Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras

caffiend666 writes "According to a Dallas Morning News article, any 'Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law ... Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.' Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"

Comments

The police ought to follow the law.

[Etherwalk]

Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[setirw]

Did you not see the middle sentence? "They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest."

And yes, firetrucks or ambulances should not be exempt if they are not responding to an emergency, which was the original poster's point. A police car should not be exempt if its driver is getting more donuts, but should be exempt if it's responding to a call.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Etherwalk]

Most states allow for emergency vehicles to violate standard traffic law--legally--in case of an emergency. The article is about ticketing policemen (or firemen) who violate the law when there isn't an emergency involved.

The law exists for a reason. Allowing someone to ignore it--particularly when that person is responsible for enforcing it--undermines its authority.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[LBArrettAnderson]

I've seen police cars doing a lot of things that I'm sure were for good reasons, but if they are going to go against traffic laws for any reason, my personal belief is that they should be required to put on their lights and siren. If their lights and siren are off, they should not be speeding, should not be running red lights, and should not be disobeying any laws that the rest of us are subject to.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[setirw]

Well... There are fewer people killed by ambulances than there are people saved by ambulances.

Applying your strict utilitarian logic elsewhere, firetrucks and police cars shouldn't have the right to disobey traffic rules if the fire endangers fewer people than disobeying traffic rules does.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[DragonWriter]

Maybe a cop runs a red light because he's lazy or maybe he runs one because he's following a suspect car. I'd rather let the cops have leeway and discretion in this matter.

Still, as I see it, there is no reason they shouldn't get a ticket if there is no clear evidence of the applicability of an emergency exception (clearly, if the camera shows their emergency lights on, that's another story), and be allowed to respond to the ticket and present the case for a non-obvious exception if they so desire.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost ALL police abuse the law when on duty. EVERY SINGLE squad car I ever see is always speeding. And sorry they all dont have somewhere to be at 5-10 mph over the speed limit.

Cops should be FIRED for breaking the law.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[m0rph3us0]

Umm... seeing someone BREAK the law IS probably cause for a warrant.

This is like saying that a camera catching someone killing someone else is not probable cause for a murder investigation.

The two holes in your theory are that, observation in public whether you like it or not is not considered search.

The other being that the camera only observes the traffic while the red light is in operation.

Other than cost, there is no difference between this and having an officer at the location observing the traffic and ticketing people.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Rogerborg]

Look chum, that 5 digit UID doesn't give you carte blance to be such a fucking nobhead. If even 1 in 100 ambulance trips resulted in a fatality, you'd know about it.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[morari]

More so, those in a position of power (police officers, politicians, etc.) should face an even more severe punishment for breaking the law than your Average Joe. They have more responsibility and are (at least theoretically) suppose to be looked up to as a pillar of society.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Danse]

They're trained to know when it is safe to run red lights and when it is not.. so why shouldn't they be allowed to run them?

Because there's no compelling reason to exempt them from traffic laws in non-emergency situations.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[ahodgson]

They're objecting to being caught when not on a call, no lights, no sirens, etc. I know when it's safe to run a red light, too. Surely I should be exempt from ticketing if they are.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[burner]

Does my 4 digit UID give me the right to smack you down for suggesting that the absence of evidence is the same as the evidence of absence?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Qzukk]

Theres a logical solution to this, given that for every ambulance causing an injury accident, another will have to respond. Therefore, unless more than 50% of the ambulances are disabled in wrecks, there will ALWAYS be more ambulances operating than in wrecks.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[ari_j]

Here's my rule: If the lights aren't flashing, every law applies just as it would to me. If the lights are flashing, then a radio call is mandatory to have a record of why they're flashing and all traffic laws are suspended so long as you drive within reason given the circumstances. But if the lights aren't flashing, follow the laws.

We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. As soon as certain men are exempt from laws because of their status as government officers, we're a nation of men. That's bad.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[cloak42]

so why shouldn't they be allowed to run them?

Because when an ambulance or firetruck does it, their sirens are on and they're responding to a call. Any other time, they follow the rules of the road, same as everybody else.

And when that police cruiser's lights are on, you bet your ass I'm going to get out of its way and let it run whatever lights it damn well pleases. But if the lights aren't on, that cop had better be sitting his ass behind me in line waiting for the light to turn green, just like everybody else on the road does.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[ashooner]

As often as cops (perhaps inevitably) seem to lack respect for the repsonsibility of their authority, I have to agree with GZ on this one. Police usually are given the right to speed without their lights, and this is a reasonable need. On the other hand, a friend of mine while driving home from work late one night witnessed a cop kill a man by t-boning him as he was making a left turn at an intersection; the cop was going over 20mph over the speed limit without his lights on. In that case the cop was not held responsible, since it was technically the man's fault for making the left turn. At this particular intersection, however, it is very easy to see how a driver could not anticipate a speeding car coming in the opposite direction. Anyway, point being that if emergency vehicle personnel are qualified to break safety laws, they should have greater responsibility when breaking the laws results in an accident.
 
