Slashdot Mirror
NYC Mayor Wants Traffic Camera On Every Corner
Mr_Blank writes "New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made it clear that he wants to see more traffic light cameras in the Big Apple, saying that he'd have the devices on every street corner if possible. According to The New York Daily News, the city brought in $52 million in fines generated by red light cameras last year alone. Bloomberg doesn't just want a jump in the number of cameras, however. He also wants to publish the names of those who blow through the stop lights in local papers to help shame wrongdoers into changing their ways. What's more, the mayor wants to look into the possibility of adding speed cameras to the mix. Big brother is coming to NYC."
It's all in pursuit of another revenue stream. New York City is full of this kind of nickel-and-diming. Check out this parking ticket scam on truck drivers.
but not LA/Socal? They're actually tearing them down in LA (at the police commission's request, amazingly) after realizing that yellow light time adjustments help as well: "My main objection to this whole thing is that I believe the same safety can be achieved by signal timing changes," Councilman Paul Koretz said. "I believe DOT has been pretty resistant to this concept. In budget committee, we found that DOT was not planning on immediately implementing the measure that the council had passed twelve to nothing to change the signal timing on all the signalized intersections [with cameras], plus the additional ones that were identified as more dangerous.... DOT claims it complies with the MUTCD, but the times in the manual are minimums." The same thing also appears to be happening in Houston as well. Does NYC know something the other cities don't? From what googling I've done, red light camera making firms are reporting major drops in revenues. What makes NYC different?
If he wants to be able to track everyone, then I suppose he wouldn't have a problem with the public knowing what he is doing at all times either right?
They turned out to cost more than they brought in. People aren't as willing to run the light when they know they're being watched. It's the same reason the highway patrol cops hide in the ditch. Visibility is a deterrent. Invisibility is a money-maker.
It sounds like a perfect plan. I *LOVE* the idea. It sounds great!
There are exceptions to it though.
The day they start doing it, I could just imagine flashmobs, or even the Anonymous group, going around with pre-printed license plate stickers with the mayors plate number on them. They could slap them on every car they can . Sure, it wouldn't be *every* car in the city, but it would be enough for the Mayor himself to be published as running stop lights thousands of times per day. That, parking tickets, etc, etc.
These printed plates with numbers on them are such old technology, and so prone to counterfeiting, I'm surprised they're still used. They rank right up with paper cheques for transferring money. They're trivial to print for illegitimate uses, once you have the required numbers.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
well they trigger on right on red,
Which, as it turns out, is an illegal thing to do in New York City.
Palm trees and 8
Not necessarily. They had speed cameras on the highways and freeways here in Arizona, and once Janet Napolitano left as Governor to be Secretary of Homeland Security at the Federal level, the new Governor, Jan Brewer, removed them.
In the City of Tempe, they had an agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems for red-light cameras, but that agreement has ended and the cameras have been shut off. Granted, the agreement's end happened in part because Redflex was too stupid to stipulate that they got a cut when an offender went to traffic school and got the fine scrubbed from their record, as opposed to having an actual ticket, so when they pushed that Tempe just nixed the entire arrangement at the next opportunity. The lawsuit is still pending.
One problem with photo enforcement is that the camera doesn't stop you and serve you a ticket like police officer does when pulling you over. Instead, they mail the fine to you, but because you haven't been officially and legally served yet, if you ignore the mailing then they have to actually send a person to serve you the ticket in the manner of a process server. Here, a LOT of people have been ignoring the mailings, and they're considering changing the law to not require the in-person serving, but they're receiving resistance to that. So, if a bargain-basement process server costs $40 for three attempts, it's difficult to argue the cost of the process server should be added to the ticket since the complainant didn't pull over the defendant and serve them a ticket in the first place.
I think that if they're going to institute Red Light Photo Enforcement, they need to paint an actual intersection-entering stop line prominently on the ground. The stop line for the crosswalk isn't the start of the intersection, it's further forward. One might assume one's in the clear if one is crossing the crosswalk, but they technically haven't entered the intersection yet.
Of course in my world, I'd define the start of the intersection as the stop line before the crosswalk. But I guess we don't care about pedestrians...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
yes, now just get everyone else in the world to do it
Better link to the actual source, the sometimes-sketchy New York Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/08/22/2011-08-22_mayor_bloomberg_pushes_for_traffic_light_cameras_on_every_corner.html
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Not at all. The best recent breakthrough in getting people to stop speeding have been big signs that show you your speed. Now, just about in every school zone, I get a flashing light when I'm going over 20mph. No cop, no ticket, no privacy invasion. I get a personal message that I am breaking the law. And really, that's all it takes.
