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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
...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!
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.
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
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.
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.