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.
...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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wish I lived where you live.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.
It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).
It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).
Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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
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
I don't agree with much of what she said, but this has a certain ring of truth to it.
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.
People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution.
When was the last time you could cross-examine a camera?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.