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"...
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 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'
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
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 issue of legality came down to the fact that the company running the system of red light cameras was also controlling the timing of the lights. In fact, the courts found that the contractor was actually shortening the yellow times on lights, as they got something like 70 percent of the fines for each red light violator/victim. This at least was the case in San Diego, CA.
= y
1 &s Text=red+light
http://www.kfmb.com/results.php?storyID=3166&is
http://www.kfmb.com/search_results.php?curPage=
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.
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.
Here atleast, the result is: you have a monetary fine, but you are not considered guilty of a traffic violation. Your car is. And you are responsible for any fines on your car. The same as you would be responsible for any parking tickets your car gets while someone you lent the car to it parks illegally.
People who defend peoples rights to run RED LIGHTS deserve to be shot. Here the light is Yellow for far longer than is necessary to clear an intersection on a typical day, yet people se the yellow light and speed up to make it.
Note: red light camera rules here are:
No ticket will be issued unless the car ENTERS the Intersection on a Red Light. The speed of the vehicle will be recorded on the picture as well. A 3 person panel will determine if a ticket is appropriate, in the event any 1 party disagrees no ticket will be issued.
I have NEVER had an intelligent conversation about this topic where everyone didn't conceed that any valid reason to run a red light would make the fine anything other than a nuisance.
If you run the red light because your rushing someone to the hopsital that is bleeding to death in the backseat of your car, tell me, do you give a shit about the fine? I doubt it.
If you roll through the light to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle you arn't likely to get a ticket since your speed will be signifantly less than usual.
People who run red-lights risk my life, and yours, not just their own.
I watch people run red lights EVERY DAY. At some intersections I have been nearly hit by people running redlights while I was a pedestrian. I don't expect I would have survived had I been hit.
(As for if your car is 'stolen'; you arn't reposnible if you car is reported stolen. You'll have to sue the individual yourself if it isn't reported stolen. What would you do for a parking ticket issued when you didn't have the car?)