Washington shortened the yellow light times and revenue went way up. Average time was about 1.2 seconds compared to 2.6 seconds nationally. Best to stay out of D.C.
Most people nabbed by red light cameras were at the tail end of the light. The proponents of this want you to believe the light is red for 10 seconds and the offender drives blindly through it, causing death and mayham.
Remember, it’s for the children.
A better solution is timed lights on major roads. Setting lights to be in sync with 30 mph traffic works wonders
I had to have a “yellow light theory” conversation with my 7-y-o niece as we drove around the other day.
I explained that the hard part of driving was called judgment, or the ability to make the right decision based on circumstances. If I’m traveling downhill on a wet road and there’s little traffic, the safest decision is to usually run the yellow, even if it turns red en route. Lots of traffic and low speed, stop. This decision is different every single time, so thank goodness we don’t have red light cams here (yet).
When judgment is perceived to suffer (or fail) on a large scale, the authorities can make a seemingly strong case on absolutisms alone–hence speed laws, red light cameras, etc. This also reduces burden of proof on both sides…by placing it completely on the offender, since the authorities have an empirical photo. And the fine is just small enough that it’s not worth fighting. Very disingenuous.
It’s not that everybody here is mad because we run red lights all the time and don’t want tickets. It’s the fact that the government has decided to monitor us without our consent. How would you feel about cameras in your house? Can you honestly say that you go throughout every single day without breaking some law? There are thousands of laws, people break them all the time without even knowing they are doing it.
I have no doubt that we’ll continue to be increasingly monitored although I have no clue how far it will go. The issue is that it becomes unpopular to argue against something like this when they say they are doing it to save lives. I’m all for saving lives, but if we save them to live a life with less freedoms than before then I think we’re failing them somewhat.
In theory, a red light camera sounds like a good idea. However, theory doesn’t pan out with these things.
Many municipalities, in conjunction with the burgeoning red light camera companies, manipulate the light cycles in order to support their cameras ‘effectiveness’ (which are often installed free of charge, of course). By reducing the yellow light time, the number of violators goes up….along with the number of accidents.
But, since driving is a privilege and not a Constitutional right, the government can monitor our driving habits if it really wants to. As a careful speeder, I don’t like that much, but I recognize that if they feel someone is a mobile menace, they can take away their driving privileges without much effort. This can (and should) be a good thing.
The real problem is the same real problem faced by almost all prohibitive laws….lack of enforcement. Lots of accidents are caused by repeat offenders; so why not just focus our attention on keeping idiots off the road instead of all these gadgets and big brother enforcement techniques?
I know, preaching to the crowd…
“Back in the day” it used to be small towns extending their city limits to cover high speed roads nearby and having the local cops sitting along the road (after hiding a 35 mph speed limit sign behind a tree or bush along the road) in order to nab out-of-staters. They were called “speed traps”.
Now, it’s the same kind of revenue generation done with high-tech, and no danger of having a cop shot by a disgruntled crazy person. They just do it via mail.
At least still in Michigan, such chicanery is still illegal. Technically, it is probably unconstitutional to ‘arrest’ people by mail all over the nation, but we’ve gone well past the point where anyone pays more than cursory attention to that old parchment for much of anything any more.
As for stopping at yellow lights? Well, the tailgaters have become so pandemic that you literally risk being driven into by the 3 people following you, because they intended to go through on “orange” (yellow+red).
So every stop is potentially life-threatening and a judgement call. That’s why it pays to stay alert and watch what goes on around you, etc.
GS650G, I always thought the lights in DC seemed short. 1.2 seconds is rediculous, but I believe it. Considering a good human reaction time is .8 seconds, it would explain how driving though DC a few weeks ago I blatantly ran a red light in which I thought I would have had plenty of time.
I’m amazed that changing the timing of lights only reduced violations by 36%. According to the Washington Post, changing the wellow time from 4 seconds to 5.5 seconds on a 45mph section of route 50 in Virginia reduced violations (and camera issued tickets) by 90%.
Up in the DC-Balto area, I’ve heard they have “aggressive driving” (or street racing) cameras that monitor rapid lane changes and other irrelevant metrics.
