Slashdot Mirror
Traffic Cameras in D.C.
Kappelmeister writes "The Washington Post has an article about red-light-running and speeding cameras all over D.C. that have issued over half a million citations to date. (Police send you a ticket and photographic proof up to a month after the fact.) Though the cameras successfully reduce dangerous driving and boost the city's revenue, a lot of wrongful citations fall through the cracks and give some that guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling. Once again, how far is too far?" I came across this much more informative investigation of D.C.'s traffic cameras a few weeks ago. It's heavy on facts and figures, and hammers home the observation that an extra second of yellow light is at least as good at promoting good behavior, but much less lucrative for the local government and the contracting firm.
...surely, once drivers become used to the 'new' length of yellow they will jump the lights as frequently as they do now. Will they keep increasing the length indefinately?
Green doesn't mean go, it means "go, if the way is clear"...
I think that every time I were to receive a ticket for this from one of these cameras, I would contest it in court. There is no proof that you were driving the car at the time, so why should you receive points against your record for the crime, not to mention the cost of the ticket and the rise in your insurance costs?
There's something vaguely satisfying about thinking that those 5 people who just tailgated you through that yellow got ticketed.
I read the internet for the articles.
In Norway its a sport to Run the Traffic Cameras run, with hidden numbers an cut out Photos of local polices or politisions.. Go GO GO
I can't remember which state it was (might even have been here in California) but in the past year or so, one state's courts found use of such cameras to catch redlight runners unlawful, because using the evidence to issue a fine presumed guilt without proper legal procedures. Maybe someone else can recall or unearth the details.
Not to mention that they were found to be considerably less than accurate.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I live about 15 minutes from D.C. north in Maryland and we have the same traffic cameras. Same up all over baltimore city. My father works as a Fleet Manager for a contracting company that rents out trucks to do city work for Baltimore city. They get about 10 of those traffic citations a day.
My father tells me there are only 2 ways to win a case in court contesting the citation. One, you have convince the judge that the license plate on the vechicle in the picture isn't yours, or isn't clear enough to establish 100% that it is indeed your license plate.
Or two, you have to prove the yellow light you were photographed at wasn't 4 seconds. State law mandates that the yellow lights must be at least 4 seconds long, so if the yellow light was say 3, the light was malfunctioning and you weren't at fault. This of course means you have to go out there with a video camera and get the light being yellow for less than 4 seconds.
Down near DC they don't seem to use flash photography, I think they use actual video cameras, all the cameras around my place are the security camera style ones. Up in Baltimore City they're flash style, and you can tell when you've gotten caught because they produce a large flash. They also look a little like bird houses on a poll next to the intersection.
Thats about all I know personally about these, I don't care for them that much, but ever since they put them in, I carefully pick and chose which yellow lights I'm going to try and go through.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Yes we live in a free country and you are allowed to exercise your freedom until it starts to impinge on the freedoms of others. Now, I would say your freedom to run a red light unless you get caught by a physical police officer impinges on my right to walk across the street without being killed.
This is not a freedom or privacy issue, it's a public safety issue. If your worried about getting tickets because someone else ran a red light in your car, be more careful about who you lend your car out to. Or maybe we should go for a more technical solution and do away with car registrations and me your license a transponder you put on your windshield so if a violation is committed in your car the correct person will be charged.
Actually, that's only true for half of them.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
They responded by mailing him back a picture of some handcuffs.
They have this in my area (RTP, NC) too. It's fairly well known that unless you're actually innocent, you can't get out of it.
You need to prove that you weren't driving, it wasn't actually your car, etc.
One nice thing about the system is that if you're caught with the cameras, it's not treated like a moving violation. You don't get any points on your record and your insurance isn't impacted.
The system doesn't bother me. It only catches guilty people, it's less fallible than the police, and it provides more money to the local gov. (I like our local gov). And most importantly, it makes the street safer. Let's not forget that running red lights kills people. Punishing the guys that do that is a good thing.
Vanguard
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
is that they are no longer set to keep traffic moving but, in fact, set to keep traffic stopped. This is a theory that a stopped car can't get into an accident (seriously!). Drivers know this, at least subconsciously, and are more apt to run yellow/red lights because they will surely be stopped at the next one anyway.
It's my own belief that the best way to stop drivers from running traffic lights is to synchronize them by speed so that drivers know that if they don't stop they will get out of synch and be stopped at the next one. But if they stop they will get back in synch and can make it through the rest (albeit at a slower speed).
This is also an excellent way to enforce speed limits. Set the lights on a main thoroughfare to be all green if a driver maintains 29mph in a 35mph zone and you will find far fewer drivers going 40.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
We have them over here as well. Our national pasttime seems to be to wreck them, so they're now starting to put up cameras to watch the speeding cameras.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
The folks at epic, electronic privacy information center have a link on their website to ovservingsurveillance.org, a web site that has a map of "big brother" camera installations in DC watching people.
donfedeI was riding with a friend in DC when we came upon one of these signals. They had big signs ahead of the intersection saying something to the effect of "CAMERAS IN USE." Wouldn't you know it, the light went to yellow as we were coming up to the intersection and my friend did the some thing we all do - we gauge our speed, our distance to the white line, and decide "yea or nay" as to whether or not we want to perform "heroic" braking. Well, because I had read about these signals not that long ago, I paid special attention to the length of the yellow and, whereas I can't give you a time down to the tenths of a second, I can tell you that it was VERY short - I'd say between 1.5 and 2 seconds, compared to the usual 4 to 5. The light was red by the time we went through the intersection; I don't know how much time after the light goes red where they send tickets, but I wouldn't be surprised if my friend got one. If so, though, it will have been because in addition to setting up the cameras, they jiggered the light timing so as to make violators out of normal, adequately careful drivers.
