Slashdot Mirror
Mississippi Passes Law To Ban Traffic Light Cameras
DaGoatSpanka writes with news that Mississippi Governer Haley Barbour signed a bill into law on Friday which instituted a ban on automated cameras that would snap pictures of motorists when they ran red lights. "The new law says the two cities that already have the cameras, Jackson and Columbus, must take them down by Oct. 1. Other cities and counties are banned from starting to use them." We've discussed situations in the past where cities looked at such cameras as "profit centers," and even tampered with their traffic light timing to catch more motorists. Now, in Mississippi, the contractors who installed the cameras are unhappy, since they received a cut of the ticket revenue generated by the cameras. However, lawmakers overwhelming voted to get rid of them (117-3 in the House, 42-9 in the Senate), because "the cameras were an invasion of privacy and their constituents thought they had been unfairly ticketed."
An elected government responding to the wishes of the electorate?
Inconceivable!!
So despite the company and local municipalities profiting from this, constituents actually made their voices heard and their representatives acted accordingly?
I am deeply confused. This is not the democracy I am used to. I'm going to have to find something else to be cynical about today.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
Mississippi a leader in something. Amazing. Way to go!
.... we don't have them around here and people run lights all the time. And I don't mean they squeak in under a yellow that turns red when they are in the middle of the intersection -- the light is red for a full second or two before they even hit the stop line.
I hate the concept of red light cameras but I'm hating the concept of being t-boned even more. If we can't have red light cameras can we at least have some fucking human enforcement of the traffic laws? There's a difference between hitting the gas to beat a yellow light and just plain ignoring the red because your selfish attitude thinks waiting 30 seconds is a worse outcome than placing other drivers at risk.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There are some reports of places with red-light-cameras having an increase in minor rear-end collisions due to people being more conservative with their entry into yellow lights, so that too needs to be balanced.
... laying down sensible rules for using these things (minimum yellow light duration, camera is only armed 1 second after red light comes on, _no sharing revenues with the manufacturer/contractor_, etc), they're banned outright?
I smell a bit of luddism here.
Haley Barbour, former head of the RNC, that is. Again, party affiliation only gets mentioned when it makes Republicans look evil or Democrats look good. Note: I don't like either party. I just find the pattern to be interesting.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
When you reward a company with money per traffic violation, obviously it will be in their interest for there to be more traffic violations. And the traffic laws are there to protect lives. Basically, governments are rewarding companies for killing people.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/602.asp
How about giving the companies a bonus relative to the decrease in the number of traffic accidents in an intersection? Now that seems smarter.
What is world coming to? Of all the places on earth, Mississippi is becoming the champion of privacy.
Next thing you are going to tell me is Hell is better place than heaven. (But I will keep away from both for right now)
I know what you mean. I commented on this the other day.
I know this goes against the general /. attitude, but I used to be against red light cameras on principle. That was before I moved to my current city and saw how people behaved. I don't think they're appropriate everywhere, but I do think that my city could certainly use them. It just depends on the location and people's behavior.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how privacy comes into play. When you are driving, you are doing it in a public place; why should there be any expectation of privacy?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
This is a timely article. The state of NH is currently considering passing a law allowing cities to put up these cameras. As usual, we're a bit behind the times.
SB 113:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/SB0113.html
I live in Fort Lauderdale. The stoplight at the exit from my neighborhood has been adjusted, just a couple weeks ago. They recently installed cameras on this intersection. The new cycle appears to be: 1 second of green, 1 second of yellow, 28 seconds of red. The main street is getting 27 seconds of green, and 1 second of yellow, and 2 seconds of red. There appears to be no overlap of the red.
The state law says the yellow must be 4 seconds, if I recall correctly. But even if the camera-tickets can be successfully challenged in court, and even if a judge eventually orders the city to change the timing, it is still tying up the traffic. And, there have been more collisions at that intersection in the last two weeks than there were in the previous 20 years.
There should be a federal law banning these cameras nationwide. Further, there should be a UN resolution imposing stiff economic sanctions on any country that uses such cameras. These cameras are a crime against humanity.
I remember being sent in the mail a photo of me running a red light from one of these traffic cameras along with a ticket. The front of my car hadn't even entered the intersection before the light was red and you could clearly see my license plate, me, and the red light in the photo. I just laughed and paid the ticket.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
I thought the reason we don't want cameras and "automated citations" was because of the fear induced in people, not knowing if they're going to get a ticket in the mail or not. If I get a traffic violation, I want to know right then and there. I want to be pulled over. I don't want to always worry, "Did I do anything wrong??", "Oh no! Was that light still yellow when I went through it? Am I going to get a ticket in the mail??"
It's enough to make a non-paranoid person paranoid!
With that law passed zillions will go to live in Mississippi causing a house price boom there. Once Gov. Haley Barbour has sold his house he will repeal the law.
