Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Red-light cameras don't take into account that there are good reasons to run through red lights. Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time. What if there is rain or snow on the ground? 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.
At least if a human cop sees you run a red light for a reason, you can explain that to him and he can let you go. The cameras are unforgiving. They are totally biased, because they assume if the camera catches you, you are in the wrong. That's not always the case.
Here in Iowa, red light cameras have been shut down because the courts ruled they were illegal. The story can be found here. There is even a proposal to ban all camera-based ticketing in the state.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
One night I was coming home late and stopped at a Red light. A police car pulled up opposite me waited a moment then hit his lights and ran the light. He immediately turned them off and sped up. I was young and stupid so I pulled a U-turn and followed him. He was definitely speeding and all my youthful angst was sure he was just in a hurry to get home everyone else is.
He was pretty far ahead of me when he turned off the road. I turned into the neighborhood that he'd gone into. I spotted three stopped cop cars, lights off, parked on the street. I didn't know what to think when finally saw the cops.
One was carrying an M-16 and the other two were armed with shotguns, I saw them doing quick hand signals before darting off into the neighborhood in opposite directions.
I kept on driving and decided it was better not to worry too much about the cops pulling privilege because, at least in this case, they had a good reason.
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.
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.
Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
However, in the course of a disagreement between Scottsdale and the State, use of the cameras to generate citations was stopped but the data was still collected for analysis by a local professor. It seems that during that time, a lot of law-enforcement cruisers were caught going far over the limit without lights, etc.
On top of that (IIRC) there was a wreck a bit ago involving a private vehicle and law enforcement; needless to say, the private driver was cited by the cop. Said private driver's attorney subpoena'd the speed cameras and guess what?
I've also heard of other cities where the red-light cameras where police involved in wrecks at intersections wrote up the other party only to have the camera results subpoena'd and turn the tables. Fine by me -- a red-light camera would have saved me a lot of time and expense several years ago.
IMHO you can argue speed cameras either way but red lights should just plain have recorders, period.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I live in Dallas currently, and let me say, these cameras are starting to go up everywhere, at just about every single light in the city. And Dallas, especially around the downtown area, lights are designed to make you want to run them. There's a set of lights on Commerce St that all match, except one, in the middle, so you can typically breeze halfway through most of them and then you have to wait, can go one, and have to wait for that one then you can finish. It's ridiculous, it's a tiny street never used by anybody, and if they are they have to turn onto Commerce(one way, 3 point intersection).
There's lots of other places, recent construction has literally removed some intersections, but not the lights, which are left running just as before(some with extended hours! Typically blink yellow after 9, but not anymore). Although, I seriously run them and they haven't put cameras up there yet and I would argue and drag it out long enough to make a police officer regret stopping me, but I have seen others stopped because of it. The lights going into downtown(mainly Elm and Main) are typically tuned so you're going to just miss each one and have to wait the full length of time to go, or buses are everywhere and because of continuing construction have to block all traffic going in a certain direction, as the bus lane is now a construction lane. It's quite aggravating and these traffic cams are an insult to everyone in Dallas, "We don't have good roads or a decent traffic system but we'll ticket you for it!" and probably an insult just about everywhere else in the country. I can see reasons, especially at dangerous lights, and I hate to defend myself, but a 3 mile trip shouldn't be 20-30 minutes because of 8 traffic lights(typically having to wait twice at two of them because of some additional not syncing up on cross streets). Fix the system first where running a light is trying to be a bastard instead of trying to go to the grocery store, then let's put them at dangerous intersections and highway/feeder type intersections, and let's go from there.
That being said, and the cameras not about to go anywhere, I find it quite fabulous that an officer is being forced to pay. We had a whole spat of police fired within the past two years because of unpaid traffic fines in different cities and counties and this just adds to the fun. Of course we're completely understaffed, have a terrible corrupt staff, and a high crime rate by police officers who will not look at anything except a speeder. I actually went to report a break in of a car(that was happening at that exact moment) and an office told me he needs to steal the car and speed or he won't care. Then they tried to beat up on our Derby Girls! C'mon! That's just low.
>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?
:)
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 (except when purposely and safely plowing stopped vehicles out of the way). He also has no tickets or criminal record, ever (most ambulance services are careful to verify this) and, one must assume, is therefore capable of following the law.
Which is all to say that, no, they don't endanger the lives of others at the expense of their passenger because they are specially trained not to. And no, you can't take those courses and have a perfect license and violate traffic laws because violating them causes chaos. Chaos that is acceptable to save a life, if it is controlled and safe. Chaos like that is NOT acceptable because you a late for work. I suppose if you took those courses and had the appropriate safety gear on your car (like lights and siren and special brakes and engine) AND you were transporting a nearly dead passenger, yeah, that would be ok. But that's not your plan, is it?
All emergency vehicle drivers are required by their training to slow down at a red light. They are required to slow down to a very slow rate of speed (15-25), make sure it is safe to go through, then blow through it.