My dad got a “warning” with a photo indicating that he had changed lanes too quickly, or something to that effect…even though the road was clear and he wasn’t weaving around any traffic (just playing around in his then-new R32).
So I hope you don’t need to take any emergency evasive action, the camera might think you’re racing.
Remove all traffic cameras, all traffic lights and sidewalks in urban areas.
Problem solved.
OK, I can’t help myself. I’ve just been reading: Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking by Jamie Whyte. Great book BTW.
I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but if I understood the book correctly, you’re broken some of the rules :-)
Never mind concerns about the erosion of personal privacy. One life trumps all.
You haven’t sustained this basic argument; i.e. that red light cameras infringe liberty and personal privacy. How? If true, then isn’t the License Plate the real culprit? If a traffic officer sees you run a red light and notes your LP number, has the officer infringed your liberty and personal privacy? Not sure. Don’t think so. Or are you objecting to LPs?
A Georgia car owner who swears they weren’t driving when their car was caught by a red light camera can sign an affidavit to that effect, and avoid the fine. But they must also name the person who ran the light. What happened to their right to remain silent?
Is the affidavit the only alternative to the fine? If there is a normal right of appeal then that’s where the right to not incriminate yourself would apply. If there’s no right of appeal (I don’t know), then that would be your liberty issue. If there is, the fine or affidavit are just “options”. Of course it may be impractical or near impossible to appeal, but that is the fault of the judicial system. Does an expensive and overly complex legal system infringe your liberty? Absolutely. But that’s another argument.
Ask the people of Great Britain. Their entire highway network is covered with an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system.
OK, you’ve asked. Not true. Boogeyman argument. They have car mounted ANPR systems for crime investigations – although this seems to be a new thing – helped recently to catch the Ipswich serial killer by tracking vehicles entering the red-light district.
Fixed ANPR is also the mechanism by which the London Congestion Charge (CC) is administered. Whatever your opinion of the CC, the ANPR system is an efficient technology. Privacy is an issue if details of your movements are stored and used for other purposes – there are and should be laws protecting your privacy in that regard (whether or not they’re effective is another argument). The ANPR is not at fault.
There are also a lot of fixed ANPR speed cameras, but “..entire highway network is covered with an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system..” suggests something far more sinister. You might be thinking of the new GPS-based pay-as-you-go road charging blackbox thingy. That’ll do it. They’re still talking about that :-)
“Don’t be so quick to give up your freedoms.”
Absolutely, but I’m not sure that red-light cameras take away your freedom. Bad policing? Probably. Don’t catch dangerous driving? Probably. Criminalizes mistakes and normal safe driving? Almost certainly. Takes away your freedom? No more than any other law.
Cheers
Malcolm
There was a study published that showed the lights in DC were manipulated to be shorter. The excuse was it was necessary to speed up traffic. They claimed the shorter yellows meant shorter reds and traffic moved faster.
And if you believe that one I’ve got a bridge for sale.
Where I live they have video cameras and lights. At night when the lights for the cameras go off you know they are watching. They have to use a video camera and an officer must review the feed live, no insta-ticket cameras.
Re: driving is a privledge
Personal mobility by way of machine would have been addressed in the Constitution had cars been around in 1776. There is no doubt free men would have demanded the right to be secure in their Chevys. I wonder how it would have affected the licensing and violation rules. As it stands now there are at least 50 choices you can make for where to get licensed and drive, pick one you like. hawaii took down their cameras after the people rebeled, they saw the light over there.
Tampa – I am pretty sure the quote is from Ben Franklin.
The real problem with Big Brother was that the monitoring was IN your house. That’s where monitoring should stop. If you’re outside, you’re in public and you’re subject to monitoring.
I think most people here would agree that in general a certain amount of speeding is NOT necessarily dangerous, but red light running IS dangerous (even if you have to b/c it’s downhill and wet and yadda, yadda, yadda – circles back to speeding, but you were going too fast for the conditions which made you judge it better to run the yellow/red than try to stop).