  The cop caught speeding should be able to justify his speeding in some verfiiable way, (a call or other recorded situation) otherwise let him pay the fine...

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, we have absolute no way of knowing what was going on. Perhaps they were hunting for a very large deer. To me, whether to use lights and sirens in an emergency is based on the situation and I'm willing to give leeway here.

However, if there is no emergency, there should be no need to endanger the public at large. I can't see any reason for a cop to run a red light in order to give a parking ticket to that guy who parks in front of my driveway. I don't care if it's 2:55AM and the roads are empty and the cop gets off at 3:00AM--if I can't do it, they can't do it.

From TFA:

"I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."

Well, anything can happen on "some calls." However, a dispatcher has spoken with the person who made the call and, I assume, made a determination whether something was an emergency or not. It is not the police officer's job to second-guess the dispatcher and decide whether or not a call should be an emergency.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[mabhatter654]

The whole deal is that these cops are caught on the same traffic cameras that monitor normal citizens and the office has a pile of pictures of violations that don't match call times... In other words, the outsourced company that does red-light cams wanted to start ticketing police cars and somebody's trying to decide whether or not to issue the tickets as a matter of course or give them a break. Of course legally, if they DON'T issue the tickets and know the officers are operating illegally they could be held criminally negligent should the officers hurt or kill somebody if that pile of red-light photos ends up in court. The cops WILL be made to follow the law one way or another, it's not really optional for the city to do nothing. They may change the law, but once something happens and somebody gets hurt the city ends up in court explaining why they changed the law to allow cops to run lights outside customary call-outs.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not sure why the parent has been rated a troll when he merely called someone who was being a nobhead a "nobhead". Commentors should not be punished for using precise language. Or is this part of Tim O'Reilly's dimwitted "blogger civility campaign"?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[cheater512]

Who said you know when its safe?

Whats that? You said that you know when its safe? Uh huh.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[AK Marc]

They're trained to know when it is safe to run red lights and when it is not.. so why shouldn't they be allowed to run them?

If and only if the public in general is allowed to take the same training and also be exempt from red lights. Unless that happens, no matter what training they get or such, it is still the police being exempt from laws they enforce in others, and inequity that generates contempt for authority.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Bretai]

"the absence of evidence..."

That phrase has always bothered me. The absence of evidence, assuming one has looked, *is* evidence of absence. It's just not proof of absence. In the same way that circumstantial evidence is still evidence although it may not be conclusive. We use this in science all the time when we look for some evidence that we expect to be there. When it's absent, that tells us something.

So, this isn't good enough for you? Ok, but it's customary to say why not. I think that particular cliché does us a disservice.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Miseph]

So... police should be held accountable to the law when there is no compelling reason for them not to be? What, exactly, were you trying to prove again? Nice one, Descartes.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[QuantumG]

that generates contempt for authority. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[shaitand]

'No, but the absence of lurid CNN reports is pretty good evidence of absence, you pedantic cockjockey.'

The only thing the absence of CNN reports is evidence of is the absence of CNN coverage. By your logic third party presidential candidates don't exist because major news outlets refuse to cover them.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[session_start]

Bottom Line-
Police are supposed to be "Model Citizens" that set the example for everyone!

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[NormalVisual]

I'd argue that whatever the cop is responding to would have to be pretty damn important for it to weigh more heavily than the safety of the 10-15 people that may be using the intersection right then, not to mention the officer's own safety. If he's responding to a holdup where the robber has a single hostage, and ends up causing an accident that kills 3 people (not to mention he never arrives at the crime scene), how is that better for society than if the hostage had simply been killed?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Who said the Police know when its safe?

Whats that? the Police said that they know when its safe? Uh huh.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[rolfwind]

There are situations where I feel running a red light is okay (for civilians).

Haven't you ever been caught in a rural shopping strip in middle of the night whose main exits have a light which is not on a blinking red for some reason (with the main street blinking yellow) but instead force you to wait 10 minutes for a 15 second green?

Are we supposed to abandon our brains entirely and wait that entire time when there is not one other car on the road? I'm against cameras for many reasons (they cause people to break and give they a higher chance of being rear-ended for one) but the main reason is that they can't practice discretion in cases. There just there solely to make money.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[myth24601]

Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.