Not at all. The best recent breakthrough in getting people to stop speeding have been big signs that show you your speed. Now, just about in every school zone, I get a flashing light when I'm going over 20mph. No cop, no ticket, no privacy invasion. I get a personal message that I am breaking the law. And really, that's all it takes.
Someone's obviously thinking about this problem. Sounds much more likely to have an impact than receiving a ticket in the mail two weeks later.
One other idea I had was to configure traffic lights to turn red for 5 minutes if someone is speeding in the road leading up to them, and a ticker at the intersection showing the number plate of the offender for all to see. There's no justice like angry mob justice :)
Interesting Houston has been going through traffic camera limbo, first they voted to have them, then not have them, then have them again because of some contract and now finally the city has decided to break the contract and repeal the ordinance that allowed them in the first place. So all the traffic cameras that are up are going to be turned off and to get them back on again or install any new ones the mayor and the city council will have to pass a new ordinance which likely won't happen any time soon. It's been a surprisingly big issue locally.
My father recently got a 'fine' for not coming to a full stop on a red when he was going to make a right trun he slowed down stopped and then made the turn but the camera decided no it wasn't kosher he didn't come to a 100% complete stop for the required amount of time so he got a fine. All they could do was fine him 75 bucks and say he couldn't renew his registration till he did it. Turns out you can renew online and bypass any such thing so that's what he did and he still hasn't payed the silly fine.
Bloomberg's development is entirely predictable if one knows European history. He started out believing in government improving the lives of the "populace" by forcing it to eat right (his campaigns against canned soups, sodas, etc.), to buy into government health care (his first hypothesis regarding the Times Square bomber was "maybe someone unhappy with the health care bill", which is very telling of what was on his mind as to the most credible terror threat his city faces), to give up means of "violent" self-defence (his "mayors against illegal guns" initiative, which was very obviously meant to make guns extremely expensive by suing the manufacturers; makes as much sense as fighting malware by making SDKs expensive and totally registered). So now he goes straight on to forcing the messy and ungrateful masses to behave through total surveillance and collective shaming. Hurray for technology - poor KGB and STASI had to recruit a crapload of informants to achieve the same goal.
This is EXACTLY how totalitarian groups like Bolsheviks and Fascists got that way, from their elitist but well-wishing Socialist beginnings and the idea that progress could be forced on people for everyone's benefit. The XXth century produced nothing scarier than a frustrated progressive.
Why on earth would people who live in NYC drive cars?
Usually they don't. People who *work* in NYC drive cars. Not all of them, but enough. NYC generally handles traffic flow well (Washington looks like it was designed by a fourth grader with a crayon compared to NYC for traffic efficiency), and depending on where you live and work it may be faster to drive than to take public transportation. Depending on the value of your time, plus (For some) the added comfort factor, it may well be worth driving.
Similarly, people going to a hospital in NYC regularly will prefer to drive--or rather, be driven. Chemo + forty minutes and home by car is less stressful than Chemo+40 minutes downtown+20minutes crosstown+50 minutes commuter rail.
People who *live* in NYC usually only own cars if they are quite wealthy, or if they need them for work.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
So a guy speeds (which is admittedly potentially unsafe) and suddenly you got a mob of people beating him to death? That's supposed to be just?
I hope you never actually have any say over such things.
FC Closer
Not surprisingly, the comments on this item are full of unwarranted panic and claims of Big Brother coming to a corner near you. I live in Manhattan, and I would welcome speed cameras and traffic light cameras. These are cameras intended to catch people who are violating traffic law, which makes them an enormous hazard on the crowded streets of the city. Cycling in NYC is basically running the gauntlet (fortunately, Central Park is a bit of a haven for cyclists and pedestrians), and reckless drivers are a hazard every day on the streets as a pedestrian. I really think that some deterrence would be an excellent thing for Manhattan and would encourage people to drive much more safely. I'd say they should go so far as to do the same thing for cyclists who disobey the law, as well.
Washington, DC...
was not designed to be an inhabited city. It was designed for looks. Nobody was supposed to be a permanent resident of Washington, D.C.
