Slashdot Mirror
Cities View Red Light Cameras As Profit Centers
Houston 2600 writes "Chicago could rake in 'at least $200 million' a year — and wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009 — by using its vast network of redlight and surveillance cameras to hunt down uninsured motorists, aldermen were told today. The system pitched to the City Council's Transportation Committee by Michigan-based InsureNet would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists. That's already happening daily in 13 states, but not here."
Solution: Create more laws for people to break.
It's "safe to drive in Denver now"? Red light cameras have been shown to increase the number of accidents at intersections.
...in your mad dash to be first post?
Summary says: "...to hunt down uninsured motorists"
I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists.
No sig today...
Snellville, GA did the same thing and it really pisses me off. I wouldn't mind them taking the cameras down for legal or ethical issues but to take them down because they're working? That's almost as bad as the politicians complaining that tax revenue gained from tobacco sales is down because the increased taxes are actually getting people to stop or at least cut down on smoking (which was the stated purpose of such taxes in the first place).
In other words, the system worked so they are getting rid of it.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Some suburbs of Atlanta are considering the same thing, since the state government passed a law lengthening yellow times for 1 second. It turns out that actually giving people enough time to react to the yellow decreases the number who end up running the red! Gee, who'da thunk it?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You can't get blood from a turnip. Much of that money will not appear as the uninsured motorists have no money. It may be great for enforcing the law and getting them off of the road but not a great source of income.
Coding Blog
What could be smarter than a tax on broke people?
Coding Blog
Wouldn't there be an ungodly number of false positives from a system like this?
... would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists.
So the system would scan a license plate, see if it appears on the list of insured motorists and, if it doesn't, then fire off the ticket/fine? They would be basing this scheme on the absence of information?
For many reasons, that just doesn't seem right.
They may not have money, but they have a vehicle. Confiscate it.
What would Lemmy do?
Screw uninsured motorists, IMO. If you can't afford compulsory insurance, you can't afford to drive, period. Take the bus. I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects minorities, if they are the ones disproportionately breaking the law.
This is a good use for traffic cameras, much better than for catching red light running or speeding, because there's always room for subjective calls on what was safe under the particular circumstance of the infraction. If you are uninsured, that is just a fact and you should not be on the road in the first place. End of story.
I agree that this probably isn't much of a revenue stream, since if you can't afford insurance you probably can't afford the fine.
They actually tried doing that down here in New Orleans...back before Katrina. The measure got thrown out as that it was branded a 'racist' ordinance. That just blew me away. I don't care what color you are, if you can't afford to have lawful insurance on the car, you shouldn't be driving one. A car costs money (fuel, repair and insurnace)...if you can't afford one, don't drive one.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Remember this: In Chicago, when Mayor Daley announces that city government will be downsizing, and therefore laying off or firing from various departments, there is one office that never downsizes: The Dept. of Revenue (notorious as the issuers and collectors of many forms of tickets/citations).
My recommendation if you're visiting Chi and are not familiar with the city: if in downtown, park in a garage, forget about parking on the street. Also, read every sign on the same side of the street within a block of where you park.
This means that:
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
2. Case B is RARE. In fact, it happens so rarely that it is never profitable. The cost to install and maintain the red light camera always exceeeds the number of tickets you get waiting for case b.
3. This means that in order for red light cameras to be profitable, the lights they are installed in must be poorly timed.
pre-camera, the police would fix the red light. They used to do examine the red light timing every time they gave a ticket. Post camera, they pay a camera company to deal with the light - both the camera and the red light timing. Surprise, surprise, they don't fix the light's timing. If they do, the camera ceases to be profitable - and the company goes out of business. --------------
I don't like speed cameras because I think they subvert the justice system - but at least they don't cause accidents.
The lights slowly become badly timed, creating more tickets - and more deadly accidents.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
OTOH, don't accidents that take place with the front/back of one car meeting the front/back of another car tend to be far less dangerous than a T-bone? Mostly because of the extra crumple zone protection that is available. Before side airbags was common a number of injuries were caused by people banging their heads sideways against pillars and doors and windows. A lot of research has gone into making cars safer against the T-bone, but there's still less room for metal to give sideways...
