Slashdot Mirror
San Diego Drops Red-Light Cameras
gannebraemorr writes "U-T San Diego reports that the city has become 'the latest in a cadre of California cities turning their backs on red-light cameras — aloof intersection sentries that have prompted $490 tickets to be mailed to 20,000 motorists per year' there. 'Mayor Bob Filner announced his decision to take down the city's 21 cameras at a news conference set at the most prolific intersection for the tickets, North Harbor Drive and West Grape Street, near San Diego International Airport. A crew went to work immediately taking down "photo enforced" signs throughout the city. "Seems to me that such a program can only be justified if there are demonstrable facts that prove that they raise the safety awareness and decrease accidents in our city," Filner said of the cameras. "The data, in fact, does not really prove it."' I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively evaluating a program. I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
" I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
Hey, I will go for that and just keep my pedal to the metal...unless you do the same and then we are in deep too doo.
Preferably in various hiding places to keep drivers guessing.
After people start getting pulled over for running red lights, word of mouth will spread from people driving by. This is how it's done in the rest of the country.
Not sure where the 9.8 Million figure came from, the actual story says they took in 1.2 Million in 2011. But after paying out to the camera company and the cost of for cops (who in today's whacky world generally make low 6 figures), the city only cleared 200,000$
My guess is that the only people that actually "make out" are the camera companies.
The real question is: Do red light cameras discourage running reds?
I don't know.
I've never got a "red light camera" ticket, because I don't run red lights, or speed through school zones.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
How about a light that just stays green longer if it detects more traffic in one direction than another?
http://www.utsandiego.com/traffic-cams/
Oh my gosh, its Traf-O-Data on steroids. It won't work though cause the ppl will just charge the lights.
Attach each of these cameras to a California (or federal) Politician - You'll make way more than 9.8m each year in fines alone.
wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds. Can you think of an other alternative uses for these cameras?"
Such a proposed system would quicly train motorists to rush red lights even more than they already do, because they could supposedly depend on the system stopping motorists coming the other way. Problem is, if a red light isn't stopping a guy running a red light in one diection, what's going to stop a like minded driver in the other direction?
The cost wold probably be not a lot more than about 1000 deaths a year, based on http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118914&page=1 but it would have the bonus of selectively knocking off the idiots that think it's ok to run red lights, as more safety concious drivers will be safely stopped.
Dollars wise? probably not too much given the hardware is already mostly in place.
See where offending car is heading. Control next traffic light to build up a nice queue and keep it red for a while.
pjorn?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Assuming the city really is making money (and I agree that needs to be determined), what is wrong with using red light cameras to do that? If people want to make a voluntary contribution to the city coffers, let them go ahead. There is no need to run red lights - if someone decides to do so, and accepts the risks and penalties, that is their right (at least to the point where they put someone else at risk).
"I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds."
Once people know that they'll get a (de facto) green light by speeding, what do you think will happen? That does not sound like a good idea at all.
Now convince Victoria Australia, I sincerely doubt we'll ever get rid of the revenue raisers over here. The local govt need the money too much.
> I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily
> shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively
> evaluating a program.
Votes matter more than money.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Once our cars are as "smart" as our phones today, traffic enforcement can be crowd-sourced.
I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively evaluating a program.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the city's IT dept discovered a security hole that could enable a 15-year-old (possibly working for the Chinese military) to spontaneously switch red lights to green, or allow the light to be green in all directions, causing an accident. Then the legal department pointed out that the city could be held liable for the accident if the red-light cameras provided evidence, and the potential liability was significantly greater than the $9.8M they were making on people who run red lights, but still less than the cost of replacing all the traffic lights in the city.
I can tell you that in several of places here in SD, the cameras went "bananas" a long time ago.
There's an infamous one right next to where I work that is flashing almost at random even with green lights. If you are unluckily driving there at night or dusk, you get the flash facing you that goes medieval with your retina... you just have to remember where the wheel was turned and Don't Panic(C).
An engineer friend said these cameras had problems and needed to be re-calibrated very often due to their lack of adaptation to light and weather changes... you know, 'cause of the crazy and unpredictable the weather of SoCal, you know?
In 25 years of watching these systems try to replace traffic cops, I've yet to read any independent data on whether there's a net increase in safety in using speed and red-light cameras.
There are those who are pro-camera, who usually turn out to be affiliated with the makers of these systems, and those who are against, usually the expert witness traffic engineers who testify against municipalities in cases of those involved in rear-end accidents with the people who stopped for a changing light.
That said, I think they're probably useful in intersections that already have a high accident rate within the intersection itself, but as a pervasive means of generating revenue, I think their net effectiveness and their profitability for local governments may be outweighed by the liabilities of enforcement - such as increasingly necessitating a summons-server in the process - and collateral accidents that occur because people may be distracted or alter their behavior to avoid a ticket.