I would be OK with red light traffic cameras if local municipalities could pay out of thier own pocket to install and maintain them but ALL collected fines should go to the state's general fund.
So if a city has a dangerous intersection they can pay and install the cameras, but there is no financial benefit to do so. In fact, it in my perfect world installing and operating the cametras would be a financial drain on the local municipality.
I've seen outrageous examples of red-light runners, and they do occasionally kill people, so I support the idea of the cameras, when done properly. Why don't they just pass a law that says that any government entity that is caught with a red light camera on a light where the yellow is shorter than the standards say it should be, must reimburse triple damages to all recipients of tickets, and further may be sued by those recipients for triple any increase in insurance because of the ticket? That ought make these cities proceed cautiously and correctly ;-)
Almost every study done has shown that red-light cameras increase rear-end accidents at intersections. (And every time somebody brings this up, people start complaining about who's fault it is. It doesn't matter who's fault it is.)
These things don't save lives, they make self-important people who think they're better drivers than everybody else on the road feel good. We should expect personal responsibility. We should make it more difficult to obtain a license. However, "trust, but verify" is just a diplomatic way of saying "we don't trust you at all". It should be reserved for our enemies, not for our citizens.
Besides, people who run a red light because they aren't paying attention are going to run the red whether there's a camera there or not.
... laying down sensible rules for using these things (minimum yellow light duration, camera is only armed 1 second after red light comes on, _no sharing revenues with the manufacturer/contractor_, etc), they're banned outright?
I smell a bit of luddism here.
WTF is it with you people? First, we pretty much decide here that traffic cameras are evil, Big Brother instruments dedicated to profits and intrusive government more than public safety.
But when a state actually listens to its citizens and bans the things... they're luddites?
What the hell does it take to make you people happy?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I don't intend to defend this system but they wouldn't be considered as profit centres if people didn't drive like braindead fucktards.
I am the lawn!
Here in my area they were considering installing speeding cameras but the city councils all balked once they discovered that they'd only be getting 5 cents on every dollar of ticket revenue. The rest went to the camera company. If proponents are really only worried about safety, what really works is to park an unmanned police car on the highway.
...the bills (primarily HB2106) have been meeting stiff resistance from lobbyists and a strong PR campaign from the Department of Public Service (i.e. Highway Patrol), Redflex (the company that put up our beloved freeway speed cameras) and ATS (American Traffic Solutions), which is based in Scottsdale and is growing. Certain members of the AZ state legislature recently tried to slip in an amendment that would have legalized the unexpected and unauthorized video feeds from the cameras (the 24/7 video feeds that are archived for 90 days) and it would have allowed police to use them in all criminal investigations (that amendment has since been removed).
It doesn't help that our biggest publication is also in the pro-camera lobby's pocket either, which continually publishes pro-camera fluff pieces, and it constantly trumps up a flawed poll that says that Arizonans are in favor of the cameras. (The creator of the poll: ATS. The publication has also replaced the actual questions to the poll - which were totally leading, and now only publishes an obnoxious, Powerpoint-exported, Clipart filled, document full of splashy, bright red, ominous-looking percentages).
I'm holding out hope that the bill can make it through with a GOP-controlled legislature and GOP governor (the cameras were Janet Napolitano's idea - yes, our beloved HD Secretary - you were all duped if you think she was a good choice for that role. We couldn't get her out of this state fast enough.).
No offense, Mississippi, but the fact that they can be that far ahead of my home state on such a simple-minded issue is embarrassing. Come on, Arizona - do the right thing! Don't make camerafraud.com do the heavy lifting for you!
The argument is that a cop pulling you over is a lot different than a camera snapping a picture. The slippery slope argument applies here. If we have cameras at traffic lights looking for crime, why not put cameras on all streets. Take it one step further, and why not put cameras in people's homes? If they're not breaking the law, they have nothing to fear, right? I think it's a good idea that a cop should have to witness a traffic violation to cite the driver. Automation in police enforcement is a very scary idea for those of us concerned with the decay of our rights to privacy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The ban is welcomed with open arms here. There were/are many issues with this system of civil citation by a camera that has no judgment whatsoever. It wasn't just the fact that the timing of yellow lights were decreased. People were getting ticketed for going through these intersections during funeral processions and pulling through the intersection to let emergency vehicles pass. The intersections were getting congested because people were afraid to make a right on red. Not to mention that it started to effect the businesses around these intersections because people started using alternate routes to avoid the cameras (a.k.a. scameras)
and the thousands of lives they save will be lost due to under educated government leaders in a bigot southern state
I, for one, always embrace the illusion of security over the loss of freedoms.
I'm not sure where governments being concerned about the freedoms of the citizens makes them either uneducated or bigots, but then their job is to (in theory) represent the people who vote for them. If the people overwhelmingly don't want cameras, then they should probably not be using cameras.
