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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.