I kinda want to cut the police some slack here. I don't like the idea of ON DUTY officers running lights for no good reason but there could be plenty of good reasons for them to run one even when not on any emergency call. Perhaps they just pulled up to an intersection and noticed something happening in a parking lot just past the intersection that may or may not be worth investigating. If they have a clear intersection they may want to go on through but if they have to worry about cameras they may just let it go rather than have to deal with the hassle of trying to remember what they ran it for.

The thing that irritates me more is when OFF DUTY officers speed with impunity because no police officer will give another one a speeding ticket.(I have a relative in law enforcement who gets pulled over for speeding once or twice a year and has never gotten a ticket)

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Kichigai Mentat]

Wow. I don't normally say this, but that has to be one of the DUMBEST comments I've ever read in my entire life, and I read QuickJump!

You know how ambulances have those twirly lighty things on the top (you know, emergency flashers)? And they have those loud noisy things (emergency klaxons), the kind loud enough to overpower your average car stereo from a good distance away? They exist to WARN people to GET OUT OF THE WAY OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE HIT BY A RATHER MASSIVE VEHICLE MOVING AT HIGH SPEEDS.

Further more, all emergency vehicles have these flashers and klaxons. The light color is used to signify what kind of priority this vehicle has (though your average motorist hasn't a clue). Also, these vehicles have strobe lights on them to trigger certain events at stop lights. They activate a bright white light and turn the other light (the one perpendicular to the vehicle) to red.

The guys who design these vehicles aren't nitwits. They know that they could cause more damage than most other cars on the road (except 18-wheelers). All these lights and sounds are in place to prevent this. So, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that more people are saved in ambulances than are killed by them. Besides, what gives me the right to make my left hand turn RIGHT NOW, and make somebody's (sibling/parent/child/grandchild/grandparent/signi ficant other/friend/complete stranger) have to wait to get to the hospital to save their life? I'll pull off to the side of the road, turn off the car, get out, and sit on the sidewalk to let an ambulance past. Unless you're in an emergency vehicle, NOBODY has any reason that they need to be that impatient. If you're late to something, that's your own fault. If you disagree, wait until it's your (sibling/parent/child/grandchild/grandparent/signi ficant other/friend) in the back of that ambulance, and then tell me how you feel.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[masterzora]

Does my 4 digit UID give me the right to smack you down for suggesting that the absence of evidence is the same as the evidence of absence?

No, because you would be wrong in saying it. The phrase you are looking for is "absence of proof is not proof of absence". As it turns out, the absence of evidence being evidence of absence is one of the bases of scientific reasoning.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Lord Kano]

Sounds great, unless one of those 275 is someone that you care about.

LK

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Cops see suspicious cars all the time. Maybe they're driving strangely, whatever, the point is that they need to have the freedom to investigate. As someone who gets a DWB around once a year, I'd like to see MORE not less restrictions on their "freedom to investigate."

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[R3d M3rcury]

I'm a firefighter and dispatch gets it wrong ALL THE TIME. Then it's time to complain about the dispatcher getting it wrong rather than say, "Well, they might have gotten it wrong, so I'll endanger others just in case they did."

By the way, your example works to the opposite. Yes, if a roof had collapsed, you should get there posthaste which is what the dispatcher told you. So I assume you did. Good for you. On the other hand, would it have been acceptable for you to say, "Oh, that dispatcher is always full of shit. We'll drive slowly and carefully," and arrive at the site and discover that the dispatcher had been correct all along?

To me, the dispatcher is the person who knows the most about what is going on and is able to judge how much of an "emergency" exists. If they err, they should err on the side of caution and that's fine. I have no problem with an officer who is responding to what he or she has been told is an emergency rushing to the scene. If that includes making illegal U-turns or running a red light, that's fine. If, after doing these things, they arrive and discover that no emergency exists, they certainly shouldn't be culpable for their illegal activities.

But if there's no emergency, there is no reason for police or firefighters to be deciding otherwise and break the law.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[NormalVisual]

And if he's responding to a domestic violence call, he wants to get there ASAP, but not necessarily warn the person that they're coming

Nor will he be warning the traffic around him that they may soon be dealing with an unpredictable and potentially unsafe driver in their midst. Again, what makes the lives of the victims of the domestic violence call more important than those of the other drivers on the road, particularly if the LEO is going to be blowing through intersections sans lights?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Otto]

I have seriously broken both arms (not at the same time, mind you), and it never really hurt to any great degree. The last time, I broke my right arm completely in half, and the bone shifted out of place enough to be pulled backwards due to the muscle tension. This gave my arm a rather interesting "S" shape, bending entirely the wrong way. It did not hurt because, well, when you break your arm, you kinda know it and immediately go into a bit of shock. So I grabbed the break and held it in place until my dad came and took me to the hospital. By the time we got there, at a rather leisurely pace mind you, I was swinging it freely, without even thinking about it. The other people in the waiting room were shocked at the sight of it, but the nurses had no problem with it. They've seen worse.