The problem with statists and other government force types, is that they don't really care what the people want, or even tacitly agree to. Instead it's about power and control. Apparently this particular government didn't want that or received too much flak to continue doing it.
I live in the largest city by land area in the contiguous United States with miles and miles of roads, and we don't have thousands of red light deaths. Perhaps those numbers were from another city.
I'm a satanic clam.
1) No profit-sharing. The city should assume all costs and all responsibilities.
2) Arrest the car. If the car is caught running a red light, boot or impound the car for 24 hours at the city's expense. No fines. No costs to the car owner. Since the citizens of the city want to encourage people not to run red lights, let them absorb the costs of law enforcement.
3) Include several seconds before and after the infraction, and include a wide-angle view so extenuating circumstances are visible.
4) Destroy all videos 24 hours after they are no longer needed.
5) No gaming with the yellow lights. Yellow light timing should be based on safety not pumping up red-light run counts.
6) Right to trial by jury, even if it is just an "administrative" penalty.
OK, #2 is not going to happen, but the rest are necessary for any automated enforcement.
Also, any intersection with a high offense rate should automatically become subject to a traffic engineering study and enhanced live-cop enforcement during times of peak red-light running. The engineering study is to make sure the intersection does not "invite" red-light running, say, by poorly timed lights, poor visibility, excessive congestion, etc., and the cops are there to further deter red-light-running.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Clearly you're not a motorcyclist that has fallen victim to sensor-driven traffic lights. You can wait all day at a red light for a car to come trip the sensor for you, or you can wait a couple of minutes, wait for a clearing, and run the light.
He's from the UK, they don't have "States" in the UK. How's the King of the USA these days? ;-)
Like the parent poster says, if people feel that red lights are merely suggestions and not obligatory, you've got a big problem indeed, and people need to be stopped from running them. A very mundane job and suitable for you know, "technology", rather than having a cop sit there all day eating donuts and catching one person every eight hours or so when they could be doing some useful crime fighting not solvable by an automated camera.
And if you think the traffic lights are just not worth having there, like the parent poster says, vote to get rid of the lights.
Either you need the lights - so people should obey them - or you don't need the lights - so get rid of them. Lights that you can obey if you feel like it sometimes, well that's an interesting idea...
And removing the cameras will change things . . . how? Oh, yeah - now there'll be a snowball's chance in hell of contesting the officer's sworn testimony before Boss Hogg; with the cameras, there's not even that chance; although I suppose this'll at least require counties in the South to tie up a little officer time to run their speed-traps, instead of automating them. Some gain, I suppose, but the South is still going to be the South.
I wonder if the Duke boys could help me with traffic issues down there in Mississippi? I'd settle for seeing Daisy (the burnette original, not the blond knock-off) while waiting for the Sheriff to reset the traffic light.
Uh? Actually we don't have them in Virginia. Arlington and a couple other places tried to put some in, and the state made them turn them off. Not sure what Virginia you lived in.
At some intersections, the difference between going through a yellow and waiting for the next green is over 90 seconds.
Worse, if there is a lot of merging or turning-onto-your-street traffic ahead between you and the next light, it can let a bunch of cars merge in in front of you, which can cause you to miss the next light as well, making the overall cost several minutes.
This can be a lot if you are on a tight deadline.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That may work logistically, but it wouldn't work in reality. Most people will just pay a ticket, even if innocent. In the end, you would have to take this to court, miss work, pay a lawyer. People aren't going to do that. And the alternative is to have the government police itself, which, if you have any grasp on reality, you would know is utterly futile. :)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Fat fingers
The green-light time should be enough for 3 cars. The yellow-light time should be enough for someone who is going the legal speed to either come to a safe stop or continue at speed and be through the intersection before the red, whichever is longer, plus about 3/4- to 1-second for the driver to decide how to react.
Sub-2-second yellow only make sense coming out of parking lots, where the speed is generally 5- to 10-mph. Very short greens only make sense when there will almost never be more than 1 car at a time. In such cases, by definition traffic is low and "green on demand" is probably better.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Maybe he's talking about West Virginia. You know about the West Virginians. We don't trust them.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Fight the Powah!
I live in Jackson, Mississippi. The biggest issue is that people were getting tickets for turning "Right on Red" at intersections where this is allowed (all intersections not marked otherwise in the state).
The AG and Traffic Solutions were saying that you must stop "long enough to get out of your car and run around it" before turning RoR, whereas the MS traffic code simply indicates that forward motion must cease before RoR.
So, people were getting pretty upset about that.
And the city I live in (Calgary, AB) has just decided to not only keep the red light cameras going, but also make them speed on green cameras, meaning if you speed through the intersection with a camera you're getting a ticket. And the cops are also going to send out careless driving tickets instead of a fail to stop plus a speeding ticket to the registered owners of vehicles that run the red light while speeding, which they don't have the authority to do, and the tickets probably won't stand up in court. Almost makes me want to speed through red lights. Almost.