That being said, the wrong incentives are being used with the red light cameras. Plenty is discussed above, but another thing is that my understanding is the red light camera companies get a cut of the tickets too. Hello?!?!
Around here, running red lights is endemic and I whole-heartedly support the introduction of cameras or auto-cops.
The roads are a societal improvement permitted under the Constitution as something that will “promote the general welfare.” Driving on these roads is not a right but a privilege. Presuming that people will abide by the rules and play nice is a perfectly reasonable societal decision and taking shortcuts to ensure it seems eminently reasonable to me.
If you value your freedom above the ability to get around quickly and effectively, you’re free give up the improvements provided by society and walk. Get permission from all the landowners in your path first.
SexCPotatoes, your comments crack me up. To achieve your objective, you’ll be looking for the cooperation of people who have been nabbed by the auto-cops. Good luck with that. In my experience, the people running the lights are jerks and counting on the cooperation of jerks for anything is not a winning strategy.
suohtil, I’ve been reading your correspondence with HitGuy and am, frankly, amazed.
To say that (current) management of the 2.5 (especially GM) have only recently inherited these long-standing problems is just incorrect. Go look at Rick Wagoner’s offoicial GM bio. He’s been at the center of making or ratifying bad decisions for at two decades !!!
With regard to the 2.5 being deserving of getting ‘a little help’ from the government, the 2.5 have yet to show that whatever help they might get won’t be squandered by the same flawed “management” decision-making that has put them into this jackpot. I keep hearing about these so-called “legacy” costs as if one morning the 2.5 just opened up a their doors and someone deposited these costs on their doorstep. My question to you with regard to “legacy” costs is “Who created the legacy ?”
The root cause at the 2.5 has been (for decades now) and continues to be “management”, or more precisely, the lack thereof.
After living in the UK for 16 years, during the rise of the cash generating machine known as the "safety camera," I can say without equivocation that I'd rather take my chances on the roads than cede the government the "right" (not privilege) to monitor my activities on that kind of monumental scale.
The child psychologist Piaget observed that if a capability exists, humans have a natural tendency to use it. If the government holds all the data on all its citizens movements, I for one am not prepared to simply trust that a law restricting its use will be honored.
I understand the need for road safety. I understand the need to protect our country against terrorist attack, or pedophiles or any number of threats.
But the United States was formed using a single guiding principle: the government is the greatest threat to an individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (Hence "checks and balances," the right to bear arms, freedom from indiscriminate search and seizure, etc.)
In the pursuit of the greater good, we should not expose ourselves to a larger evil.
When the light turns yellow, the first thing I do is check my rearview mirror to see how close the guy behind me is. If he/she is too close I will often blow through the yellow, not wanting to count on them not stopping in time. (I don’t blow red lights, though.) But far too often, they and sometimes the car behind them, run the red light I have avoided. A little paranoia is a good thing, and it gives a whole new meaning to “defensive driving.”
But much as I dislike any type of government sponsored surveillance, red light cams –over time– do make a certain amount of sense, since running red lights is all too common in many places. The chance of getting caught “should” reduce the number of people who blow the reds.
Would that make a difference? Well, it might have for two friends who were injured and their cars totalled by a red light runner. While a camera is not going to prevent it from happening, it has the potential to reduce the number of people running lights. Sure, it’s a scam for the camera companies and the city/town, but maybe some good can come out of it.
What is bad is that it sets a precedent for more cams in more places. The last thing I want is British-style speed cams, others checking to see if I signaled before turning, was using a cell phone, wearing a seatbelt, you fill in the blank. That is the bigger danger from red light cams.
Just remember, it is a government agency of some type setting up any of these cams, so it’s OK to be paranoid.
Robert Farago wrote, “But the United States was formed using a single guiding principle: the government is the greatest threat to an individual’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (Hence “checks and balances,” the right to bear arms, freedom from indiscriminate search and seizure, etc.)”
Not quite. The Founders believed that unrestrained and unaccountable government, for example, a tyrant as governmnent, was a very bad thing. Consequently, they created a system with accountability and checks and balances to form “a more perfect” form of government.