Unfortunately, there are few if any laws covering traffic signal timing. So, if you live where these things are used, I suggest two paths that you can follow. One, see if you can get a city ordinance passed specifying a minimum yellow light time. Two, find out who's in charge of setting these systems up, find the next highest elected official, and tell them that you want this practice stopped or you will do what you can to have him/her removed from office. If you're told to pound sand (and you will be), follow through.
Time to practice some "sousveillance." First, using a video camera, capture the timing of the rigged signals and capture the timing of several normal, untampered-with signals. Extract timing data from the tape, tabulate it, and send it to your local news outlets (if possible, send it directly to reporters who have covered similar stories in the past). Make sure that the reporter goes after the elected official you spoke to.
Practice more sousveillance. Try to capture the license plate numbers of city vehicles and, if at all possible, the license plate numbers of the car or cars driven by aforementioned elected officials. Then, stake out intersections where those cars routinely pass and videotape the cars running red lights. If you really want to blow the lid off the scam, see if you can tape them running the rigged lights. If you can show that the city officials don't get tickets, well...
There's an article on HowStuffWorks that shows how the Red-light traffic cameras work.
My favorite: "My main objection is that tickets are continuing to be issued before I have an opportunity to adjust my speed based on the first ticket," said Miriam Balutis of Arlington, who was cited for four camera-captured violations in one week -- but did not receive any tickets for a month. This "strongly suggests that deterrence is not the goal of this program."
Is it a monetary incentive for the cities? Probably, but so what? If you are caught speeding or running a red light, you did the crime, stop whining about it. As for the "Balutis Judicial System", using this logic, I should be able to rob banks until I am convicted on the first one. Further, you cannot hold any of the robberies between the first and when I was arrested against me. I did not have time to "adjust my behavior based on the arrest."
Then we have the "police were not there" group. Following their logic we should prevent the introduction of video taped evidence of the robbery because the police were not there to actually witness the event. Where do they find people with such a poor grasp of logic and how do they always manage to get press?
Technology is going to be misused, but this is not such a case. The people who are getting caught are guilty, even by their own admission.
If they wish to make the argument, it was not them, or the machine was incorrect, etc. that would be fine. But "it's not fair?" Give me a break.
There are many ways around it. You can simply wrap your number plates in shiny plastic, so the flash would bounce off them, or you can buy more sophisticad devices that flash back at the camera.
Be very careful doing this!
A standard speeding / red light ticket is only £40 ( ~US$60) and three points.
Getting nicked for "Conspiricy to pervert the cause of justice" is not funny. You will get screwed. (Ask a few of the regulars on uk.rec.motorcycles!)
Speeking of which, the forward facing cammeras are becoming very popular now. Great for us bikers as there is no numberplate on the front of the bike. Most of us now consider it our duty to go past these flat out with a didget raised at the cammera :-)
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Another trick is that in many areas there is a law on the books that specifies the amount of time that you must get a court date within if you request one. If you get your traffic ticket in a busy district than request your court date, it is quite possible that you will not be granted the court date within the legally required time. Check the laws in your area and figure this out. If they don't grant it in time, make a motion for a dismissal and cite the law. You will get it. My wife has personally gotten 3 tickets dismissed this way over the years.
Traffic court is very weak. Often you can find something wrong and get a dismissal if you look hard enough. OJ got off right? this is just traffic court, but they count on the fact that you won't have a good lawyer and won't fight too hard or figure out how to legally defend yourself.
there are many seemingly minor things that can cause the court decision to go your way, or better yet, get a dismissal.
Loopholes exist....
Rip the system.
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
Now, without jerking a knee so hard it falls off, can some one please explain to me why these cameras are such a bad thing? Really, I want to know. The three arguments that I have seen thus far are as follows:
/. would be complaining that it is a waste of money.
(1) The cameras are an invasion of privacy.
I am unwilling to accept this argument. Is it an invasion of privacy when a cop sits behind a billboard with a radar gun looking for speeders? Are security cameras in the local Kwik-e-Mart an invasion of privacy? Hell, when you get your driver's licsence, they want to know your height, weight, age, eye color, and a whole slew of other information about you. Is that invasive? I certainly don't feel I need to tell people how much I weigh. The cameras are in public places. If they used tax dollars to put a cop at every one of these intersections to catch people who are speeding or running red lights, instead of complaining that it is an invasion of privacy, I'll bet anything people on
(2) The cameras are inaccurate.
This could be a problem. It is really the only argument that I buy. However, can police officers not also be inaccurate? mean? nasty? in a bad mood? How many people do you suppose get pulled over for speeding when they are within just a couple of miles of the speed limit, but the cop thinks they are going faster than they are or is just in a bad mood? Sure, you can try to contest such tickets, but you will generally loose. It is your word against the police officers, and who do you think a judge is going to believe. In the end, I don't think that the cameras are any worse than a cop on a bad day.
(3) The cameras are nothing more than a money making scheme.