Who would have thought that Mississippi would blaze the trail of liberty
We need this law on a National Scale
We need to do this while we are still a somewhat free people!
There is nothing more obnoxious to freedom than a fucking robot camera issuing moving violations
Not sure why it causes such a violent reaction - but it does - every time I see one, I start with the fantasies of getting some C4 and a blasting cap and BOOM!!! no more robot camera!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Besides, people who run a red light because they aren't paying attention are going to run the red whether there's a camera there or not.
Yeah, this has always confused me too.
Twice in my life, that I know of, I've run a red light. Both times I realized I was doing so during the event. Once when I realized I had just completely ignored the traffic light the tiny side-street had, and the other, when stopped at a red light, I misread a green turn light as a normal green light and went straight, to the annoyance of people in the other direction trying to turn left.
And once or twice I've probably hit the very very start of red light when trying to make a yellow, although I, like most people, know roughly how long a yellow lasts, and I err on the side of stopping.
The first two of those were lack-of-attention accidents, and unlikely to be deterred with cameras. Any of the latter would be deterred, but, OTOH, the lights should be timed to actually have a delay between red in one direction and green in the other...someone coming through a second late shouldn't actually endanger anyone.
Are there really people who knowingly run red lights? Or, rather, are there really people who knowingly run red lights in front of other people? (As opposed to coming across them in the middle of nowhere and not bothering to wait when there's no traffic for miles. Which, while illegal, is also probably not that dangerous.)
In other words, while many instances of running red lights is dangerous, and many people do indeed knowingly run them, that does not mean that those two sets actually overlap to any meaningful extent. Deterring every single person we can from running red lights won't stop a single accident if most accidents happen because people weren't paying attention and didn't see the light at all.
It seems like it would be more productive to do something like lengthening the 'red in all directions' time. And adding additional warning lights for upcoming traffic lights.
The real problem is that 'productive' and 'money making' are not the same thing.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
An elected government responding to the wishes of the electorate? Inconceivable!!
It's allowed if the net result is to get more innocent people killed.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
This is great news; I never thought that a state from the southeast would be the first to pass something like this however.
Last year the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that the Minneapolis red-light camera program was illegal because it assigned liability for red-light violations to the owner of the car, even though there was no way for the camera to prove that the owner was driving. Red-light violations are moving violations and count against the driver's auto insurance. Unlike parking violations, you cannot hold the owner of the car responsible for the driver's behavior.
Messing around with traffic lights to increase revenue is one thing, but "violation of privacy"? Please. You're out in public. Are you going to ban handheld cameras next? Seriously. Having been caught by a traffic cam, I'm not please about them either, but I ran the red light. I broke the law, and I'm responsible for that. Traffic control is a safety concern. Cities need to make their citizens their primary concern, not their wallets, and not their popularity.
It's pretty lame that you can't even trust the people you put in power. Traffic lights as a profit center? Do these people have no morals? You would think someone who wanted to have a career protecting the public would see the problem with that.
The cameras are a great idea ... too many people run lights. It's a shame that dishonest cops and crooked camera dealers are more concerned with making money than making the world a better place.
Jackasses!
I wonder whether this will simply mean that cops will be stationed at the lights again?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Exactly - It's a job creation scheme. A sort of southern stimulus plan.
Nullius in verba
I have a friend at a large police force in a major city who hates these things. Every time a police car with it's lights on going to a call runs a red light the police department gets sent a ticket. You say no big deal just cancel it, but the Sergeant has to fill out paper work and justify every single violation. Do we really need to waste the Police's time, with something that is supposed to give them more time? These things are nothing but a scam and I hope this trend continues and they get rid of all of them.
One has no privacy in public. When one is driving one's car down a public road, one is in public.
How is this an "invasion of privacy" in any way, shape, or form?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I am sick and tired of people whining about this. When you are on a public roadway and you break the law by running a light then just own up to it, and pay your fine! As we jam more and more people into our society your individual rights shrink. Your rights to privacy do not extend beyond your person! Too many people run red lights these days and cause millions of dollars in damages and lost lives! We don't have enough funds to police the intersections so using cameras is perfectly acceptable. Get over it!
. . . from hip-hugger wearing pansy-assed metrosexual self-appointed know-it-all card-carrying Defeatorat vegan city dwellers in 3... 2... 1.
At some intersections, the difference between going through a yellow and waiting for the next green is over 90 seconds.
Ha! I laugh. The light at the highway overpass right by my old apartment, the only reasonable way for me to get anywhere, I clocked at four minutes from red to green. On the plus side it was only a ten minute commute to work minus the light, but at a roughly 50% penalty for missing it you better believe I tried to make it through the yellow. Funnily enough I think the traffic engineers compensated for this by making the time between red on one direction and green on another longer.