Broken bones don't really hurt unless they a) grind, b) shatter, or c) pinch something else with nerves in it. Bones don't have nerves in them.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[ozmanjusri]

Because the ambulance driver is certified to be safe at the higher speeds and is trained in "illegal" driving maneuvers so that he will not collide with anything

I used to be an ambo, and when we were doing the driver training, it was emphasised that we could break road rules when the situation required it, however only if we were certain it was safe for us and the general public to do so.

The implication (spelled out by the instructor) was that if we were involved in an accident, we clearly had not made certain it was safe to break road rules, and therefore would not be protected from the law or from civil action.

Nobody I know objected to that. None of the ambos I knew were ever involved in a serious accident while on a high priority job, so I don't know what would have really happened if there'd been a big one.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[advocate_one]

firetrucks, maybe.. ambulances? no. There's 1 dude in the back of an ambulance, why should that 1 dude have the right to endanger the lives of countless motorists and pedestrians just so he can save himself?

just wait until it's your turn to be that one dude... that's all I've got to say...

we have a convention in our society that traffic gives way to ambulances etc. on emergency calls... of course if you want to be an asshole then it's your right, but just wait until it's your turn to be the dude in the back... I hope some other asshole delays your ambulance ride...

Everyone (assholes excepted) gives way because they know it could just as easily be themselves needing the ambulance ride one day.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[bjorniac]

"If a cop runs a light and there's an accident, investigate it" What if he drives drunk? Or what if I run a red light and don't have an accident? Only on accidents do we investigate? No, we enforce laws to prevent accidents, not just punish people for having them. There should be well defined situations in which running a red light is an acceptable risk. Otherwise, a cop should be subject to exactly the same laws the rest of us are. It would be incredibly simple just to have some automation of the "sirens are on now" - a time stamp in the car for example. Then just disregard tickets during that time period. The cure is very simple, this is just a case of cops wanting privileges that the law does not, and should not afford them.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[wathiant]

If the minute or 2 makes a difference, it IS an emergency call. duhhh... No emergency, no breaking the law. The same (and the other way around) goes for regular people in my opinion. If there's a true emergency (passenger heart attack, etc), you shouldn't be fined for speeding to the nearest hospital.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

In your case they used the lights to indicate that they were on a silent call and that's legal. They aren't supposed to use the lights just to get home early. But I am so sick and tired of watching the cops, without lights or sirens, routinely pulling illegal turns, runnings stops and lights, and speeding excessively -- even beyond the teens.

I made the mistake of asking my brother-in-law about this and he was pretty pissed off. He never did answer me. But it's pretty clear that all the cops consider themselves above the law most of the time. It's a dysfunctional representation of the law when the policeman is writing you a ticket for $120 on stop sign but routinely do the same with hesitation.

Makes it hard to take them seriously. Leaves you with the impression that everything is legal as long as you don't actually get convicted of the crime.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[geoskd]

Applying your strict utilitarian logic elsewhere, firetrucks and police cars shouldn't have the right to disobey traffic rules if the fire endangers fewer people than disobeying traffic rules does.

No, what the OP is getting at, is that if the probable harm from running the light is greater than the probable harm from the fire, then the truck should not run the light. It is however a pretty safe bet that fire represents a much greater probable harm under almost all circumstances. Ambulances sometimes abuse the authority to run lights just to make the passengers feel like more is being done. With police, the same is true, which is why the dispatcher makes the decision as to the seriousness of the call. The idea is to prevent the police from putting anyone at greater risk than is necessary. It is not the officers place to determine the severity of the situation until they are actually on the scene.

-=Geoskd

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[endianx]

We are far closer to a republic than a democracy. And in a republic, representatives are supposed to act in the interests of the people, but not necessarily do what the people want.

My personal feeling has always been that the House should do what the people want, and the Senate should do what the people need. Though honestly I'd prefer they both did nothing at all.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Malc]

Do what cyclists (are supposed to do): get out and push/walk your vehicle to the other side. Maybe that's just a jaywalking ticket in your area ;)

Note: it seems to me that some lights have weight sensors in the road and will never change for a cyclist. I've seen the pedestrian sign flashing and then go back to walk again. The only solution is to go and push the pedestrian button for the direction I want to go.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[DragonWriter]

It's not like they're violating anyone's rights by not being cited. And indeed, there are very good reasons why the police might speed, even in non-emergency situations.

I'm presuming a situation where, as is common, police are already generally forbidden by law or regulation to violate traffic laws except in emergencies, and the issue is just whether or not they should be automatically ticketed if the jurisdiction has a system which automatically tickets non-police vehicles.