Only the most anal actually do it, but they're required to nonetheless. My best friend's dad is incredibly anal and I felt very safe when I got stuck in the car with him travelling at high rates of speeds on an emergency call (bad car wreck). He definitely lost time at lights, but he didn't accidentally kill anyone.
-- What did Spock find in Kirk's toilet? The captain's log.
I have some data.
First, a friend of mine was stopped at a red light on Market street in San Francisco. It was near some theaters, so the light may have been hard to pick out among all the neon, but SHE saw it and stopped.
A moment later, she was rear-ended by a cop who saw neither the light nor her ENTIRE CAR. He started backing up, taking her bumper with him, then started forward, but stopped short of ramming her again.
When she got out and told him to call the police, he said, "I'm the police." She called bullshit on him and said he was not going to investigate his own accident.
Another friend was slowing down in the right-hand lane, turning into a burger place. He also was rear-ended by a cop with no lights or siren. The cop tried the "silent response" trick on him. Again, the cop was told he was not going to investigate his own accident and had to comply.
The really moronic part is that, even if lights and siren had been going, my friend was already in the curb lane and would not have been obliged to drive up onto the sidewalk to get out of the cop's way.
Amen, brother!
From my perspective, the worst thing about red light cameras is that there's no human entity there to accuse you of committing a crime.
If I go to court over one of these tickets, aren't I entitled to face my accuser? Obviously, I can't question the box that took my picture, so it's my word against whose exactly? The manufacturer? The guy who periodically calibrates the device? Or is it just assumed that the machine is infallible and no argument on my part is necessary or worthy of consideration?
It just seems that red light cameras subvert some of my fundamental rights as a citizen, and the local governments are willing to be complicit in that because the cameras generate bigtime revenue.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I just slow down for tailgaters. If the tailgater was a cop, I'd pull to the right and then slow down. If the cop kept tailgating I would pull over completely as though he had ordered me to. If instead of just passing by, he stopped to check me out, I'd explain that I assumed because he was tailing me so closely he meant to stop me. I'd be really straightforward and unpleasant but without implying that the tailgating was *wrong*, just that I took it as an authoritative act.
I have often gotten very far with police by affirming, as opposed to challenging their authority. At times, you can put an authority person into a complicated position by behaving as though you believe they have much more authority than they do -- for them, it becomes a challenge between asserting authority that they lack (which is a no-no for them), and admitting to you that their authority is limited.
On the other hand, the magic words have gotten action many times: "I realize you don't have the authority to tell that guy to move his car, but it sure is a nuisance that it's in the middle of the park", (and so on.)
But then, I have never had a police car tailgate me, unless it was moments before turning on the lights to pull me over for my expired plate.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Lights and sirens can "tip off" a bad guy.
Wild ass guess but I think 99% of the "police deterent" should be presence. Undercover and discrete work should not be for blanket protection, but for isolated specific instances.
An example. In Northern VA, the HOV lanes are patrolled by many non marked cars. Having an unmarked car is not a benefit in anyone in this situation. You are stuck on the HOV lanes with no way off, marked or not, the cop will see you without the required number of passengers in your car. Think about this situation. If all of the cops were marked, the people that do slip by without being noticed would see all of the cops that actually patrol that area and may not try to use the HOV lanes illegally next time.
On more thing with HOV in northern VA, the HOV are also packed with people or "police" commuting back and forth to DC for work, it seems if you have a blue light in your dash, you are exempt from the rules. Those people are not on active duty, they are going to DC for work in their personal cars with a fu*king light placed in the dash. Yes, in theory, they could be called to duty at any time but they can take the regular lanes like everyone else.
I think that most people would agree that a warrant, properly issued by a judge, is a compelling reason for police to break the laws aginst breaking and entering. (Or rather, the probable cause which leads to the warrant being issued is the compelling reason; the warrant is the law's certification that such a reason exists.) But GP is spot on -- without such reasons (warrants for entering people's homes, 911 calls for running through red lights, etc.) police have to obey the law like everybody else. In fact, I would argue that police, on or off duty, but especially on, who break the law should be punished more harshly than regular folks. Same for judges, DA's, and others* whose duty it is to enforce the law. Quis custodiet ipso custodes -- if the people who are watching the rest of us aren't watched themselves, they turn into the most dangerous kind of criminal.
*There is one individual who, in the US system, is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of Federal law. When that individual breaks the law in a way which leads to the death of others, the penalties should be the harshest which the law can inflict. But that's a whole 'nother argument waiting to happen.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
FWIW, if you have a critically wounded person in your car usually you do not receive a ticket.
One of three things usually happens:
Most common: Officer calls for an ambulance, you follow to the hospital (though without breaking any more laws).
Second: Officer moves victim to squad car, bolts to hospital. You follow, again, without breaking any more traffic laws.
Third: Officer says "oh shit" and gives you a red& blue escort to the hospital.
I've encountered the first and third personally. Both times I was the driver, neither time was I cited for obvious traffic violations.