Even at a time when a huge chunk of the population had near self-sufficiency as farmers, they recognized a need for cooperation and a unified national government with some significant powers. More powers and authority than the Articles of Confederation had provided.
ammom_rouy: so you think surveillance is OK as long as it’s not in your house? i can guarantee that you will live to regret that thought/ eat those words. constant surveillance would maybe be OK if so many of the laws weren’t so stupid. It’s OK for a 4′11″ soccer mom who can’t see over the steering wheel to pilot a 6000lb leviathan at 64mph while talking on the cell phone and handing off a juice box, but it’s illegal for me to safely drive 66mph.
the problem is that fighting these things with anything other than a shotgun or spraypaint is that you cannot argue with a safety crusader because they do not respond well to logic. truly saving lives at red lights is easy–6 second yellow lights and four seconds from the red light until the other direction turns green. probalo solvado.
i’d love to corner a safety crusader and get a response to the real data that shows their cameras have caused rear-end collisions to double.
Martin Schwoerer:
(And a few others.)
This editorial is certainly not advocating that people should run red lights. It’s much more about the loss of individual liberties. [Edit: And, it's about "safety" vs. making money.]
The thesis is that drip, by drip, by drip, more freedom is lost–and those drips tend to add up. Today it’s red light cameras. Tomorrow, who knows?
On this side of the pond, we fought a revolution to gain our freedom, and did so with an entirely new frame of government. We consider it sporting to question the reasons behind many government-imposed edicts.
In the forming of our Constitution, one of the main points at issue was how much power to allow the central government. Such debate continues to this day, and not only regarding the Federal level.
In the U.S., there’s a special relationship between the government and its people: When government wishes to impose it’s will upon us, we the people strongly reserve the right to question, debate, and fight back, if you will.
[Edit:] As someone who was born and raised in one of the original 13 Colonies (Connecticut), I fully expect to uphold such traditions.
We Americans have a truly unique interpretation of what the spirit of liberty is all about.
I for one wish for much higher levels of enforcement of traffic rules, at least here in Northern California. Accidents at intersections happen very frequently. Yes, most do not result in fatalities, but is that the only measure worthy of note?
The authors notion seems to be that since traffic light violation cameras are only credited with saving hundreds of lives a year then the justification for using them is discredited makes no sense.
Yes, part of the motivation of the enforcers is to bring in more fine revenue, just as the motivation of this website is to make a living by selling advertising.
Personally I would be thrilled if California were more like Germany in it’s enforcement of traffic rules. I look forward to the day when I can send my daughter out on the roads with less concern about the agressive and foolish drivers she will have to deal with.
noley: What is bad is that it sets a precedent for more cams in more places.
Exactly.
– - –
GS650G: Personal mobility by way of machine would have been addressed in the Constitution had cars been around in 1776. There is no doubt free men would have demanded the right to be secure in their Chevys.
Yes. Cars were not forseen in 1791. :-)
“Amendment IV – Search and Seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Interesting piece. Years ago Patrick Bedard wrote in C&D a piece alleging manipulation of yellow light times to raise revenue. As I recall, he indicated that driver compliance to red lights went up (in Arizona, I think) after cameras were installed resulting in lower fee revenue from fines. Yet guaranteed minimum revenues were due to the contracted camera companies. So that the municipalities did not have to make up the difference out of their general tax funds, Bedard says that the cities/counties shortened the duration of yellow lights to create more violations.
I have not read another credible confirmation of Bedard’s allegation. Glenn, in your investigation of this, did you run across any evidence of this kind of governmental malfeasance?
jthorner:
Did you miss the bit where the article revealed data suggesting that red light cameras INCREASE accidents?
Until that issue’s resolved, it’s NUTS to put ‘em in. I mean, in the guise of saving lives, let’s increase accidents?
It seems that governments that choose to enforce red lights this way should provide “full disclosure” of yellow light duration, and be required to stick to it, subject to law. That way, signage could be erected to inform out-of-towners of the yellow duration, possibly reducing the number of near-rear-enders (sic).
