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."
because of the DROP in revenue. People weren't running enough red lights to pay for the system any more.
I am not left-handed, either!
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
But boy is it safe to drive in Denver now. That's the problem with cities getting greedy, they don't see the positive side of their efforts.
Ahh, sorry, I have an update coming in. That should be "too bad for the motorists that Chicago is not a bastion of integrity".
You'd think more people would be worried when law enforcement is publicly billed as a revenue source.
It's why they'll never end the war on drugs or even legalize pot: the departments couldn't afford to lose all the free money they get from drug related forfeitures. And pot heads make very easy targets. Which do you think a cop would rather bust: a vegged out pot head or a well armed group of Mexicans with a meth lab in the middle of a corn field?
...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...
I still argue that installing walk/don't walk signs with a countdown that turns yellow on zero does more to discourage red light running than the cameras do. Sometimes you just don't know how long the yellow will last or how long the hand is going to blink. Using the countdown I have a decent idea from about 50 ft away and can act accordingly. I feel safer as a result and I think most people would agree.
Cities don't want this, however, because they don't like to think that something they've spent so much money on to catch "evil red light runners" doesn't serve it's purpose as well as a simple countdown.
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
I'm generally opposed to this sort of stuff, but this particular application doesn't seem so bad. Uninsured motorists are a problem for everyone. If you're going to drive a car, you should have a license and your car should be registered, insured, and inspected according to state laws. Yes, this makes money for repair shops, insurance companies, state government, and the police. However, all of this is important for having safe roads and keeping down the cost of insurance.
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?
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor. Oh wait, done and done.
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.........
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
Most of the profit centers on the internet are red light district cameras, and very few people complain. I don't see how this is any... ... oh.
Red stoplight cameras. Excuse me.
I forget where I read this, I apologize. Somewhere the High School kids figured out it would be fun to make copies of their teacher's plates and put them on another vehicle. Then they would proceed to run several red-lights with cameras. Teachers would get bill in the mail a few days later.
Conservative, mod down for violating
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.
Well, life is tough my friend. And in the US, equal opportunity, does NOT mean equal results. Things (like owning and driving a car) cost money, and you have to work to earn it. Some have to work a little harder for do to luck of the draw at birth (genetics, parental skills of parents, etc)....if you are poor and want a car, then work that extra time to educate yourself. If you blew it the first time around it was offered to you, well yes, it will take more effort when you're older, but other people have done it, and so can you.
If you cannot afford to follow the rules for a private car, they you should not have one.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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!
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=
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
While you're at it with your socialist rant, please add "everything I need to live well" to your wishlist, because in reality, that's what you're really requesting by that.
Cheating on taxes is unethical, but way more ethical than skimping on car insurance. Because you're hurting The State financially, but your the impact is so low that society as a whole can probably cope with if only some people doing this.
If you're skipping car insurance and hurt someone, you're against ONE single selected individual and you can bankrupt them for decades or the rest of their lives.
So choose if you're hurting our anonymous society a small bit or destroy one individual with name and face for the rest of their lives.
I would rather start a revolution than to ruin an innocent family, I tell you.
The city of Philadelphia does this.
If you are caught driving without insurance in the city of Philadelphia, your vehicle is confiscated ON THE SPOT, and you will walk home (or ride SEPTA, but walking may be faster/easier).
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
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.
At some point, people are going to need to just start smashing security cameras simply as a statement against monitoring.
This is my sig.
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.
Uh no. Your view is dead wrong.
Can you point me to the exact sentence in the constitution that specifically grants the government the authority to remove that right from me? Oh you can't? Then I have that right. That's how things work in a free country
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.
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.
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.
You have a right to walk upon public highways but not drive? Curious...
"Insurance Lobby figures out how to use local governments as a vehicle to sell more insurance, as well increase the premiums for existing policies....and pass on the cost of the program to the aforementioned local governments and their citizens."
Yay for us! Da economicy is saved!