Likewise, cops going after DUIs in a fashion that renders the officer little more than a citation-machine doesn't seem like a good revenue model either - ie: targeting late-night drivers with "loose license-plates" rather than those who in broad daylight cause multiple-vehicle pileups; the largest number of easy convictions aren't always the ones that benefits society most.
The city of Tampa, FL says that the cameras have definitely reduced the number of accidents.
The city of St. Petersburg, FL seems to be having more accidents BECAUSE of red light cameras.
It is however, tough to argue against red light cameras when the city of St. Petersburg issued 36,000 red light citations in one year. That's a lot of red light runners!
A driver in DC recently challenged a camera speeding ticket because the camera was set to flag drivers at 45 miles an hour when the construction zone speed limit was actually lower. He beat the ticket even though the camera was set to high, and he never denied that he was speeding. Oh, and did I mention that the guy is a cop who had recently been part of the automated traffic enforcement unit?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-02/local/36211549_1_45-mph-limit-camera-program-photo-enforcement
It's easy to image that a red light camera would provide a great good. Nobody wants people blowing red rights and zooming across (or blocking) intersections in violation of the lights. *But that's not what red light cameras are for.*
What these articles rarely talk about are the number of tickets generated for completely safe situations where an oncoming motorists slows for a red light to an extremely slow speed, and then makes a right turn on red without technically coming to a "full and complete stop" picked up by the cameras. Brake to 1mph, enough to safely check out an empty intersection, then make a completely safe right turn on red? Boom! That's a $400-$500 violation right there for something that has *no negative impact*. It is a government abuse, as the fine is in no way appropriate for the violation.
I have received one of these tickets, as have many others that I know, and it dramatically lowers quality of life in the area rather than improve it. These red light cameras are the equivalent of installing speed guns on the highway that mail you a $500 ticket if you're traveling at 70mph in a 65mph.
Running a red light is indicative of not having enough time to notice that the light is changing. By extending the amount of time the yellow signal is on, the more likely a speeder will notice the light is changing.
None is the answer. The technology has moved on to drones.
In my state, red-light camera tickets can be round-filed. As the cameras are a private enterprise, they cannot do anything to your driver's license over them. They have no jurisdiction over you UNLESS you are stupid enough to walk into court. This is obvious from the wording on the tickets if you understand legalese well enough.
Ignore them long enough, they will try to serve you (junk service), and then you get a couple nasty-grams from a (private) collection agency! However, these can be ignored as well, as state law only gives them 90 days to collect, after which they must go away.
I'm not sure what the fraction of drivers to ignore the tickets must be to make the camera program a net loser, but I'm betting it isn't much. Thus, my educational outreach. :) (This is Colorado, btw. Other states probably vary. I hear in California they can take your license or something.)
The cameras are a safety hazard. Constant bright flashes at night cannot be anything but a hazard. Hell, I can see the flashes from my porch almost a mile from the nearest intersection with them. Looks like lightning.
Let's make the damned things a money pit for the cities... to paraphrase Gandhi (I think), "we now propose to withhold cooperation."
Most of the tickets at the intersection were issued to idiots who pulled into the intersection when the light at the train crossing on Grape Street was red and and they had no way to exit the intersecion when the light turned red on Harbor Drive.
Really there is enough crime and people with bad intentions in many areas that intense surveillance may be a real life saver. When people break the law in potentially violent ways such as running red lights, driving drunk, hit and runs, and flight from arrest, then there is a serious need to film just about everyone, everywhere at all times. Witness the poor cheerleader in Chicago gunned down on a lark by some depraved idiot. He will probably be arrested soon but in the mean time will he shoot someone else? Chicago's crime statistics are almost enough to enact martial law. New Orleans has a murder rate worse than Afghanistan. Why would anyone not want cams all over the city?
Here in Calgary, the cameras have two purposes. The first is a normal red light camera, the second is for speed on green. Basically, it's just like multinova except it's right at the intersections. So if you speed through the green light you will get the ticket.
I wish we could get rid of the red light piece of it, but keep the speed camera. I figure that stopping people from speeding through intersections is a lot more useful than catching speeders along long stretches of road where there wasn't going to be an accident anyway.
this is a reaction to cutting government costs
if people choose to run a red light they are violating road traffic laws, and are putting other drivers at risk. around 20,000 motorists were dinged every year. those motorists should know better. if they keep getting fined, it's ground for terminating their license as they are a threat to other motorists. now the only deterrent to running a red light is if a police vehicle is present (at which point suddenly 99.9997% of drivers do the right thing). but given police cannot be everywhere, over time there will be a gradual increase of those who choose to ignore the red light thinking "it worked once. it'll be fine everytime."
at some point in the future the number of red light accidents will go up and there will be an outcry for government to do something. at which point a red light camera system or equivalent will be installed once again. with any luck thoug, the right to drive your own car will only be allowed for a privileged few, while the masses must instead use automated cars (i would likely be part of the masses).
during hurricane sandy my large urban neighborhood had no power for a week and people drove around basically the same as usual. sure, it's a little less efficient to not have lights because everyone hesitates at the intersections but the traffic lights are certainly not essential.