I can't accept that at all. Certainly, they make money for the city, and for the corporation that reviews the photos, and I could understand how one could accuse a mayor or other city official of doing nothing but making money off of the cameras, but it would seem from the Washington Post article that the cameras are well liked by everyone in the enforcement business, from the lowly cop on patrol to those in power. Yes, it makes some money, but it also serves the function of keeping people safe. Drugs like Aspirin make a lot of money too. Is that a bad thing? In my opinion, no.
I am sorry to rant, but I really do not understand what is so wrong with delegating much of the grunt work of law enforcement to machines. This should allow police officers to focus on things that many would consider to be more important, like citing drunk drivers and solving crimes like homicide and rape. The system does not seem to be trampling any freedoms, and it is freeing up the police to get on to other things. What is so wrong with that?
Rhapsody in Numbers
San Diego had its red light cameras shut down when some attorneys established in a civil lawsuit that Lockheed Martin had deliberately misplaced the sensors, causing many drivers to be ticketed unfairly. LM got around $70 per ticket, so they had a large incentive to make sure as many were issued as possible. (How'd you like to have cops get a percentage of every ticket or fine they wrote?) This business was so profitable for LM that they installed and maintained the cameras at their expense in return for their cut. The city and other governmental agencies got the rest of the $271 tickets, so they were ecstatic. San Diego got millions of dollars a year from these devices before they were shut off.
The trial brought out many other interesting revelations. For example, each ticket was supposed to be issued by a sworn police officer, who had to review the 'evidence' and sign off on it. Turns out that a spate of tickets were issued when the officer was on vacation. Testimony revealed that the officer frequently just signed a bunch of blank forms and let LM fill them in. Another interesting aspect is that LM fiercely resisted having their hardware and software examined by the plaintiffs. In fact, they threatened the law firm with a suit if they persisted in pressing for discovery of those items. People who have fought their red light tickets in court and who wanted the design details and calibration records for the camera that photographed them were routinely refused this information, even though it's vital to a defense. Another interesting fact revealed at trial was that the cameras were NOT placed at 'the most dangerous intersections' as the city had been contending all along, but at intersections whose yellow light intervals were revealed to be set far shorter than state guidelines. As has been discussed here in other posts, the yellow light duration is a major factor in whether a light will be run or not.
These cameras, at least as operated in San Diego, are a scam. They ticket innocent people, are unexaminable for a defense, and are just a way for the city to rake in big money.
Here's the web site operated by the attorneys who got these cameras shut down: Red Light Lawyers
wouldn't the picture show just a long blur of your car
:-)
In Germany, we have this kind of cameras (both for speeding and at traffic lights) for over a decade and unfortunately, they work pretty much as designed. Even in excess of 120 mph, the picture will be clear enough to identify your face.
That said, the automated speeding control has inaccuracies in the single-digit percent level, especially when the radar device wasn't properly aligned with the lanes, as the ADAC (German version of AAA) found out.
And at least in Germany, it is illegal to muck with your number plates in order to avoid being identified. If the police catches you, you will be screwed. Seriously.
The best way to avoid being photographed is, of course, to stick with the speed limit. (Which IMHO is easier in Germany than for example in Illinois with its suppressive speed limits.)
And this is my favorite traffic sign
(The sign invalidates speed limit, interdiction of overtaking etc. Best viewed on the Autobahn!)
--- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
Those cameras while a total pain in the ass
but they work.
they are probably the most effective ways of reducing speed *everyone* slows down for them,
getting fined 80 quid (£80) a time soon bangs the message home, yeah you can contest them in court but that works out more expensive and they have all the proof they need , sure you can say it wasnt you driving, but then you have to inform the police who was, if you don't they fine the registered owner of the vehicle by default
we even have whole websites dedicated to them there are even in-car systems that link up to GPS giving you the locations of speed traps, a whole industry seems to of sprung up around them.
Apparently they cause more pollution in towns though, as when drivers learn where they are they accelerate in-between each camera and brake just before the trap, the acceleration to brake method wastes a lot of fuel which is just kicked out the exhaust pipe as unburnt gas, this pollution effect of traffic calming has also been observed with speed humps as people do the same accelerate-brake method in order to speed up the particlar street.
Its amusing that the rest of the world seems to be starting this failsafe method of traffic enforcement
Big brother is truly here
You really should think before you post.
This is one of many examples of emergency vehicles actually getting tickets. Should I read the article to you as well if you can't find the information in it?
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
A judge in Hawaii recently ruled that traffic tickets issued from traffic cameras are unconstitutional.
n ews-139403920020411-160413.html
http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/hon/news/stories/
I live in SF, California, and the lawyer friends that I've spoken to regarding these tickets all told me that the judges here will cancel all tickets that are challenged. So if you get one of these around here, challenge the ticket and the judge will tear it up for you!
Not of the DC cameras but of a similar system in Germany.
When I received a ticket for my wife's vehicle running a red light, I was pretty upset with her. It was a brand new red sports car and she was obviously driving recklessly. The ticket arrived with a 500DM fine (about $350 at the time) and did not include a copy of the picture.
I was livid so I called the telephone number on the ticket and spoke with the clerk. She verified the license plates and the type of vehicle. Sending out a copy of the picture would have cost an extra 30DM so I asked her to describe the driver.
Sure enough, it was me behind the wheel and I was taking it in for a service that day. Damn.
Bottom Line: The cameras work. I deserved the ticket and it always reminded me to drive more carefully. Very few mistakes. They even use them in Germany to measure following distance and speeds on the Autobahn and send out ENORMOUS tickets.