I’ve got news for all of you
Contrary to popular belief more than half of the money for camera tickets does not go toward the government. It goes toward paying big business, such as Redflex, and Affiliated Computer Services, we are talking of hundeds of millions, not going back to pay for roads, or salaries of cops, but instead its padding some billionaire’s pockets, that i don’t like.
here is the article from Car and Driver a few months back
There is no reason for the camera’s except to get more money out of the little guys, and further the gap of wealth. It’s been proven that they’re not in place for safety as crashes have increased. If I knew there was a camera at a light I’m sure going to stop for the redlight to prevent fines and points on the license, but what about the guy behind me that was following too close. Now i’m in a serious accident. Maybe even pushed into an intersection. Now im in a hospital, safety my ass. Safety is not letting a camera decide for you with fear of a ticket.
Screw Cameras.
William C Montgomery: …in your investigation of this, did you run across any evidence of this kind of governmental malfeasance?
Only by way of ancedotal evidence: As some say here (”they shortened the yellow”), and I’ve read that on other forums.
I recall one person posting how he how nearly slams on the brakes at intersections, risking that someone will rear-end his car, due, he says, to the shortened yellow light duration. However, I’ve no hard evidence published by any “authoritative” body to present on this.
If they do shorten the yellows to increase fine-based income, I doubt it’s published anywhere. [I guess the only way *for me* to prove it would be] to time the duration of yellow lights now, and if these cameras show up in great numbers here in CT , I could then bring a stopwatch to an intersection. ;-)
Couldn’t disagree more. Unless people fiddle with the yellows, red light running is not justifiable by anything but a life-and-death emergency. This isn’t of the same class as exceeding underposted speed limits.
M1EK:
Be rational man! If 850 out of 44k die at intersections, it's not Job One.
Glenn Swanson:
At the risk of feeding TTAC readers' OCD, that sounds like a terrific experiment.
Can you please go to your nearest traffic light, time the duration of yellow and sign in here with your location and the yellow light time?
Much obliged.
I agree that there are serious constitutional questions and efficacy concerns about red light cameras and similar technologies.
On the other hand, I have noticed a massive increase in red light running over the past 10-15 years. Not
only do more drivers run the red, but they’re doing it
later and later after the red comes on.
Do TTACers have good suggestions for discouraging red light running without resorting to automated cameras?
I”m going to ponder that one myself…
I think NICKNICK had the best and easiest, cost effective (minus fine revenues) solution:
“the problem is that fighting these things with anything other than a shotgun or spraypaint is that you cannot argue with a safety crusader because they do not respond well to logic. truly saving lives at red lights is easy–6 second yellow lights and four seconds from the red light until the other direction turns green. probalo solvado.”
After reading the aricle it seems there is some confusion on how these cameras work. perhaps in the USA they use a different method.
In Europe (Germany) the Camera’s use in ground sensors, and or laser/radar to detect speeding vehicles and red light runs, and when the system gets tripped it takes a picture, or sequence of pictures. so its not watching every car that drives by, its only sees the ones that drive by too quickly. or cross over the stop line. also, you can request to see the actual picture the camera took, complete with your recorded speed in the corner.
Red light cameras fire two shots, once when you cross over the stop line, then another a second or two later, to see if you actually ran it or not. Yellows don’t count, a yellow light is generally long enough let you stop safely, if you cant stop safely, they are long enough to get you over the stop line and through the intersection before it snaps your picture.
they dont record every second of everyday, the ammount of data, and time required to sift through all the video is absolutely mind boggling.
do they try to intrap you, by luring you to run the light, i dont think so, if you run a red light, you should pay a fine, its that simple.
yellows are often long enough to actually stop, its that moron in front that thinks he/she has to stop on yellow, that slams on his/her brakes, that causes a wreck(s).
having lived in europe most of my life its funny to see Americans react to this kind of thing. over there it is a fact of life
The amount of video/camera surveilance in the U.K. is just plain scary. Big brother is in the hiz-nowse over there.
I’m in agreement that trading in beloved anonymity in exchange for a surveilance state “with eyes everywhere” in order to focus on reducing 2% of car fatalaties is a BAD IDEA.
In Massachusetts, how about pulling beyond-insultingly-useless cops at construction details (with their backs to traffic, chatting with the back-hoe guy) and sticking them at intersections?