If the jurisdiction has given police a blanket exemption from traffic laws even in non-emergency situations, for whatever reason, clearly they shouldn't be ticketed for violating them, whether automatically or otherwise.

IOW, if the law applies to the police, it ought to be applied to the police. If it doesn't, clearly it shouldn't; debate over whether the law ought to apply to the police is a separate issue from the point I was making.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[ubergenius]

As the son of a cop, I can assure you that most cops themselves would disagree with you. When the blue-and-whites are not on, it is dangerous to break traffic laws... Period. However, when those lights are on, it is perfectly fine to break traffic laws if done cautiously (don't go flying through a red light, but edge up to it with the siren on, and once all motorists have yielded, go through). This really shouldn't be a big issue at all. If there is an emergency, then there is NO reason why motorists can't just stop and let the cop (or ambulance) cautiously pass through the light. And if there is not an emergency, the emergency vehicles should be obeying all normal traffic laws like everyone else. However, one major problem I feel is motorists not yielding to emergency vehicles. I cannot stand fuckers who think it is more important for them to get to work 1 minute sooner than let a possibly dying person get to medical attention, and every time I see it, I hope it is their wife/husband in the ambulance. I feel the penalties for not yielding to emergency vehicles should be similar to passing a school bus when their lights are on ($100-$200 fine) or greater.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[smithmc]

  From the article: "I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."

I believe that just about sums it up.

Well, if it's the kind of call where a minute or two is significant, then wouldn't that be an... emergency call?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[bhamlin]

A patrol car without its "flashing lights" on isn't neccessarily not on important business. The lights are there to help the officer let you know that he is there, and that he's probably about to do something that is dangerous or just wants your attention otherwise.
There are times when an officer might be going to a sensitive situation where the flashing lights might cause trouble. I can't think of an example immediately, but I'm sure those exist. While I'm sure they're supposed to be using their lights all the time when they're responding, I don't think it's mandatory.

Mixed views

[nebaz]

On the one hand, I'm glad that cops will be forced to obey the law, and not think they are above it. There are cops in my town who park in the fire lane all day.

    On the other hand, I really detest red light cameras. They basically operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, sometimes they get you on yellow. Most of the time, they are designed for profit (I've heard companies that manufacture these are often paid per conviction, thus increasing incentive for abuse), not public safety.

    Where I live, the traffic cameras are not placed at the most dangerous intersections, but at the ones they think will generate the most revenue for the city. Gines are more than $350 per offense, and go as a point (4 in a year can mean suspension) on your license.

    I think my hatred of these red light cameras outweigh my delight about the police getting their ironic comeuppance. I think they should be banned.

My biggest problem with the Po-Po

[Yo Grark]

They don't signal.

They don't follow street laws

They tailgate people at night to "nudge" people into doing wrong.

So it's caught on camera you say? So they object you say?

Go figure. Hey while your at it meter-maids, grow a backbone and give them a ticket for illegally parking going for coffee.

Bah

Yo Grark

Re:My biggest problem with the Po-Po

[soft_guy]

My biggest problem with them is the gunning down of innocent citizens and the framing of innocent people.

Re:My biggest problem with the Po-Po

[hklygre]

I just slow down for tailgaters. Me too. If the driver of the car behind me isn't willing to keep a safe distance in relation to the speed we're going, I'll have to make sure we keep a safe speed in relation to the distance between us. Apart from pulling over and letting them pass (which I do in some circumstances), it's all I really can do legally.

If we're talking double standards...

[RichPowers]

Here's one I can support: the mayor, city councilmen, and traffic engineers who supported the red light cameras in the first place shall pay a $2000 fine if photographed running a red light. Then we'll see how fast those fucking cameras get taken down.

The law makes exceptions for emergencies, hot pursuits, etc. Those are the only times when an officer should be running a red light. If they break the law, they can pay the price like other citizens.

police, fire, ambulance...politicians, celebrities

[dAzED1]

I would follow that it is not just police, fire, and ambulance that should always follow the law except when it is in public interest, but that politicians and celebrities should follow the law too, and also that it doesn't necessarily need to be a "public interest" - If my friend has a gunshot wound and I'm driving him to the hospital in my car (and I'm not in an ambulance...), I do not have malicious intent if I slow for a red light, make sure no one is coming, and then carry on through the intersection. In such a situation, I shouldn't get a ticket either.

I've seen countless police officers that pull people over, then cruise down the road at 90mph, set up another speed trap, pull someone over...if there's no need for the officer to speed, he shouldn't be doing it either.

Re:Unbiased? I think not.

[PhxBlue]

Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time.

Speeding.

What if there is rain or snow on the ground?

Unsafe driving for conditions.

You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.

Good point. Of course, having the photo as evidence would help you when you go to court to contest the ticket.