This sort of camera cop is evolving in atlanta and metro areas. This has been in development since before the 1996 olympics (much wasn't operational during the olympics but was promised for the olympics - actually traffic was wonderful during the 96 olympics so it turned out to not be so needed then in just helping to report traffic conditions).
......... everyone passing you up, or damn well trying to...
The draw back in using such a system is that you don't see cops pulling people over, blue flashing lights and all that generally cause everyone to slow down. Instead you will just end up generating more income for the city(s) governments with a less improvement in driving safety. But I suppose maintance of those cameras and such related expences needs that increased income...
There was even some talk of creating a second HOV like lane for those who would pay a monthly fee to drive in it....... then traffic comes to a stop, like that lane wouldn't (dream on).
For how bad traffic "sucks" around atlanta
But hey, now we got cameras that help warn those watching TV (know any vehicles with a TV that the Driver can watch?) and radio reporters not in helicopters... (Quick take a hand off the steering wheel and eyes off the road to make a cell phone call to notify the news media of an accide... screech....crash)
BTW, when traffic is not stop and go on I285, it's generally moving around 80mph (that's as much as 25mph over the speed limit....) and generally somewhat unsafe to be driving the speed limit or lower boundry of it [40mph].
The city officials must be drulling over the idea of traffic cop cameras...
They removed all the "slower traffic keep right" signs. Nobody paid attention to them anyway.
What would make a big improvement in traffic flow is to reduce the number of pickup trucks on the road (and similiar type vehicles). As some TV commercial for pickup trucks communicates....something about seeing changing scenery
Or maybe they just need to hire a bunch of people to drive around in pickup trucks and the like...
I came across this much more informative investigation of D.C.'s traffic cameras a few weeks ago. It's heavy on facts and figures, and hammers home the observation that an extra second of yellow light is at least as good at promoting good behavior, but much less lucrative for the local government and the contracting firm.
Adding an extra second of yellow light only promotes ""good behavior" because people have an extra second to run the yellow light. The key is that you aren't changing their bad behavior (the yellow light if there for people who don't have time to stop, not to speed up and rush the light which is what this is catching 99% of the time), you are just making their bad bahavior within the law. Behavior does not become "good" because it's within the law. Good behavior consists of stopping at a yellow light at all times unless you cannot stop safely.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
At last, we have a solution to the real problem plaguing our legal system: cute girls who cry when they pulled over and thus get away with speeding, running red lights, and occasionally murder.
I wish they'd get those speeding cameras here in my state. Maybe then when millions of people start getting tickets for breaking the speed limit there'll be enough support to actually start putting reasonable speed limits in place.
Then maybe we can get the cops to focus on people failing to keep right except to pass.
A wide open left lane for rich people who can afford to pay the speeding tickets - now there's something I'd like to see.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Almst all stated have a document stored at the "Department of Highways/Paths/Roadways" that list recommended yellow-light times vs speed. Usually they are quite conservitive: here in Washington State the WADOT recommends 7 seconds for a 35 MPH zone. Of courss, light arn't set this way. Video tape the light in question, bring document and present in court. You win!
Oh, and supoenna the cop just to make his life miserable. Especially if he's a motorcycle cop. If if the cop is a chick - maby you could strike up a conversation about hand-cuffs afterwards.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I think it's worth it; hell, just last weekend, my wife and I witnessed some idiot chick driving a silver Honda blow through a red light, and ROLL(!) a van. My wife lept out to rescue the small child trapped inside, whilst I called 911 and managed to restrain myself from physically assaulting the old woman in the car beside ours, who kept yelling at me to drive away before the police showed up and closed off the scene, lest she get stuck there 'for hours and hours! At least three!'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I live in NJ. People here go until they see red. Period. This is the only place where I feel I need to look both ways before going through a recently green light.
Extending the yellow would have the same effect as extending green. That's all.
<rant>As for rear-ending... I'm originally from another a state where people stop when they see yellow (imagine!), and I visit frequently. Hence, I'm not in the habit and I don't want to get into the habit of running orange lights. So, I stop when I see yellow and have time... A good way to get the finger in Jersey and maybe "BMW" stamped onto the back of my Toyota . I've gotten pretty good at hopping the curb to get out of the way. And the worse part is that NJ has no-fault insurance! If those bastards hit me, my insurance company pays for my damages and my premiums go up!</rant>
After all, the automobile killed more people than wars (including those against drugs and/or terrorism)!
Link is here....
And here's the text...
Red light camera tickets have temporarily been suspended throughout Sacramento county. On Tuesday, Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully announced the break, which will remain in place until the system can be reviewed.
The hiatus in the use of the devices was called because of a possible timing discrepancy in the cameras. Under current law, drivers are given 0.20 of a second after a traffic signal turns red before the camera takes a picture.
Some questions have arisen about whether or not the cameras are actually set correctly to provide the delay. The manual for the cameras specifies that delays of more than 0.15 of a second but less than 0.20 can be rounded to the higher number, meaning that some motorists may have been cited while still within the allowable limit.
The questions about the timing of when the photos will cause hundreds of red light violations to be dismissed. This is the second time there has been a mass dismissal of red light cases. In 1999, it was ruled that drivers were not properly notified of the existence of the cameras, forcing more than a thousand tickets to be thrown out.