While I'm under the poverty line, I still make sure my car insurance is kept up. Before I could afford a car, I rode the bus.
This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able. I have about as much sympathy for those folks as I do for the folks that took out mortgages they couldn't afford... or is that "discrimination against the middle class"?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.
How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.
Rarely does a single article capture so much of what is wrong with a culture. We have:
- Broken window
- Excessive fines
- Government corruption/collusion with private businesses
- Legislated business models
- Original sin as defined by the One True Authority. And, of course, only they have the cure.
Disgusting if you think about it for more than 15 seconds.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
Hello. I am Mr. Reality Check. Let us examine this proposal in detail.
Chicago, the shining star of all good and right, wants to install a sophisticated network of cameras to (a) track every motor vehicle in operation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, (b) record the license plate tag, location, and time of motor vehicle operation, and (c) cross reference the license plate tag information with a comprehensive insurance coverage database in in order to (d) send out $500 citations via mail to potential offenders.
Unfortunately, this system is not realistic and poses some massive privacy concerns. While it may be feasible to create the network of cameras described in (a), it is substantially difficult with current technology to implement the optical character recognition required to implement part (b). Furthermore, the privacy implications of tracking every motor vehicle in the Chicago Metropolitan Area are enormous. This network would take public surveillance to United Kingdom levels.
Assuming that (a) and (b) were implemented successfully, there are major jurisdictional and scale issues with (c). In order to assure a minimum of false positives, the State of Illinois would have to implement a comprehensive insurance-to-registration tag database that would be automatically updated by the insurance companies within seconds of issuing or changing a policy. The cost of this type of project are enormous. The coordination of all involved stakeholders is extremely difficult given the various processing cycles, business policies, cross jurisdictional politics, and potential for error. There is also problems with the handling out of state registration tags. The system must be able to effectively deal with the tags of every state in the United States. If this system only processes Illinois residents, there may be some serious constitutional repercussions under Amendment 14 (equal protection of the law).
Finally, after gathering the data in (a), processing the information in (b) and (c), we get to the collections portion of the process, (d). Now, assuming for the moment that this system works and is accurate, we can now send citations to every uninsured vehicle driving on the road way. However, since most citations carry the weight of a parking ticket, most people tend to ignore them. Since these uninsured motorists usually (i) can not afford the cost of insurance or (ii) do not want to pay for insurance, it is logical to conclude that they will not pay for their automated traffic violations. While the "more than $200 million" figure is impressive, I would be even more impressed if they managed to collect 10% of that number.
In conclusion, this system will not work. It is technologically, politically, fiscally, and logistically unfeasible given today's technology and political climate.
This is Mr. Reality Check and I am signing out.
-Valen
Pardon the confusion, but you said:
Do I drive more carefully when I need to "stay beneath the radar?" Yes, I am always aware of my illegal status.
Makes sense, but then you said:
Licenses and insurance do not necessarily make for safer streets.
Not to play the part of Captain Obvious, but even if you DON'T have insurance, you know you SHOULD, and so drive with more care. The little piece of paper may not change your habits itself, but the thought of it does...
Personally, I like the German system {as I remember it circa '82}. State-sponsored driver's ed, around $700.... MANDATORY. You lose your license? You go back to driver's ed. Driving wasn't seen as a "right" as perceived in many places; it was seen as a privilege and responsibility. Man, I miss the Autobahn.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
I don't even think Rand, in even her most paranoid fantasies, ever imagined that the government would last long enough to achieve the level of corruption required to add ambiguity to laws against running red lights.
And yet, here we are.
Did you stop before the line and make a right turn on the red light?
Did you stop after the line and make a right turn on the red light?
Did you not come to a complete stop and make a right turn on the red light?
Funny, the pictures don't seem to tell the difference. Here's one of your car before the line. Here's one of your car partway over the line. Here's one of your car over the line.