Re:Really?

[setirw]

Because relatively few lights are equipped to change in response to stimuli? Most are simply set on timers.

Great. "Equal protection" will then...

[msauve]

allow me to do exactly the same thing.

The only time an officer should be able to violate traffic law with impunity is when it is required for performance of their public duty. (i.e. a pursuit, or when responding to an emergency situation)

Re:Great. "Equal protection" will then...

[dan828]

You should also add "when it is safe to do so." A few months ago, at an intersection next to the building where I work, a policeman went through a red light with his lights and sirens going, but did so when he was traveling too fast for drivers going through the green light to react in time and when he was unable to see the crossing section of road so that he could tell if people where crossing there. He broadsided a car while doing close to 50 miles an hour (made a terrible racket outside) and he and the driver of the car he hit both ended up with critical injuries. I imagine that this was against department policy, but I don't think the cop got more than slap on the wrist for what happened.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

[overshoot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_ custodes%3F

Re:I had a comment, but changed my mind

[krunoce]

"Seriously, who is crazy enough to post a real opinion on a public forum without being anonymous."

This isn't 1984 man. Write "Fuck the police" if you want.

Enjoy life. That's my opinion.

The quickest way to ban them ...

[khasim]

is to make them applicable to EVERYONE. The politicians who voted for them. The cops who run them. EVERYONE.

Re:Well, within reason? Sure.

[Belial6]

It's very simple. A cop should never, under any circumstances go through a red light without his lights and siren. Anything less is an clear, immediate and unnecessary danger to lives of the citizens in the area. Any time the lights and siren go on, the computer that is now standard equipment in police cars should be logging that the emergency system was turned on. At the end of the day/week/whatever the calls logged should match 100% with the computer log. Any missing call logs should require an explanation.

Given that the police officer is indicating that he is operating in a situation extrodiary enough that he must break the law, there is no excuse for keeping a record.

Sounds like a lot of bureacracy

[aegl]

So now every time a camera catches a police car or other emergency vehicle running a red light a notice gets sent, someone has to correlate that notice to the log of emergency calls at the specific date&time. Then check the duty roster to see who was supposed to be driving that vehicle at that time, probably interview a few people to find out who was actually driving it.

Unless there is an emergency, then nobody should be running the redlights ... but this "solution" looks like a nightmare.

How about adding a small RF transmitter to the siren & lights in emergency vehicles so that when *both* are on, any redlight cameras in the vicinity add a notation to photographs they take that there was an emergency in progress. This would allow the emergency vehicles through without tickets and without bureaucracy.

Photo Radar

[camperdave]

They basically operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" principle

No, they work on the "Innocent until proven guilty, and here's the proof" principle. Your objection probably stems from the mistaken belief that you should be able to get away with an infraction because a human isn't there to catch you. However, I agree that they seem to appear in revenue generating areas, which makes one wonder if they are really after safety or money.

In the Greater Toronto Area we used to have photo radar. Basically, a van would park by the side of the freeway and snap the license plate of anyone who was speeding. People complained loudly that it was merely a cash grab, and there's no doubt that it generated its share of revenue. However, cash grabbing aside, the photo radar did reduce the speed on the freeway, and thus made it a safer road to travel.

Re:Photo Radar

[Leto-II]

the photo radar did reduce the speed on the freeway

Okay, I'll give you that.

and thus made it a safer road to travel.

But not that. Decreasing the speed does not necessarily make it a safer road to travel. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Here's an Easy Idea

[Prien715]

Cops and ambulances are subject to the law except when their sirens are on. Since these are traffic light cameras, we could be able to tell that pretty easily. Unless cops want to turn on their sirens all the time, they won't abuse their privilege.

Re:Here's an Easy Idea

[penix1]

Lights and sirens can "tip off" a bad guy. The easier way is to ticket them no matter what and see what the 911 dispatch logs say for that time. If the logs verify they were on a call, the ticket is excused. If not, they are responsible for it.

B.

Re:Here's an Easy Idea

[The_Wilschon]

Far more importantly, lights and sirens "tip off" the rest of the people on the road. Red light laws are not in place to obstruct drivers who have to stop, they are in place to prevent people from getting killed when they are broadsided just because they went when the light was green. If there are no lights or sirens going, then people will still drive through the intersection when they have a green light, and then the cop who is trying to apprehend a criminal undercover as it were will hit them and likely maim or kill them.

Allowing even one person to violate public safety laws without ample notification to everyone around them defeats the entire purpose of the public safety laws: keeping people safe from other people.

Burden of proof on who?