That's the way it should be. Here in Canada, you're not supposed to enter an intersection if you can't exit it. It still seems like a lot of drivers here in Toronto need to be reminded of this. If you entered an intersection and get stuck there, you deserve a ticket for your ignorance, for your negligence, for causing road rage, etc. I have no sympathy.
Good for Melbourne! Personally, I find this to be one of the best government revenue tools around. Given the choice to pay taxes that cover police, fire, public hospital, and other services, or to have reckless drivers pay for these services instead, I'm pretty happy with the latter. As a pedestrian, I don't endanger anyone, so why should I have to cover the costs created by those who do? Additionally, in a fair society, I should be rebated in exchange for the increased marginal risk I face as a result of driver action. If they can automate the process, so much the better - it's a nondiscretionary bright-line rule that anyone can choose to conform to.
I live in DC and every time I see one of those cameras I give a silent cheer. DC-area drivers, especially those with Virginia and Maryland plates, are among the worst I have ever experienced; a combination of incompetence and malice that is both dangerous and antisocial. Only in Saudi Arabia was the driving worse, but there it seemed to be more because people just didn't care rather than aggression.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Come on. The police give their cameras monthly quotas?
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
These things are endemic in the UK, both lights and speed cameras. Some consequences and quirks:
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Now there's something DC could really benefit from learning.
When I walk or bike home in the evening, I just shake my head in amazement at all the DC drivers sitting in the middle of the intersection blocking traffic in all four directions, sometimes for three or four light changes.
One thing they do really well in New York is levy painful and immediate fines for anyone who enters an intersection that's not clear on the other side. It really works - traffic keeps moving; slowly at busy times, but at least it moves.
Perhaps we need a law that allows full-speed ramming of anyone who is sitting in the intersection in front of you when the light turns green. All the drivers can install cow-catchers on the fronts of their cars and go to town. More entertainment for us pedestrians and cyclists.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Speed doesn't kill. It's the sudden deceleration in a crash that kills.
Um, where do you think the sudden deceleration comes from? You think crashing into a brick wall at 55 MPH is just as bad as 85 MPH?
So if everyone was going fast...
It would make collisions a lot worse. A head on collision with both vehicles travelling 85 MPH would be instantly fatal.
but in practice the cameras are set up to snap a picture of both your front license and your face. Since the state knows what you look like via your Drivers License, they can do a quick double check that the person driving the car looks like the person the car is registered to, and a ticket is on it's way to you in the mail. You could contest it, but you'll look like an ass in front of the judge when you do. Although in support of your point, I don't think Colorado at least charges points against your license for photo radar tickets. I believe it's purely a revenue enhancer.
I don't know how well it worked, but a guy I used to work with had his wife register his car, and visa versa. So if a photo radar ever snapped a picture, the driver of the car wouldn't even be the same sex as the registered owner. In theory, this should have kept either of them from getting tickets. Like I said, I don't know how well it worked. I don't think he made a habit of running red lights to try it out.
The standard CALTRANS yellow light timings aren't that long, though; the shortest is 3.1 seconds. These increase with speed, but not by much. As one of the original articles points out, an extra second of yellow will cut red light violations down substantially.
It's truly disappointing that these devices are being used to rake in cash in the name of public safety, especially when the same input data could be used to make the interesections work "better", e.g. minimize the possibility that a car will run a yellow, decrease or increase (to prevent speeding) the stop time at intersections.
We need to finally be beyond the era where a driver has to wait at an empty intersection at 3AM for a light to change.
The problem is that a camera has perpetual memory and with optical regognition, it would also allow profiling; letting the government track where I am at any given time. This latter more subtle aspects are what I'm worried about. A cop behind a banner doesn't have these abilities, and they are an invasion of my privacy.
Actually your partly mistaken. In *CANADA* you are expected to enter an intersection on a green light *UNLESS* the Interesection is blocked. This means for instance that if the cars on the other side of the insersection would make it impossible to clear the intersection then you are in fact violating the law, BUT if you are making a left turn and the light is green you are REQUIRED to enter the intersection to make the turn. Even if that means you cannot complete the turn until the yellow light.
As long as traffic is flowing you are required to enter the intersection.
We have some interesting new ones over here in the UK now - they take note of license plates as you drive down the road, and if they see a license plate further on but sooner than it could possibly have arrived there if it was obeying the limit then it notes your plate down and takes a photo.
:) ).
So you can do 30mph in the 30mph camera zone, do 50 to the next camera, slow down to 30 again and whallop you'll get hammered.
Presumably it's the technology that TrafficMaster licensed from the police, now that it's been refined and its reliable they are using it to enforce the limits in a much more "reliable" way than assuming people will be good and obey the speed limit when they aren't being watched.
We have tons of the red-light cameras here in London and large quantities of speed cameras.
I don't have a problem with them personally, as someone else has said on the thread - yellow means stop unless it is dangerous to do so. Yellow doesn't mean you can still go, it's as good as Red. I still see lots of people using the rule:
Green means go.
Yellow means go.
Red means go if you think you can.
Lights and speed limits are there for safety folks, and while I would disagree with agencies from manipulating the lights in order to encourage higher "failings", fact is, if there is always a minimum yellow period then you've got no excuse, sorry, if that light is yellow then you are obligated to stop, immediately, no questions and no arguments, unless it is unsafe to do so.