That's why it's such a shithole. Compared to NYC, which is a shithole because they keep electing Bloomberg mayor (how is this guy not in jail, anyway -- he proudly has boasted about sending people under his employ and direction to states other than New York, having instructed them to BREAK FEDERAL LAW BY LYING on paperwork for firearm purchases, and then illegally transporting those firearms back into New York state. none of this was done with any authority other than his as a *private citizen*, since the powers of a mayor end at the edge of his jurisdiction and the entire affair was his own private enterprise).
DC was actually very well designed if it was kept to its original purpose, but they kept letting people build houses all over the place instead of kicking them to the curb like they should have.. now look at it. good lord. i'd rather be homeless in alaska than a homeowner in DC.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
What color should a red light camera be triggered on? Mauve? Chartreuse?
You have a point that running into a red intersection just a split second after it turned red (let's call that a "cold red") is not actually as dangerous as flat-out bolting through a red light when it's already green for the other stream of traffic ("hot red").
The infraction has actual degrees of severity.
But bolting through a hot red should be grounds for a length driving suspension and a $1000 fine.
In other words, if the red light camera system were to take into account the severity of the infraction, the penalties would become more severe, not more reduced.
Assuming they have insurance.
Assuming you can afford to lose the use of your car for several days, possibly weeks.
Assuming you don't injure yourself.
Assuming they don't strike you with such force that you are then driven into the vehicle in front of you, which by golly usually winds up being your fault anyway.
Assuming your insurance company won't raise your rates for being hit by someone else.
Yeah, what you say sure makes sense, until you start actually digging in to what the real costs of someone else hitting your car may be.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
The cop stops you, immediately, thus ending the unsafe situation on the road.
Remember, traffic enforcement is about the safety of the public, not revenue generation.
traffic lights cannot resolve an unsafe situation. at best, they'll stop it roughly 2 weeks after it's happened.
if traffic tickets were, in fact, simply a form of revenue generation and not intended to be rules by which the roads may be made safer for all using them?
well by golly, if that were the case, it sure would be a good idea to use traffic cameras! same revenue stream as an officer, less overhead!
of course, we all know traffic tickets really ARE about revenue generation, but if they were to admit that the public would be on their ass to reform the system -- and so long as they're keeping up the charade that it's all about keeping us safe, traffic cameras should absolutely be disallowed from ticketing anybody for anything, ever.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
So you think I should have to give up the privacy in my own home before politicians should be required to be transparent?
I think you are the one who is confused.
BTW, I am quite familiar with these cameras having recently paid a fine because a portion of my back bumper was still in the intersection when the light turned red. The ticket came in the mail with about four different shots of the vehicle in which the passengers could clearly be seen. While it wasn't a problem for me, I can imaging a scenario where a spouse might get upset if one of the passengers was, well, shall we say inappropriate. The point is, what kind of country are we creating when we are spied on from every angle and our every movement recorded. You may be OK with that, but it gives me the creeps.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Cite your sources, because there are numerous studies that refute your claims.
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/effect-yellow-timing
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/timing-myths
http://bancams.com/get-the-facts/studies/seattle-yellow-light-times-study/
http://www.shortyellowlights.com/rlcinfo/
Also, quit spouting your "feelings" on the issue when it doesn't match up with facts.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
-- Isaac Asimov
The situation in California is kind of odd. I don't understand the legal details, but for some reason in L.A. the city wasn't legally entitled to collect money from the red-light cameras. So if you got a ticket in the mail and just didn't pay it there was nothing they could do. On the other hand, if you paid it they wouldn't give your money back (surprise).
I don't know if that's the case in other cities. Cameras are nothing but a revenue source anyway - the statistics say adding a camera to an intersection makes it a tiny bit more dangerous than it was. I've always sort of suspected cities are taking them out because they're worried someone would get creamed in a newly-camera'd intersection and then take that year's budget in court.
Nope. Studies have shown that red light cameras increase crashes.
Unfortunately, when opinion and reality conflict, most people choose their opinion over reality. http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/
Learn to love Alaska
It's amazing how people can declare that government must be either competent and efficient at everything, or incompetent and lousy at everything.
The world (including government) is much more grey than that.
Kid-proof tablet..
There already is no 'right on red' in NYC, except for a handful of places.
I'm sure they could think up something even worse, like using them for pedestrian jaywalking fines or tracking arab americans.
Literally a handful.
While I thank you for the correction, I can't pass up a chance to focus on the use of "literally". I can imagine a literal handful of jellybeans, but a handful of intersections escapes my grasp (figuratively).