[benicillin]

I agree they should be allowed to run the lights in emergencies and not be allowed otherwise. The problem is, who has the burden of proof in showing this was an emergency or not an emergency? Are we going to force police officers to prove, in court, that they were on an emergency call and had to run the red light? Think about how many red lights police officers run on a regular basis, I would imagine it's quite a few. This would entail higher court costs (which our gov. won't like), it will leave police officers fighting tickets in court all the time (which our gov. won't like) and therefore it would leave less officers on the street (which citizens won't like)... So I wonder if there really is a peaceful medium in this situation.

I doubt that police officers keep detailed logs of their daily activities. It's possible they keep track of the substantive activities that take place during the day, but I doubt they have a log of exactly what hour/minute/second they began and finished their drive to whatever police related activity they were headed to. It makes sense to hold police officers to the same laws as citizens, unless they have a compelling reason (emergency) not to be held to these laws, but how will we prove there was no compelling reason and who has the burden of proof? The idea of guilty until proven innocent that another poster referred to earlier will surely come into play in this aspect as well if cops are made to defend each ticket they get.

Anyway, this is all too 1984ish for me.

Re:Unbiased? I think not.

[lhand]

Here's an example. I was stuck at a red light on my motorcycle. The traffic sensor was not set up to be sensitive enough to detect that my bike was there so the light never would change to green unless another car came along. No car was comming along, there was no cross traffic. I waited for several minutes and finally just rode through. The camera would have given me a ticket.

Of course, the camera didn't sense me either so no one else ever knew.

Re:Well, within reason? Sure.

[Cruian]

There are some reasons why a cop would not use both lights and sirens. Sometimes it is best for them to only use one of their two ways of alerting others.

The only thing I could think of quickly is if they were responding to a crie in progress, such as a burglary or break in, where it may be beneficial to approach with as few things as possible giving you away early. In the situations I listed, an officer may be best to use only the lights for intersections only; I can't think of any reason to use siren only. Different types of calls need different responses.

I agree though, without lights and/or sirens, there should be reasons given for some actions.

Safety first

[tobiah]

Twice I've come close to being hit by a police car running a red light without sirens, once on foot and once while driving. I didn't look and say "oh, police, maybe they're going to run the light." I doubt they did it on purpose, just thought it was clear so they went. It was late at night, in a residential district. I'm sure they didn't want to make a nuisance at that late hour, but they didn't seem to be in any hurry either. They ran the light as a course of habit. The law is there for a reason, which is to promote safety. The sirens are there to safely make an exception to traffic law. Emergency vehicle drivers in the habit of running red lights will fail to notice pedestrians and drivers. If penalties and fines are what it takes to get everyone else to obey the law, that's what it will take to make our emergency vehicle drivers obey the law, and more importantly, that's what it will take to make them safe.

Re:I don't get the controversy here...

[SeaFox]

Why make a big stink?

• The police think they should be above the law, and the law is in the interest of public safety.
  
• When police get involved in traffic accidents and they have their lights going, they often don't pay for the damage they cause. So if you get in a wreck and your car gets totaled, if you don't have full insurance (read as: you're poor) you get screwed. You now have no vehicle to get to your job and a bunch of medical bills.

It happened a couple years ago in Kansas City. The city pretty much let the PD off the hook for the whole thing. A local body shop took pity on the woman and fixed her minivan for free in the end. Now I doubt the policy will be any different if the city gives them license to do it without the lights and sirens.

I've watched cops flip on their lights and immediately do U-turns in major streets, "blip" their sirens as they run red lights, drive way over the speed limit. I know the excuse for that last one is this is the lazy way to find speeders. Drive at whatever threshold over the speed limit where you start actually giving tickets and then anyone going faster than you gets one. But that doesn't change that it is dangerous in some areas.

The whole idea of it being legal with the lights/siren on is

• the assumption the cop is on his way to an emergency call, not just cruising around.
  
• That they are driving towards a destination and so have had them on for awhile, so you see the lights/siren and have time to get out of their way.

Flipping them on six feet before you pull a maneuver is not fair warning. It's called CYA if you get in a wreck so you can just lie and say you were answering a call.

Police? Law?

[Catbeller]

We're happily building a police state that will be nearly unkillable. But, remember kids: Police states are run for the benefit of the police -- and whoever their bosses are. The police and their bosses will never, ever be subject to the same surveillance YOU will endure all the days of your life. It's a mook's game. Don't cave into the hive mind: security is not more important than freedom.

And it's not like you all spend your days in Baghdad, anyway. What do you need all that security for? You're being conned.

Re:Unbiased? I think not.

[JonathanR]

So you've made it quite obvious that you are able to recognise this situation as a hazard. Now all you need is the ability to drive at a speed appropriate to those conditions.

Re:Well, within reason? Sure.