I don't see Tailgating as a valid excuse either, my wifes solution to tailgaters is to speed up to put some distance between them - she hasn't yet twigged that this just means that they'll speed up themselves. The proper solution is to slow down so that you can drive within your normal tolerances given the distance between you and the vehicle behind - if that means you're doing 5mph because they're bumpering you, tough, they'll soon get annoyed and burn rubber past you (which becomes even more satisfying if they then nab themselves a speeding ticket from the camera moments later down the road
Matt.
==== Dear Diary ==========
http://www.deardiary.net - Put your thoughts online, Visit my diary, http://neutronic.d
We have had them in the Greater Vancouver area for the past three years now and they have done an extremely good job on catching those who run the red lights.
One such place near my place (88th and King George Highway) has seen accident reductions and it has been classified as a "high risk" zone by ICBC. They have also been proven to be helpful in other parts of the King George Highway and in parts of Vancouver.
In most cases, they come via mail and you can just claim you never got the ticket (just like ol' jury duty). Yet in other cases I have heard of, the RCMP/Municipal Police will actually come to your door with the ticket.
The system does actually work pretty decent and nobody has really attacked it.
Photo Radar however...
I do this apparently amazing and rather unheard of thing when I come to red light: I stop. I know, it may be a little hard for some people to understand, but I actually put forth the courtesy to stop at a light that is red and, thus, means "stop". Of course, the number of people that I saw run the red light outside my office window for the last four years leads me to believe most other people don't think this way.
C'mon, really. Don't think you could just leave 2 minutes earlier and not speed through every yellow/red light you come to? Pedestrians, people on bikes, and people who do actually follow a couple of the laws our fine government have come up with would appreciate it. And you know what? This way I don't have to worry about little cameras on poles, as I know they don't apply to me (unlike the fools who think red lights don't apply to them).
Posted from the wireless couch.
And most importantly, it makes the street safer.
Yes, sir. Red light runners here in San Francisco are terrible - people get run down constantly. There are a few of these downtown, and while I initially disliked them for the usual kneejerk reasons (privacy, just a moneymaking scam, etc.) I'm pretty much for them now. If you're in such a hurry that you have to kill someone to get there, a little traffic ticket is probably the least of your troubles.
I, for one, think they should go even further and install Severe Tire Damage spikes in the crosswalks that pop up when the light turns red. Couple weeks of idiots trashing their wheels, and your problem is totally solved...
Actually, crashing into a brick wall at 55 MHP will kill you. At 85, maybe there's a small chance your extra force will allow you to pass through the brick wall and live.
Either way, they'll both still kill you. Fortunately, the highway dept. has had the foresight to NOT install brick walls in the middle of our highways, so we have nothing to worry about--save for getting ticketted. Which can cause you to want to bang your head against a brick wall.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
In other areas I have seen the cameras and we have them in San Francisco too. They are becomming more and more popular across the nation as well. What are our alternatives when people have stopped obeying trafic rules?
Each day on my way to work, I see people driving over teh speed limit. Not 5 or 10 miles over but 20 miles or more. If the limit is 65 anmd I am doing 70-75, people are passing me at 80 to 100 at least! They switch lanes without using turn signals. When I get home and am crossing the street in the cross walk, people will swerve to miss me and other pedestrians but WONT slow down. People run stop signs and I have seen people speed up at stop signs cause they see cars coming up to the intersection and they refuse to slow. So what would you recommend society as a whole do to protect people?
A picture is worth a 1000 words. The only flaw in the cameras is WHO is driving the car. If you can prove that you were not driving the car then you can get off the ticket. Of course you will be required to tell who was driving the car. This can get messy when a kid takes out the parents car and the parents get the ticket. But it is nothing compared to what car rentals are doing with GPS and tracking where you take the car and how fast you go in it too.
Banks have been using cameras for getting bank robbers for years so why should this be any different? Its not like someone is using a sattelite imaging system to see who you are screwing in your bedroom .. yet....
Only 'flamers' flame!
The home of eternal gridlock anyhow, was one of the earlier adopters of these. I walk 2 blocks from the subway, to work every day. And I see at least 1-2 redlight runners a day, at Mission and Spear. At least.
As a pedestrian, I'm all for every kind of enforcement imaginable.
Tho one of my biggest peeves, is bus drivers. Those clowns need to be racking up points just like non-city employees.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I know the earlier suit that you're talking about. Until the later one, though, the city was making noises about appealing that decision, or if that didn't work, were going to restructure the deal with LM to make it legal. They weren't about to forego all that nice money, anticipation of which had already been incorporated into the city budget.
I believe that there's going to be a class-action lawsuit filed to get all previously-paid fines refunded. At least, that's what was being talked about the last time I heard the lawyers on a local talk show. I think under the circumstances, it would be appropriate.
The obvious solution is to minimize the probability that the driver will arrive on yellow. I.e. give the right synchronization to the damn lights.
In the region where I commute, the first cars (and the entire pack altogether) systematically see yellow in the distance and catch red very near the next light, such that the waiting time is maximized. The lights are synchronized but the purpose is to make the traffic as bad as possible. The temptation to jump the lights and to get out of the vicious circle is so strong that usually the first several cars in the pack speed with more than 20 miles/hour over the limit and run the red lights. If you jump a light you are free to go for miles without stopping.
They should see which lights are typically jumped and worry about fixing the traffic instead of fining. This should bring much more benefit in the long run.
They don't work. Statistically, they have *absolutely no effect* on the numbers of killed or seriously injured in regions that are rolling them out. It's purely revenue generation.