Sure, we could build a camera that captured video instead of stills, which would unambiguously (or at least, to within one frame of animation) answer the question of whether (and where) you stopped, but that might exonerate you. Sorry, but all we can "afford" is this still-camera system that takes pictures once every second.
The point still stands - if you can afford a car, you can afford to insure it - simple as that. Liability insurance is all that's needed to keep legal, and when talking liability only, car insurance is pretty cheap. I've seen prices the neighborhood of $25-30 per month if you're a safe driver. If you "need the car for work" then you obviously have some source of income and that is part of your required bills. End of story. It's as much required as the gas you need to fuel that car. If you DON'T need it for work, then take the insurance off and park the car - you've got more important things to pay for anyways.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Mayor Daley has stated Chicago has a goal of putting a camera on every street corner. Obviously there are not now cameras on every street corner, which means that red light cameras cannot even catch all the uninsured drivers; they can, at best, deter uninsured drivers from taking routes that would pass red light cameras that might report them. Being uninsured doesn't necessarily mean poverty - they just might not be able to pay for insurance because of a previous accident or number of outstanding moving violations - but it does mean that more people will likely be driving through the neighborhoods and staying off the thoroughfares. I anticipate this will lead to a significant increase in pedestrian fatalities particularly affecting the elderly and the young.
g=
Speed traps as profit centers are ridiculous, too. A speed trap almost always means your speed limit is too low.
Sorry, no sympathy from me. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Vehicle crashes in the US kill more people monthly than all of the September 11th attacks combined.
An automated system that extracts money from red light runners and speeders? I can't think of anything better unless it also gives back rubs.
At what point will people wake up and start attacking these devices?
There is a light bulb within 50' of the ground.
There is a camera within 20' of the ground.
If they are going to have a policeman sitting there 24/7 to protect the device it takes away the profit and purpose of the devices.
I'm for stopping red light running- and it has been *repeatedly* shown that raising the yellow light duration by 1 seconds stops 99% of red light running. In cities with cameras they have been *repeatedly* caught lowering the yellow light duration to force more violations.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Can we? Can we PLEASE?
I'm a lifelong pedestrian. Running red lights, gunning it on yellow, and the Pittsburgh left don't bother me. What bugs me is the endless supply of $%$#%@! who stop at a red light ON THE CROSSWALK, instead of at the line well behind it. This behavior forces those of us who are on foot to either walk behind the offender, or worse (when the offender realizes their mistake, tries to back up, and the car behind them just Does Not Care), walk out into traffic.
Find a way to ticket THESE idiots for being a public nuisance. You'll make the pedestrians happy and you'll be rolling in dough. :P
The real solution is to have decent public transit then, not allow selfish assholes to drive uninsured!
Of course, racists oppose public transit too (can't let the <euphemism>undesirable element</euphemism> get into the white areas of town...).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I don't agree with much of what she said, but this has a certain ring of truth to it.
carpool lanes HA! what are these things you speak of?!
/. members is what is the true problem with America.
seriously, It is real easy to sit back and brainstorm ideas, but for the 6 months I was driving with out insurance I tried all of your ideas, the problem is that people are so afraid of the people living near them being serial killers out to rape and pillage more then the Vikings could ever hope to do, they they refuse to help anybody.
(thank you over hyped news stories)
That my fellow
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
I'm insured. I drive lots of cars. Not all are registered to me but my insurance policy covers me when I'm driving them. How will the state ever link the status of my insurance to some unknown vehicle plate?
Have gnu, will travel.
For some, "take the bus" means losing 4 hours a day for what would be a 30-minute trip. That's 4 hours they can use to hold down a 2nd job or be their for their children.
For others who live in cities without mass transit, "take the bus" means moving.
Did you know there it at least one city in America with over 1/3 of a million residents but no public transit system?
What part of this justifies allowing uninsured drivers on the road?
None of it. You may not think this is an important issue right now, but once you or someone you car about has been injured or had their car destroyed by some uninsured idiot, you do.
If you want to rant about the lack of useful public transportation, fair enough, but the GP was correct in saying that uninsured motorists cannot afford the price of being road users, and they unfairly burden the majority of road users who do obey the law and conscientiously maintain liability insurance on their vehicles.