Traffic cameras aren't all that bad, though. There are intersections where there are safety hazards from people running red lights all the time, and the best solution is a deterrent. On the other hand, there are other intersections where the best solution is to adjust the light. That's what I like about how Austin did it. They had a bunch of problem intersections, and they decided on a case-by-case basis what to do about them. At quite a few they decided not to install cameras but instead lengthened the yellow light or otherwise changed the cycles which worked quite well. They put up some cameras too, but hey some of those intersections were bad and I'd seen people not just cutting the yellow light too close but steaming outright through a solid red.
I don't like cameras, fundamentally, for a bunch of slippery-slope foot-in-the-door types of reasons. I don't like the line about them only firing when someone runs the light. That's just the usual "We promise not to abuse our powers and we're honest which is why we don't need oversight" bullshit. And I don't like that the implementation flat out sucks in a lot of places. They'll send out the tickets automatically based on plate OCR and not even look at the actual picture to even try to glean what really happened from that limited source of information. Like someone getting a ticked because their car was being towed and the tow truck ran a light. Or towns that try to up revenue by shortening yellow lights below safe limits, creating the dangerous situation that the cameras are allegedly supposed to deter. Except if they truly worked as deterrents, then there would be no ticket revenue. And forget any anti-authoritarian paranoia -- it's a very bad idea when your chosen "solution" to a problem gives you a financial incentive to not solve the problem.
So traffic cameras are here, and I don't find them all that bad. But if the people of Mississippi decide they don't want them around, especially if the implementation sucked and people thought they were getting screwed over, then I can understand that and more power to them.
The enemies of Democracy are
I live in MS and am glad this has been passed.
For one reason, if you are accused of a crime...you should/supposedly do have the right to face your accuser. Would that be a Police Officer who was no where near the scene of the crime? Or one of the employees from the monitoring service?
You have to file a dispute for the ticket (with in a very narrow time frame)to even have a chance of fighting it...and even then the judge doesn't have to hear the case.(not sure on the particulars)
And these fines don't even go on your MVR...they go on your credit!?!? They can't increase the insurance rates of the driver b/c they have no proof that the driver is actually the vehicle owner. So they ding the credit of the person who the vehicle is registered to, and if you don't pay they turn you over to a COLLECTION AGENCY.
The whole thing is just a money making riot...and WAY to Big Brother!
Getting rid of red light cameras would be a major reason to vote for someone in local elections at a minimum. Public safety should not be a profit center.
Way to go Mississippi!
My other sig is extremely clever...
So ... a state that still criminalizes certain forms of sex performed between consenting adults in the privacy of their home considers traffic cameras an invasion of privacy.
Priceless.
Here in Calgary (Canada), we are going the opposite direction. These red light cameras are now going to be used to catch speeders on green lights as well. And the police want to ticket people for careless driving as well ($400).
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Platt_Michael/2009/03/23/8851066-sun.php
That's probably not a bad long-term solution.
But in Mississippi, this is the penalty-phase. The traffic camera vendor ran a scam on the citizens of Mississippi to deprive them of their money. Mississippi is effectively banning them from making any more money in the state, which is the best they can do. Just adjusting the law to something reasonable still rewards the traffic camera vendor or their unethical business practice.
paintball
That's easy!! The computer that the camera is connected to needs only recognize a Cadillac emblem!
At the risk of all the flames I will get, I have noticed that many European nations have had these cameras for years and they seem to work pretty well. I guess the key is that they need to be used responsibly, which clearly they are not when governments are shorting the yellow lights to make more money. Also, Europeans in general are much safer drivers. Americans obey red lights because of a potential ticket. Europeans do it because running a red light is really stupid and dangerous.
I'm from the Netherlands. Although heavily crowded we have about the safest roads in the world (together with Norway and England). This is not because the Dutch are such good drivers, but the chances for being caught speeding or driving red lights are very high. If it would all stop and instead prevent all murders and other similar unnatural deaths in our country, we wouldn't save the amount of lives as are being saved by being strict about traffic. So in my opinion the measures against speeding are good and I can't understand why they would get taken away.
(On the other hand: private parties getting a cut from the fines? Only in Amerika)
Running red lights is real popular. It wasn't so popular in Illinois when I lived there, but in Arizona it seems to be a real sport. As quite a number of the license plates are for the state of Sonora (Mexico), law enforcement is kind of a joke. There is no attempt to give illegals tickets, because it is pointless. Show a cop a Mexican driver's license and you get off.
With 5-10 red light accidents per day, you would think anything that cut down the carnage would be appreciated. No, red light cameras and speed cameras are very unpopular here. All sorts of issues come up about how they are unfairly targeting owners of registered vehicles and drivers with valid Arizona licenses.
On one of the expressways here they turned off the speed cameras but left the radar on. The highest speed recorded was over 140MPH. That should say something.
So how about we just eliminate laws against speeding and running red lights? We could be the first truely progressive state in the country that allows people to express their freedom to speed and drive any damn way they want. That would solve the problem, wouldn't it? Because with the frequency of violations here there is no way there will ever be real enforcement by police officers - there will never be enough of them. Might as well face reality and just repeal the laws.