In general for the USA, and sorry if this sounds ridiculous, but I’ve frequently fantasized about some kind of national campaign to increase Driver’s Ed standards. Look at the unbathed mouthbreathers that are teaching our kids how to drive (ya right) and notice how unbelievably low the standards are. No emphasis on the simple things, like turning your lights on when it starts to get dark/rainy, using turn signals, situational awareness, etc etc etc.
Is it any wonder, really, why the general level of driver quality is as poor as it is on our roads when we obviously don’t give even half a crap about training new drivers?
I realize I risk stating a very unpopular thing here, but why do we allow the saving of any life trump principles that our forebears fought and died for?
Human life is not the pinnacle of value. The greater good is.
We have grown so comfortable, and perceive ourselves as practically immune from death. We’ll do anything to avoid it, in any form. We are doing our best, collectively, to create a world where we can exist, without thought or judgement and just move through life in complete safety. This is absurd.
Death is in fact an integral part of life. All life ends at some point. The preservation of any one life is NOT worth surrendering freedom, judgement, and individual responsibility.
Besides, the cameras will do NOTHING to prevent a death, they’ll merely record it in fine detail, so we can all watch it later on some Fox channel show “The Most Shocking Intersections” or somesuch.
–chuck
There is a huge difference between neglectfully running through a light that is COMPLETELY red and trying to make it through during the change. However, I agree with the above poster that with adequate delay in the other light turning green, we should allow people to get through the intersection.
1. There are certain left turns where you might end up stuck in the intersection. My view is that your FIRST safety directive is to clear the intersection, even if it means running the red (before the cross-traffic green). A cop might forgive this action, but a camera will not.
2. Even without tampering to shorten yellow lights, I think the law should dictate that as long as you clear the first white line and ENTER the intersection before the red, you should be in the clear. With the 2-3 second delay in the cross green, this is not a safety issue at all. My problem is that the cameras expect you to completely clear the entire intersection before red. That means you have to instantaneously guess the length of the yellow and react.
On another topic, most of the speed cams I’ve dealt with in the UK have been in towns, so I can’t completely disagree with their role as pedestrian protection. If you can’t handle keeping it under 30mph around tight, blind turns with sidewalks/pavements on both sides of the roads, then you’re too impatient. Most of these small town centers are pretty small (by US standards) and only take a couple minutes to pass through, most of the time.
What I find ironic about the UK is that you also have the “pre-green” flashing yellow that we don’t have in the US. It basically says “you are free to go if there are no pedestrians” and allows the driver to get a jump on that cross-traffic buffer time we take for granted in the US.
Or just f*cking install roundabouts everywhere in America. That’s my solution. :D
Oh Fellswoop, you are right on target with regards to driver training.
My son is 16 and I’ve been trying to fill in the massive gaps that his school-provided driver’s ed left in his training. What is worse is the testing done by the state! I swear the written test is little more than a MADD brochure. 75% of the questions on the written test here involve DUI laws. Whiskey. Tango Foxtrot?!
The driving test itself was little more than a lap around the block and a parallel park in a spot large enough to dock an aircraft carrier.
THAT is the reason our drivers are so poor.
–chuck
“When the light turns yellow, the first thing I do is check my rearview mirror to see how close the guy behind me is. If he/she is too close I will often blow through the yellow, not wanting to count on them not stopping in time. ”
My procedure is: Yellow light – begin to brake; check rear-view to verify that follower has begun to brake; adjust as necessary. It rare that a follower will miss the yellow light all together. If he misses you beginning to brake then only the small speed differential will damage your vehicle. If you are aware of his [lack] of action then you can minimize the consequences.
As for the duration of yellow lights, c1999 my county installed a trial about 12 red light camera systems. It came to the attention of the local/state deciders that a longer yellow could also help prevent fatalities at intersections. All yellows were reset to 5 seconds. Since that time I have found it VERY easy to stop in time or proceed through the ENTIRE intersection in the span of the yellow light. Fairfax County has terrible traffic and I rarely witness people sneaking through red lights. It just not necessary with the long yellow. I presume the reduction in accidents and/or fatalities was significant since the county allowed the initial contract with the private redlight contractor to sunset.
