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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.