This would generate far more respect for the remaining laws. It might also reduce the population some, both by traffic carnage and from people just avoiding Arizona when the word got around.
Heh.. I don't get it, so they're breaking the law by tampering with the lights to catch more victims, and the only thing the court will prosecute them for is invasion of privacy?
Wont that make life harder for any other CCTV camera out there? Oh, I'd like to ban this CCTV from the local petrol station or supermarket because of invasion of privacy..
the real culprit here is invasion of privacy. the state/city/fed govt whoever has access to those cameras has way too much knowledge about people's daily whereabouts and such. its too big brother-ish for me and im glad it got struck down.
Now, in Mississippi, the contractors who installed the cameras are unhappy, since they received a cut of the ticket revenue generated by the cameras.
Gee, that sounds like a really powerful motivation for them to make sure the cameras never unfairly issue a ticket, doesn't it? How about passing a constitutional amendment that that private individuals or companies are not allowed to have their profit from law enforcement activities in any way tied to arrest or conviction rates? Those behaviors which you reward, you create more of. Give people a strong enough incentive to catch others either fairly or unfairly, and soon almost everybody will be getting fined more than they can pay -- all except for the people in charge of (selectively) collecting the fines.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I am from Jackson, MS and have been listening to the whole debate. Now let me tell you what really happened. First, people complained as %60 of the ticket went to the company that installed the red lights. They were highly upset that the local governments were not getting most of the revenue. Second, there were numerous cases of the vehicle's owner getting the ticket but was not the person driving the vehicle at the time. The legislature said this violated the due process of the owner. If a police officer had pulled the car over the ticket would go rightfully to the driver and not the vehicle owner. Finally, people were getting tickets for not coming to a complete stop when making right turns. The cameras would show their right turn was completely safe to do (no opposing traffic), but because they did not come to a complete stop, they were fined. This also made everyone mad. Now I am not saying who is right or wrong but what really happened.
Constituents?! No, too many lobbyist and politicians were getting tickets, because the cameras don't accept the "do you know who I am?!" excuse...
So Mississippi, as ignorant and backward as they may be, can see the danger in these abominable cameras, but here in Chicago, our city fathers decide that the money these "profit center" cameras raise is more important than the hostility they create. It might be minor compared to the full spectrum of evil, but these cameras are a human rights abuse.
I pray that the International Olympic Committee does not hold the Olympics in Chicago. This city does not deserve them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why is this tagged yro? Or in YRO?
Where did you get the idea that lawmakers actually follow the laws?
As has been shown, it's never a good idea to hand over a government function to a private corporation.
The minute the motive becomes profit over public safety you just know the shenanigans will start. The primary method is reducing yellow light times below 3 seconds.
If you really want to enhance safety, lengthen yellow time to 4 to 5 seconds.
Here in Providence, RI we've got a few red light cameras. Not to mention almost 2,000 new parking meters. And of course parking enforcement has been turned over to a private corporation. Their enforcement guys are funny, they have this swagger that I just giggle at.
I'm rather encouraged by some actions in other parts of the world regarding traffic and signal cameras though. They've found the cameras burnt to a crisp, torn down, spray painted, etc.
Then of course the red light cameras, they use the cities MESH network which I'll tell you know isn't the most secure thing in the world. And as we've seen with the ITS signs on highways, it is only a matter of time before cyber attacks begin on the cameras.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
F YEAH, I SUPPORT THIS! THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
We rally through a music festival to spread the message/idea of a peaceful revolution through using the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, for all states to succeed and declare sovereignty from the federal government, giving us the ability to overthrow and abolish legally with authority the federal government.
We take the Financial Crisis to the supreme court, to subpoena all executives, who took bonuses, to get authority to open all classified books, accounting documents, subpoena all documents and information, Penalize all offshore banks.
We try and prosecute them to the full extent of the law, or rewrite the law to catch these white collar criminals before they get to the point of screwing our country over.
That way, we get back every cent of the ten trillion dollars that were ratfucked out of American taxpayers pockets.
Impeach Bush, post presidency, Impeach Obama.
All we need is consensus, All we need for consensus is to spread a movement under an idea.
And that's the Betterment of Humanity.
To rise above the mechanisms of enslavement.
www.myspace.com/an_anti_hero www.myspace.com/thesmokersclub
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, there are traffic lights all over the world in places nobody has ever heard about. I've lived in towns that didn't have a traffic light. When we got one, everyone came out to the Pizza Inn to watch it turned on. In Europe, that first light would have been made into a roundabout instead.
They got toll free dial up internet in 1995.
Mississippi has an estimated population of 2,918,785. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html Any town with more than 5,000 people probably has 1 traffic light.