Virginia just announced they will be starting a red light camera program. I welcome the cameras since the revenue will help fund more roads…and I know I won’t get any tickets.
NOTE: I hoon with the best of them. When I’m not stuck in bumper to bumper traffic I run to redline every shift. I just don’t find it necessary to run red lights.
Just to amplify my friend LeeAlmighty’s description of how the system works: there are two ground loops placed in the first 10 feet after the line in an intersection. They are used to detect a car entering the intersection and to measure speed. They are only used on the main travel lanes, not the turn lanes. The system is smart enough to detect cars that overshoot the line while stopping.
Also note these cameras are still-frame digital cameras, not video cameras. The system I’ve seen used in my area produces images identical to the one posted at the beginning of this Editorial. They are also placed in a similar manor as depicted in that image. These cameras are placed behind the offending vehicle and do not capture an image of the driver. This is the reason why you are not assigned points for a violation, not because it is an incentive to “just pay the fine.”
Oh, no! Not the stopwatch!
If manipulation is occurring, sooner or later a big-mouthed city councilman or a disgruntled DPS “engineer” will spill the beans to an investigative reporter who will be glad to tell the world.
Eric_Stephans: Do TTACers have good suggestions for discouraging red light running without resorting to automated cameras?
SUGGESTION #1: Crossing gates that swing down with flashing red lights like at a RR crossing. Surely that would save more lives than lights alone or adding cameras and fines. Unfortunately, it cost money rather than makes it.
SUGGESTION #2: Force auto manufacturers to build bumper cars that bounce off each other at any speed, protecting the occupants in uterus-like comfort.
SUGGESTION #3: Darwinism. Survival of the Fittest will sort out the morons that chronically run red lights.
Maybe I’m just not very good at this game…
For those who believe red light or speed cams to be “unconstitutional”, I’m curious, which part of the Constitution is being violated here?
The Supreme Court has held, several times, in fact, that you do not have any “reasonable expectation of privacy” in regards to things you do in public. So, in fact, a red-light camera or a speed camera cannot be a violation of your right to privacy because once you go out into public, you have no such right. You may not like that fact, but there it is. If the camera is doing the same thing that a policeman standing on the corner could do, then it’s perfectly legal. That a camera can do it more consistently and for a longer period of time is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.
My second point would be that these cameras, at least in the US, are not put up by some nameless, faceless government entity, they’re put there by agents of your elected representatives, i.e. the city and state governments. So if you don’t like them, lobby to have them taken down. Support politicians who will remove them. Hell, run for office yourself on a platform of “if I’m elected the first thing I’ll do is take out the traffic cameras.”
And if you’re too busy to get involved, then just suck it up, because you’re getting the government you deserve.
fellswoop: I’ve frequently fantasized about some kind of national campaign to increase Driver’s Ed standards.
Uh… that’s not what I fantisize about.
They can then claim the cameras are an important aid to anti-terrorism.
This is true since we are all terrorists in the legal criminal-class’s minds. It wont be long before leaving your home will be a felony. The Vogons want desperately to make us all felons to stop us from voting and disarm us. Is Jay-walking a felony above the Mason-Dixon line yet? It will be when the cameras are in place. When they catch you on camera smiling at a pretty woman, the NOW hags will have you thrown in jail for life because you were thinking about raping her… All kinds of wonderful tyrannies can be thought up using public surveillance cameras. The Vogons are having wet-dreams with this no doubt. Do you really believe that the Dept. of Homeland Security was created to protect us from murdering middle-east sociopaths?
you cannot argue with a safety crusader because they do not respond well to logic.
Safety Nazis are in a purpetual state of fear because they lack the facility of reason. Someone who lacks reason can be scared by anything the Gov’t/news media tells them to be scared of… Even the weather, eggs, Repulsicans, corporations, and global warming.
Remember, it’s for the children.
You lack the proper dramatic affect (aka whine) with this… The proper weak-people tone: Its for the Chiilllll-drennn.