-nB
If you're interested, one was a crossbow bolt that may have ruptured the femoral artery (that's the escort one, as moving the person seemed to be the greater risk, the other incident was a displaced fracture of the forearm.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Which is why the state laws are written to keep this kind of hooliganism down and hopefully prevent these accidents.
Of course, that depends on the police having to police themselves, and that often just doesn't happen because of the bullshit "brotherhood" thing.
Case in point - I have a friend of mine whose husband is a cop. A few years ago, she was out driving drunk with her pre-school daughter in the car (as she'd done a few times before and for which she'd gotten a bitching at from me) and got pulled over. She told the cop that pulled her over who her husband was. The officer on the scene called the husband on his cell phone (to keep it off the radio logs) and he came to the scene. End result - he took her home in his squad car, dropped her off, and picked up a friend to get her car - no ticket, no real consequences at all. A few weeks later, she was out driving loaded again (with the kid again, no less) and totalled the car (thankfully no one was hurt), but she spent a week in jail because *that* time it was in another jurisdiction and the cop that responded was actually looking out for the public's safety, followed the law, and told her husband to kiss off when he tried to get him to drop the charges. Even though she's my friend, I personally think she should have gone to jail for the first offense, and gone for a time long enough for her to understand the seriousness of it - more than the piddling week she got for the second one. I also think every cop involved in the first offense (her husband included) should face sanctions for their actions - no regular citizen would have been afforded the courtesy of being let go, and it's clearly not in the public's best interest to be letting drunk drivers off without charging them.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
This might sound naive, but don't the cameras also photograph the light to show that it was red at the time? Or do they just photograph the plate, assuming the light was red?
I would be more comfortable if the photo showed a car actually running a red light, photoshoping notwithstanding.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I hear that.
Police and corrections officers are almost never charged (much less convicted and sentenced) with criminal offences for brutality and other illegal things they do while on duty.
It seems that if they have a decent job working for the state, a harshly-worded letter or a disciplinary hearing is enough for them, and they may actually face some sort of a penalty (usually suspension, demotion, or in severe cases, losing their job).
Meanwhile, your average Joe does the same thing and he loses his job AND goes to jail (after which he will be unable to get a decent job ever again).
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I did that once while driving home at 1 am.
I was at a red light for about 4 minutes...a long line of cars formed behind me. After 6 minutes total waiting for the light to change and NO CARS had driven by - I cautiously ran the red light.
Of course, the last car in the line behind me was a cop. He acted pissed off at me. I explained to him that I had been sitting at the light for 6 minutes (I had listened to 2 songs on the radio!) - and he didn't give a shit.
I asked him how long I'm supposed to wait until I determine the light is not functioning as it should - and he said "If it's red you don't proceed."
What an asshole - just like a politician - completely avoids the subjectivity of reality.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
There is nothing magical about anyone who has received driving training. The vast majority of trainees in any driving class won't make any noticeable long term improvement in there driving skills. The biggest thing we work on in law enforcement driving training is undoing the plethora of bad habits and incorrect attitudes that they have. A major stumbling block is that there is a tendency for policemen to have a somewhat inflated ego. Basically lots of them got into the business because it gave them guns, badges, etc... And it gave them Control. The ego needs to be worked out of a lot of them so they can open their minds to learn and be safer.
Ambulance drivers aren't given "Go Fast" training in any part of the country that I am aware of. As a rule of thumb they aren't allowed to pass ANY moving traffic on the right. They will only pass on the left. I have never heard of one speeding or even progressing quickly into an intersection on a red light. If you watch they tend to slow to less then 10 miles an hour and carefully inspect an intersection before sticking their nose out.
Police officers tend to be much more aggressive. It is never publicized but their vehicle attrition rate is amazing. (If you know someone working at a body shop with a police contract ask them!) If any group of people had the accident rate of police officers on duty they would never be able to get insurance. Police are just as likely to get distracted and sloppy about their driving as any other person but they are put in situations where they are encouraged to drive much more aggressively then the average driver. Driving training doesn't do anything magical for them either. Most people don't have any gift for driving. That goes for the police too. They do have some misconceptions trained out of them and they have actually practiced car control but it doesn't really do anything to make them 'special drivers'.
The biggest problem I see with police and driving is that they aren't subject to the traffic laws that the rest of us are even when they are off duty. Ask one of them about it. They will give you a story about "how they are always on call to backup any other law enforcement officer at any time and if they were to give each other tickets that would reduce their trust and reliance on one another".
What a load of horse dookey.
So their reason for letting each other get away with ignoring the laws that they enforce on us is that they are so childish that they wouldn't help an officer in need if they had received a ticket from them? My god, just spouting that kind of stupidity should be grounds for immediate termination.
Unless they are willing to follow the laws they have no business enforcing them.
BTW - The law does say that if they are running lights/siren/etc in the line of duty they can enter intersections against a red light and ignore other traffic laws. That is how it should be but if they collide with someone who has a green light it IS the officer's fault.