Being from a bigger state, I guess offending people from the smaller states is fun? That's fine. We make fun of the unemployment in California mainly caused by over taxation from the left. New York, we laugh at your taxes too. Hah. Offended? I like to shoot guns and eat meat regardless of whether I killed it myself or bought it at a store.
In Mobile, AL, they have roundabouts in a few neighborhoods. These were created to be so tight as to force cars to slow down and prevent **any** sized commercial truck from going through them. High school drivers work on driving through them without slowing down. I've seen the very quick right-left turn negotiated without hitting any of the curbs, but that isn't the usual method. Normally some scraping occurs. Large cars need to really slow down to fit.
Violation of privacy? You should have no expectation of privacy when you are in public on a public street. If you get caught with your girlfriend or "other" person on a red light camera, then
a) you shouldn't be running red lights
b) you shouldn't be cheating
c) you should register your car with your work address so your wife doesn't get the mail
d) if you are a politician, hire a driver
e) there are too many other ways to avoid this photo - be smarter
There is no right to privacy when you are in public. I don't want it either. Imagine having to get permission to take photographs of interesting views in cities (like you have to in some countries), just because a few locals happen to walk into the frame.
BTW, I've lived the last 20 years in cities with over 4M people. I'm happy about easy access to stores, good restaurants, broadband, and the airport. I don't miss everyone knowing my business, but I do miss being able to walk around the town with my wife on an evening stroll and not even consider traffic as something dangerous.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Personally I'd use the revenue to fund traffic safety courses and make everybody who violates the traffic law sit in them.
Well here in Ohio our governor is pushing to create new traffic penalties and increase the fines of existing ones. It's not about his concern for our safety, he's pushing this agenda to turn tickets into revenue for the state. If you're not breaking the law, you're not funding his system, so he'll keep changing the law until you are. Ticks me off to no end that politicians behave this way and people still vote for it.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Obviously knows nothing about red light cameras. They trigger when you ENTER an intersection on red.
That said, even though I'm not a red-light runner, I viciously oppose these. Almost nothing good has come of them. Increased accidents, shortened yellow light times, scandals, etc. I used to think only speed cameras were bad, but I've seen the error of my ways.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The light at the entrance to my girlfriend's apartment complex is similar. A new shopping center went in across the highway, and the light timing was changed to a ~3 minute red, 3 second green, three second yellow. The only way people could get through the intersection was to run the yellow/red (there was no camera, thankfully). It caused such a traffic problem that there was even an article about it on the local TV station (sorry, couldn't find the source).
I've also seen camera intersections in Tennessee that get around minimum yellow light times by reducing the speed limit right at the intersection (apparently the time is based on the speed limit). You have a 4-lane, 55 MPH divided highway with a "speed limit 25" sign 100 feet from the intersection, a 2-3 second yellow, then a "speed limit 55" sign 100 feet beyond.
It's not that I don't like red light cameras in general. What it is I don't like is: 1) There is NO LIMIT to the number of red light cameras that a city can install. That means that it's possible for a red light camera to be on every single intersection, which is overkill. I would be more comfortable if a city could only have X% of traffic light intersections covered with red light cameras. If they want to add a camera to another intersection, they must remove an existing camera first.
2) Once red light running goes down, the cameras are not removed. They may be turned off, but they are still there and the general public does not know if they are on or off. They should be physicially removed from the site and either stored or installed at another location (see point 1). If red light running goes up again, then just reinstall the cameras. It would cost more, but that's the price you pay for some level of privacy.
3) That a 3rd party takes a cut of a public fine. The private sector should be paid for the cost of installing the equipment. They should not be given a cut of the fines, because this creates the incentive for the private company to do unethical things to increase ticket revenue.
4) The government still has an incentive to increase ticket revenue in order to fill budget holes completely unrelated to traffic safety, so it should be mandated that all funds that come from red light cameras first go to pay for the maintenance of the red light camera equipment, and anything left over MUST go to traffic safety programs: programs that educate drivers, construction to improve hazards at intersections, etc. The programs to educate drivers should be free, even for those who get caught running the red light. They already paid the fine anyways.
The anti-government demographic is quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this issue, but I say a little common sense can make red light cameras a benefit for everyone.
Perhaps the only good common sense legislation to have passed in my lifetime. To bad it isn't a Federal law.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
Wow maybe there is some hope left for Mississippi. Lets hope all states decide to do this.
They probably thought the cameras were stealing their souls.
Game... blouses.
OK. We will remove the law. That should solve all the problems? right? ...wait!
Lack of laws/ regulation & wall street collapse ...have I heard them together in a sentence somewhere?
When a thief sees a saint, all he sees are his pockets!