Why should we pay for the cost of someone else's inability to insure their car? I assert that we should not, and that they should not be on the road.
If you think about it, if they sold their (uninsured) car and moved someplace where they could use public transportation, they'd probably be ahead. They'd no longer be paying for registration, fuel or parking, and they'd never get a traffic ticket or risk being cited for not having insurance (an automatic $500 fine where I live - I pay less than $500 for a year's insurance on one of my cars). Sounds like a pretty good deal.
Putting moderation advice in your
While I agree, that's easier said than done in some places. Take a look at the Gwinnett County, GA bus system. (Sorry, I looked for an overall map showing all routes at once but couldn't find one.) Now, imagine you live in Snellville. What bus would you take, pray tell?
And keep in mind that this is not a rural area. It's a suburb of Atlanta with a fairly large overall population, very heavy traffic, and a high concentration of the sort of people (particularly illegal immigrants) who don't have car insurance.
(As an aside, the reason this situation is such a clusterfuck is that the white middle-class residents of Gwinnett have consistently voted against joining MARTA ever since the 70s, in a futile attempt to keep the black people out.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Actually, the Sun Times FA emphasized the revenue issue too. Though I do agree that cracking down on uninsured motorists is a worthy goal.
That's the problem: instead of generating revenue, the system will probably just improve compliance. So much for ending Chicago's deficit. But also so much for the usual "red light camera" outrage.
Which really, really irritates me. People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders and red light racers kill people, they spout conspiracy theories about doctored cameras and shortened yellow lights.
Meanwhile, it's not safe to cross the street where I live. (And no, it's not suitable for a speed bump.) People's ability to rationalize bad driving is really evil.
Public transit in America is a joke. All the fees and costs that go along with having a car might make sense in a world where it was practical not to have one. But, my tax dollars go to create infrastructure and city planning that assumes everybody has a car. In many places it is simply impossible to live near where you work because there isn't anything zoned residential within several miles. And, not even all government offices are particularly accessible by public transit. If you eventually give up on the bus and decide to get a car, there is a very real chance that you'll need somebody to drive you to the appropriate offices.
I'm with the insurance companies in this case.
Imagine: you get hit by an uninsured motorist, and wind up in the hospital with serious injuries, miss work, maybe lose your job, have a totaled car, and are unable to climb out physically and financially.
Maybe no one was at fault. Maybe they were. As motorists lacking insurance statistically also lack assets, responsibility for one's actions are shirked.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Your actions bear responsibilities, no matter the boorishness of insurance companies and accident litigators.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
A bold idea. And just about as efficient in fighting inflation as boiling a few thousand gallon of water from the ocean would be at fighting high tide...
Funny, the pictures don't seem to tell the difference. Here's one of your car before the line. Here's one of your car partway over the line. Here's one of your car over the line.
Answer to that: I don't make right turns on red anymore at intersections that are monitored by red light cameras. I also don't spend money in municipalities that think it's a good idea to put up red light cameras.
At some point, people are going to need to just start smashing security cameras simply as a statement against monitoring.
This is my sig.
statistically, most drivers would be better off skipping any extra insurance and using some of the money to keep an emergency fund from which to pay for unforeseen repairs.
Repairing bodywork on your car in one thing; getting bodywork done on your flesh-and-blood rig is significantly more expensive.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Like so many different 'rights', the right to drive is one that's seemingly presumed. The right to free association and travel are guaranteed. The method of travel, however, is not. You did not have the right to fly, either. That's why the TSA can bounce you for non-cooperation at an airport.
So far as I know, in all 50 states, driving is a privilege. When you meet the tests of a driver's license, now required in all 50 states, you can 'legally' drive subject to your behavior and insurance (although insurance is state-dependent, not a federal requirement).
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If you don't agree with Ayn you are a criminal. However, don't worry. Instead of jail time, you just have to pay a fine.