[lawpoop]

What about a situation where a cop has to tail a suspect or catch up with him without alerting him to his presence? Clicking on the siren would blow his cover. I live in a somewhat rough neighborhood and I don't like giving up the element of surprise. I've seen cops roll up on a situation and all parties involve freeze. I've heard cops coming from blocks away, siren blaring and lights brazing, and somehow when they arrive on the scene, nobody is there.

Re:Camerals not allowed in Minnesota

[Anonymous Coward]

Innocent until proven guilty.

If the state wants to convict you for a crime (which is what such a fine is, it's just an extremely minor crime) then they need to prove you committed it. Proving your car committed it is not enough, because somebody else could have been driving. It's not up to the owner of the car to prove who was driving, it's up to the state to prove this.

Switch the scenario a bit: your car is observed fleeing the scene of a murder. You're hauled in on murder charges because you own the car. But, you protest, you weren't driving the car. Fine, they say, so tell us who was and we'll let you go.

This is pretty obviously absurd for the one case, and that should transfer to the other case. It's not your responsibility to solve crimes you're accused of committing.

Re:Unbiased? I think not.

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

2.4 seconds is what someone standing on the side of the road with a video camera can measure by counting the frames.

Am I missing something? Why couldn't someone on the side of the road measure the frequency by using, say, a stopwatch?

"Driver in front never at fault" laws

[tlambert]

"Driver in front never at fault" laws are plan stupid.

Utah has such a law, and I was ticketed there (maybe 16 years ago?) for rear-ending someone; so to answer your question:

"So who the fuck else could it be that was at fault? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy? The devil made me do it? I have a really hard time believing that you seriously mean that it's the driver in the front cars fault that somebody decides to run into him."

It was the fault of the asshole in front of me with the broken brake lights who didn't maintain his vehicle.

I.e.: the guy in front.

I still got the ticket, because that's the law (the officer had no choice), but I was able to fight (and win) in court as a result.

But it cost me the use of the bailment I had to pay until the court heard the case, the use of my vehicle and the cost of a rental car while the case was pending (the insurance would not pay for repairs or a rental if I was at fault), and a day in court -- all over a ticket which should never have been issued to me, but for the utterly stupid law.

-- Terry

Serves them right

[guruevi]

They should pull cops over too for speeding. They pull me for doing a little over the limit on the 65mph highway, then I see them speeding by going at least 90mph in a 55mph zone (Buffalo, NY for example) whilst talking on their cell phone, no emergency either because they're just doing rounds on the highway pulling over people that are going 60mph.

I know cops are exempt from the cell phone law, but there is no reason they should be allowed going high speeds in a non-emergency situation calling their girlfriend, or rather anyone that hasn't have to do with the job.

Re:The police need to be exempt or nothing gets do

[British]

-A poster pointed out that cops don't always signal. This is probably true, have you ever tried to talk on a radio, usually to both a dispatcher and other units, type a plate into a mobile terminal, and drive at the same time? A cop must do this all at the same time even while on normal patrol. At some point, a cop is going to have to make a decision whether he can safely execute a maneuver without signaling or he is going to be task saturated.

Considering us civilians are under scrutiny for talking on our cellphones + driving, cops shouldn't be trying to one-up that. That's going to get them into an accident. They should pull over.

Re:Unbiased? I think not.

[WrongMonkey]

Because I really do care about people's lives (I've lost too many friends and family to careless drivers), I'm going to reply one more time and I'll try to be as clear as possible.
A safe distance between you and the car in front of you is the distance at which (1) you can anticipate the traffic conditions that could require you to respond (2) give you enough time to respond safely. It doesn't matter if its 1/2 a car length or 10 car lengths. There is no set rule. I don't know why you say 2 car lengths when we've made no assumptions about speed or driving conditions. City driving could reasonably mean anywhere from stop-and-go to 45 mph.
The hidden assumption in your case seems to be that traffic coming the other way is at a full stop when the light changes and will wait for both the semi and you to run a red light. Let's assume that there is no traffic stopped at the light when it turns green, but there is another driver half a block away travelling at 35 mph. That driver will see the light turn to green, see that the semi will be through the intersection before they arrive, and that driver continues at 35 mph. But wait! you're following two car lengths behind! Even if the other driver slams on their brakes as soon as they see you, there won't be enough time. You get completely side swiped and its entirely your fault! Let's hope you don't have passengers.
Does this seem contrived? It isn't, I've seen an accident almost exactly like this happen at 1 am, (I was walking at the time and not involved). Fortunately, everyone was wearing seatbelts and noone was hurt.
BTW, I'm a bit upset that you would jump to the conclusion that I love authoritarianism. At what point did I support traffic cameras? I was just trying to point out a common misconception about safe driving. Anyway, this has gotten severely off-topic.