Treat it like you would a railroad crossing. You're not going to yell at an oncoming train, "It's not my fault I got stuck here!" are you?
sic
Ever since I learned to drive, something about traffic lights has been glaringly obvious: The yellow light simply isn't sufficient warning of a light change. It may be okay if you're a long ways off, but I'm sure all of us have, on numerous occasions, experienced a "sour spot" (play on words of "sweet spot") where you are almost at an intersection, get the yellow, and have to make a split-second decision to "gun it" and try to make the light, or slam on your brakes to stop at it. Human nature is to "gun it" -- it's even a part of pop culture, the Starman "red = stop, green = go, yellow = go very fast" -- hence the type of red-light running that these cameras are tuned to maximize revenue from.
What I propose to all municipalities in states that have made the cameras illegal, as well as manufacturers of traffic-signal equipment:
Create a standardizable device which will let motorists know at a glance how much time is left on the green. It could be a numeric countdown such as the one on many pedestrian signals, a border of blue LEDs around the signal heads that extinguishes light by light as the yellow draws near, or (like in parts of Canada) a green light that flashes during the early part of the cycle, then goes to solid green 5-10 seconds before the yellow. Whatever the mechanism, it should give at least 15 seconds' warning of a light change, and do so in a manner understandable to most drivers of standard aptitude.
(I feel that a numeric countdown would be the best, as virtually everyone is familiar with countdowns [New Year's Eve, microwave oven timers, etc.])
Next, install this extra signaling scheme on busy intersections that formerly would have rated the installation of red-light cameras. Then trend the red-light-running and accident rates at these intersections for a few months (before and after).
I'd almost bet money that the red-light-running rate would drop precipitously.
Another way to improve traffic flow and cut down on light running, of course, is to synchronize signals on a city-wide basis, simply decreasing the number of opportunities to run a red. The technology exists for smart traffic control systems. It's time to implement them!
The thing that disgusts me the most about red-light cameras is the amount of manpower and technological muscle wasted to create and install these systems that could have been used instead to implement solutions like I outlined above. Red-light cameras are simply a profitable, Band-Aid solution for a real problem that has plagued traffic signals since their introduction. We must get rid of the Band-Aid and use the right tools to fix the issue.
Red light cameras aren't about safety, they're an excuse for generating revenue. Otherwise they wouldn't be consistently placed at high traffic intersections with low yellow light times as opposed to intersections with a high rate of accidents.
If you want to be a good little ankle grabber, take a GPS device as a suppository. Sideways. But leave the rest of us out of it.
They are biting the hand that feeds them... (the cameras...), hehehe
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
In 2007 the Minnesota Supreme Court told the City of Minneapolis that their Red Light cameras were violating state law. The Supreme Court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. Minneapolis had to pay back the money they had collected in Red Light Tickets from the system, around 2.6 million dollars. The court also struck down the "rebuttable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country. http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rebuttable-presumption/ They stated: "The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid." Text of the Ruling http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1356.asp
You're absolutely right. People are tweaking the yellow light intervals, fudging the timings, sharing ticket revenues with non-government agencies, so they ban the cameras. I think this is a prime example of politician's logic. (For those not in the know: 'Something must be done; this is something; therefore I must do it.')
I like it how the lawyers used a "privacy" exploit just to take these down.I'm not surprised.
Just break the cameras.
If it's replaced break it again.
Repeat until message delivered.
We're not unlike Mississippi, except that we're not in any rush to take the cameras down. Some time ago, the budget was passed that allowed the cameras to be purchased and installed, and almost every major intersection has a set of cameras in all directions. The bill that allows their use for enforcement and sets up fines, on the other hand, has failed in the state legislature every time it has come up - so we have a lot of expensive cameras that sit there collecting traffic data, and nothing else.
For those having trouble understanding these esoteric concepts of automobiles and traffic lights, consider the following simple analogy with software licenses:
It's as though MAFIAA got Micro$oft to force us to sign a click-through EULA with DRM-encumbered one-click vendor lock-in just to traffic-shape our proprietary torrents, despite any FUDdite knowing prior art exists.
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
You can also be ticketed for stopping for a jaywalker during a green light. This puts you in a spot - To run over the jaywalker and drive off with a significant chance of getting off scot-free or to suffer on behalf of your good citizenship to the cruel injustice of the automated traffic camera?
In my experience in L.A., most of the folks who zoom through redlights started zooming a ways back from yellow and so are guilty of running the light. Sure, they don't like getting caught, and like even less the steep fines and points on their license that might result in insurance rate hikes. But most of them are guilty. Ain't the truth hard to swallow? And as a native of Mississippi ... oh, buggers. I haven't lived there in 30 years and I won't be going back soon or often. Haley Barbour is a criminal as far as I'm concerned. He abides by the "will of the people" when it suits him, and ONLY then. 'Course I guess he suits the ignoramuses who consistently vote against their own interests in Mississippi just fine.
Why don't they outlaw speed traps for folks with out of state plates? They get stopped and ticketed all the time, " 'cause we don't like yankees." Yup, it's really like that.
Whether you think traffic cameras are an invasion of privacy is an entirely separate matter.