Last year the number of accidents dropped by around 30% and the cameras were acclaimed as a massive success to all. Unfortunately this year the accident rate is up 100% and they are now saying oh yes we have peaks and troughs in the accident rates but of course the cameras are working.
It's clear that any effect on road safety that the cameras have is negligible.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
But you have to be doing more than 150mph[1].
The cameras have to take 2 pictures. If you're going above 150 they only catch you on a single frame, which isn't enough to prosecute.
[1] Yes, I've tested this and yes, I still have my license.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It makes for an interesting story. In 1998, the state legislature was trying to pass this law, and I went up there and spoke against them (all the orwellian stuff...blah blah blah.) I, and a few others, in speaking against the bill, had a pretty good effect, and so the bill was amended to
a.) put a really, really big sign indicating that the intersection has the thingies
b.) let your first red light ticket be a freebie
It was the second that was the stroke of genius. See, most people are not going to run the red light more than twice...and the damn cameras are so expensive, that a good part of the ticket revenue was going to pay for them. So without a collectible fine on the first ticket, there was a guarantee that little revenue was going to come in.
Suddenly, we were able to get everyone to say that not enough money is coming in and then we were able to say "then clearly, this is not about safety now is it?" Then the camera makers said that if the bill was passed, Ohio would not see a single camera because there's no money to be made to pay for them. The bill passed the house almost barely, and the senate wasn't even gonna pick up the albatross.
In the end, a few brave jurisdictions, like dayton and toledo, put them in anyway, because ohio cities are empowered to do whatever they want if the state hasnt prohibited them from doing so. It still is not a great situation for the cities, because they should have state law to guide them. Oh well.
What you do is you find out who your politician/whoever is in charge. Get plates made up with his car's license number and you run a few sets of cameras with those plates on a vehicle.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Simple.
I regularly max out my bike. That's close to 200mph.
Unless slashdot is heaven, I'm still alive.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
And they don't place them near accident blackspots they place them for maximum revenue generation.
The accident rate is up 100% this year. Oh no, that's just a statistical anomaly, nothing to do with the cameras. Yet when the rate goes down it's the cameras making the roads safer.
Bullshit. The evidence is that the cameras have bugger all effect on accident rates. Weather, driver inattention, lack of observation, mobile phones, drinking, eating, driving without glasses, changing the radio station and just utter utter stupidity are what cause accidents.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
In B.C. (Canada), we went throught the automated enforcement cash grab for a number of years until the new "Liberal" gov't shut it down last year.
There was a group formed during the height of the craziness called Safety by Education Not Speed Enforcement (SENSE). They are an advocacy group and have gathered a lot of information and resources for those who wish to fight this thing at the political level.
They also have suggestions on strategies for dealing with any ticket you receive. Keep in mind that their suggestions specifically deal with BC law, but they can probably be used as a starting point and adapted for use in other jurisdictions.
One example: if you get a ticket in the mail and you know it is you and that you probably were speeding, don't pay it right away. In BC (and I suspect most US jurisdictions) a mailed citation is not enforcable. Therefore in order to convict you in absentia, they must first serve you personally. Sending out a process server costs them money and cuts down on their profit margin. In the BC situation, if you were not home the first time and they had to send out the server again, they ended making loss on the ticket, even if you did eventually pay it. They also have tips for arguing your case if do decide fight your ticket in court.
Usual disclaimers: IANAL, nor have I ever played one on TV; YMMV; void where prohibitted.
Trickster Coyote
I'm just a figment of your imagination.
Ideology is for ideots.
Another interesting aspect is that LM fiercely resisted having their hardware and software examined by the plaintiffs... People who have fought their red light tickets in court and who wanted the design details and calibration records for the camera that photographed them were routinely refused this information
Hm, that's becoming a familiar story today...
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
Everyone will just start slamming their brakes at such intersections REGARDLESS of whether it is called for. If you get rear-ended it is almost always the other guys fault regardless of the situation anyway. Will they blame the increase in rearenders on their lights......no. I'll just make a bumper sticker that says "I brake HARD for camera lights." Fair warning for anybody who has to drive behind me.
One of the factors that needs to be included in yellow time duration is clearance time. This actualy increases with lowered speed limits, which DC is also working on enforcement for. Here in Texas, the yellow times of typically 4 seconds for 3 lane (each way, both) roads is most definitely NOT taking into account the clearance time.
And "go if the way is clear" for green is BS! Total BS! Absolute utter CRAPOLA! If everyone did that, the roadways would be gridlock with every car coming to a stop to make sure the intersection is totally clear before proceeding. If the traffic is running fast, that's not a problem, but during rush hour, that kind of stupidity can turn a 30 minute commute into a 2 hour commute. Clearing the tail on an interesection would take 1/20 the time as would be experienced if everyone stopped at every green during those slow commutes to do what you suggest. I'm glad as hell that 99.999% of motorists do NOT do anything as assinine as that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
People who run red lights risk my life, and yours, not just their own
I agree completely. The number of people protesting actual *punishment* for running red lights here on Slashdot is disgusting. This is something that's easily avoidable (yes, you may have to going back to not accelerating when you see a yellow light), potentially fatal, and has a picture to allow human review if necessary.
So far this is the best solution to the problem. I say apply it until something better (like computer-driven cars) can be widely deployed.
This isn't a freedom issue or a tech issue. This isn't a "should music copy protection be allowed?" question, where the consequences aren't that awful one way or the other. This is about preventing people from committing a potentially fatal crime.