Hey, life isn't always convenient. I can't pass the vision test to drive; I don't get to say "yeah, but the public transportation is awful, so let me drive anyway." If you don't meet the requirements to drive (which include having the financial means to carry insurance so others are covered for any harm you might cause), you don't get to drive. It's that simple.
Your quotation is specious. You do have the right to walk, and travel freely. You don't have the right to drive a motorized vehicle.
That's funny, your LOGIC is specious. If the government is permitted to prevent you from one mode of travel then it logically follows that it has the right to prevent you from using any mode of travel and therefore there is no such thing as the right to travel freely.
Furthermore, if you engage in an activity that has the potential to cause you serious bodily harm, then it is up to you to prepare for that possibility. Driving should be no different in that regard - no amount of enforcement will ever prevent uninsured drivers from driving so you will ALWAYS be at risk of having an accident involving one. Thus the responsibility for caring for yourself rests on yourself alone. If you don't want to buy enough insurance to cover catastrophic accidents, then so be it. But don't pretend that instituting a big brother system is going fix the problem and relieve you of the duty of taking responsibility for your own well being.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Insurance is just part of owning a vehicle. If you dont want to insure it, dont drive.
Do you also believe that you shouldn't have to pay for gas?
Yeah, that's it. I'll just ignore the fact that I work until 12AM, and the buses stop running at 10. Whatever floats your boat though, I'm not in the mood to argue with idiots who stick to a "My way is best and everyone else should follow it!" ideology.
it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able
That's not always true, and I'd go so far as to speculate it probably isn't even usually true. A lot of them probably had cars when they could afford it, then fell on hard times, and still have the car.
I'm a decent example. When I left my parents' house at 19, I had an old 1986 Volvo, then a fourteen-year-old car -- a total beater, but it worked. The only place I could afford was on the ass-end of town with nowhere to work within walking distance and the busses were too infrequent to realistically use. So, since I had a car, I was able to get a really lame, low-paying job, but the place was far enough that driving there was the only option.
Being young and stupid and poor, I drove uninsured for much of the time. I felt I didn't have a choice -- I couldn't afford insurance (especially at the rates they charge young males), but I had to get to work somehow. Even looking back, the only "option" I can see was maybe quitting my job, getting an even lower-paying job at the Wendy's three miles away, and somehow scraping together enough money to get a bike. With the reduction in income there I'd never have been able to pull myself out.
The point is, having a car and being poor doesn't mean one purchased a car one couldn't afford; this isn't analogous to the idiots extending credit they don't have to buy houses they can't afford.
And in many ways, the current traffic laws are discriminatory against the poor: Even a simple, non-moving violation can run a few hundred dollars, which is disasterous for someone who can barely afford rent. Yet someone pulling in six figures gets charged the exact same amount for that same violation, and it's practically pocket change to them.
If the point is deterrence, then the fine should scale to the person's income. A $200 dollar ticket would ruin many low-income people, and be barely noticed by someone more wealthy. Of course, many higher-income types can afford a lawyer for an hour to get the ticket reduced or thrown out entirely before it ever goes to court -- an option poor people don't have, and there are no court-appointed attorneys during the pre-trial shenanigans in traffic court.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Funny, but that is a link to a blog. I followed the link to his source and it said nothing about lengthening the yellow reducing red light running, but did say that in Aurora red light running went down while rear end collisions went up, apparently because people were stopping but the people behind them were paying more attention to the light than the vehicle in front of them. The number of those collisions went down when the yellow was extended.
Seems like your link supports the claim that the yellow light time was increased, but then fails to link the reduction in red light running to said increase. The link appears to state that the cameras do in fact reduce red right light running, which is the exact opposite of the GPP.
In other words, you have just proven the GPP is incorrect and that you are both wrong.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
And if you live somewhere with no busses or other public transit?
We all went through that time when insurance was insanely high due to age and income. We all managed to get through it. Why can't you? Also, what will you say when another uninsured motorist hits your car, totals it, and puts you in the hospital for 2 weeks? "Oh, it's ok, he has to work until 12AM so I'll just pay my own bills" ?? Put a little effort into it. You will find a way.