May we never see th
The camera is for people who intentionally entered an intersection, not those that were leaving it on a red light, and at a specific speed or greater. READ THE ARTICLE.
The lights make absolutely no distinction of the rest of your driving behavior leading up to the incident.
Well, I don't know where you are from, but here on the planet earth, where the rules of physics are pretty consistent we use this...
Kinetic energy = 1/2mv2
IF YOU SLOW THE HELL DOWN, AND WERE DRIVING APPROPRIATELY, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT LANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION. You could actually not have to endanger someone to go around town. I know, its shocking, but true.
I don't even think that the "maximize revenue" argument is even remotely valid. Property taxes maximize revenue. This may be slightly profitable, but I would argue that this is still a fine. A fine against jackasses that have to match this criteria:
1. HAS TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION AFTER IT IS RED.
2. HAS TO BE GOING HIGHER THAN A SPECIFIC SPEED.
In other words, if you slammed your brakes to stop and wouldn't just sail through the intersection anyway? NO FINE. You're in the intersection on the yellow and getting out? NO FINE. You go through a redlight in the middle of the night at a really slow speed? NO FINE. Someone on a three member board questions it? NO FINE.
Sounds fair to me.
I have witnessed several redlight child killings in my history as a photojournalist.
It keeps my speed down.
I've been driving for many years without a ticket for a moving violation or a serious accident. It is not that difficult to obey the law and drive safely. Most of the problem is people's attitude towards driving. The road is not a race track, traffic signals and signs are not friendly suggestions. Driving like a jerk does not make you into a real man/woman.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Here in Australia, they just send you a tix and say you can come drive 2hrs to our headquarters to see the pix, or send us $25 and we'll mail it to you.
Talk about unfair.
If you don't pay in time, the whole thing goes to a police-judge, who determines the fine.
Nah, this is not the eastern block where the cop is the judge is the jury and you can always contest the police courts verdict and ask for a real court with a real judge determining your guilt, which is also the first time where you get to see your fotos.
Fotos? Yes, right: They take your picture from the back and the front and you'll have to be wearing a mickey-mouse mask to lie your way out.
Of course, if you don't pay the initial fine and have the whole thing go to court it gets mighty expensive, plus you risk your license for a month or more if you've done something exceedingly dumb - like running the light after it turned red for over a second. Yakking away on a cell phone will turn you in for the added bonus contest.
Facsist police state? Well, people here don't quite see it that way. If you run a light you're endangering lifes and if you're so fucking dumb to believe that you can lie your way out, then you deserve the full treatment of the law.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I visited Poland a few months ago and their traffic lights are better than ours. Instead of our simple Green, Yellow, Red they have:
Red Yellow - light will become green, get ready
Green - go (just like us)
Green Yellow - light is about to go yellow
Yellow - stop if you can safely (just like us)
Red - stop (just like us)
I don't think Red Yellow is a good idea for us. Yeah, let's encourage MORE people to drag race!
However, the Green Yellow is a great idea. It provides the benefits of an extra long yellow, without the possibility of being ambiguous when not all lights are timed the same.
In the US, I find myself using the WALK/DONT WALK light for pedestrians to gauge how much longer a green light far ahead is going to stay green. Then I can decide if I should be slowing down or speeding up to make sure I don't end up in the uncertainty zone.
Not all stop lights have the pedestrian signals. Or, some have a pedestrian light that always stays DONT WALK unless a real pedestrian hits the button to activate it, which is no use for judging how long the green will remain. Or sometimes they just aren't easy to see from the road.
Traffic cameras have come and gone rather quickly here. They were introduced on a trial run starting in December of last year and went live with actual citations in early January. The program is now dead. Legislators moved to repeal the program, and Governor Cayetano basically terminated the program by the end of April.
The program was incredibly unpopular, or it was unpopular with incredibly vocal people. People cited things like invasion of privacy to how this was all just a money-making scheme by the government to proof of guilt. It even got the point where the ACLU stepped in because the company running the program was allowed access to people's SS#'s. Now that's a no-no.
The program was basically implemented as poorly as possible. ACS, the company that was contracted, and the State DOT basically went about it a very unpopular fashion. In addition, they never bothered to change the law. The basic speed law in Hawaii (and most places) indicates that you must identify the driver of the vehicle. That's incredibly difficult and is virtually impossible at night, if you're going to be taking pictures from the side of the road. In addition, the company and the DOT made a lot of PR errors along the way, and the program basically died.
Oh well. Now we can get back to that debate about speed and fatality rates. Where's all that Montana data, anyway? And isn't this thing U-shaped? You are actually safer if you are travelling 5-10 mph faster than everyone else because faster drivers are usually paying more attention to the road.
Where the wind blows, the tumbleweed goes.
Or they must have pretty full on flashes
Apparently, a lot of police cars and other emergency vehicles have been ticketed while they were speeding to answer 911 calls.
I suppose this is just about possible with unmarked police cars. But regular emergency vehicles are brighly painted and have flashing lights on top.
Although human oversight is supposed to screen out these citations, a lot of cops, firefighters and EMTs found themselves receiving tickets in the line of duty, and the city's appeal process was so complex they couldn't go through the effort to fight them off.
Don't the tickets generally go to the registered owner...
The article cited jammed film. Why aren't they using digital cameras?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Actually, as a cyclist, I rather like it when the cars gridlock, as I can usually fit between them and go on my merry way!