Obviously they weren't getting the revenue to make it pay off. Courts are not free. No doubt city workers were tired of it too.
Safety does not even enter into it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Knowing they were revenue generators prone to false positives, the only sure way to not pay is to not play.
In Portland I avoid areas with them like the plague they are.
Has anyone noticed changing traffic patterns from these?
Yep, that's the way it's done.
As to the claim "The data, in fact, does not really prove it."', I find that hard to believe without some extraordinary evidence. I don't see any evidence in TFA, just some local politician making good on a populist pledge. As for tourists, I received a traffic fine from the UK after getting back home to Oz after a holiday. I paid it because I had fucked up and it was the RigthThingToDo(TM), not because of the risk of being turned back at Heathrow for outstanding fines next time I visit.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It is a pet peeve of mine to be stuck waiting for a red light when I am the the only car at or near the intersection. Come on, this is the 21st century!
imho, traffic lights should be smart enough to detect how many cars are waiting (or approaching) in each direction and optimize the signaling accordingly to promote the greatest traffic flow.
Maybe some are already.... but not in my neck of the woods.
Timed signals do (or should) have optimal timings for whatever peak traffic flow the traffic engineer predicts, but the fact is that the distribution of the flow changes in each lane, and especially when there is just a trickle, those timings are pretty sub-optimal.
There are lots of traffic accidents at intersections. The cameras could be used to provide solid evidence of what happened and who was at fault.
Reach into your pocket and pull out some money.
That's essentially what these unaccountable, accident invoking driver distractions were doing.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Quoth TFS:
The data, in fact, does not really prove it.
Where can I find a copy of that data? Without exception, the "studies" I've seen condemning red light cameras have been woefully biased and flawed. Even then, they often conclude that red light cameras "only" trade side impacts for rear impacts, which is actually very much a net win for safety, as the latter cause fewer and less-severe human injuries.
Many of the studies contain irritating circular references back to a handful of cases where suspect yellow timing was supposedly employed to increase revenue. While reprehensible if true, none of that would discredit red light cameras in general, but people generally dislike the cameras and are all-too-happy to suspend critical thinking.
Ultimately, safety-based arguments against cameras reduce to arguments against any red light enforcement. I'm a fan of evidence-based decision making, and there are plenty of reasons to be wary of the cameras (such as the fact that they are usually administered by private companies that also share in much of the revenue) but I call BS on the safety argument unless someone can produce some un-flimsy data.
22 states in the US have already decided that photo-enforcement of traffic laws is unconstitutional. My home state of Arizona is going to be joining them soon. There is a case before the Arizona supreme court that appears be poised to make the same determination, after nearly four years in the system.
I don't think photo-enforcement was about creating a safer environment for motoring as much as it was about revenue enhancement for the municipality that purchased the systems. If you look at how the $67M cost to the Arizona tax-payer was justified in the appropriations bill, it was all about ROIs and projected revenue streams, and very little about lowering accident rates at intersections.
But I think that somebody didn't think it through, and now they are abandoning it. Four years ago, the city of Scottsdale abandoned photo-enforcement. Three years ago, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (the highway patrol) announced that the maintenance contract for the fifteen mobile units they were using would not be offered again after the current one expired and that they would be taking the mobile units out of service at the end of 2011. I've noticed only a couple of places where the cameras still seem to be active here in Tucson where I live, out of the seventeen or so that were installed. Many cameras that flashed me as recently as a couple months ago no longer seem to be working, though the one at the major intersection near my house still seems to be functional. Friends in the Phoenix metro area tell me that they've noticed pretty much the same thing, with the only active cameras seeming to be in Chandler. A couple of years ago, a disclaimer started showing up on mailed photo-citations, informing you that you were under no obligation to respond to the citation in any way, that it was not a summons. I've heard anecdotal evidence about mailed tickets being followed up with a process server, but I've never seen a process server, and I've had *many* of those mailed tickets. I shit-canned them all on the advice of my attorney, who advised me the first time I got one that a camera can't make a PC call the way a cop has to; his theory was that a judge would have to shit-can it too, if our 4th amendment guarantees of due process are still valid. One more bit of anecdotal evidence: on the rare occasion that a real cop cites me for something, I've never been hauled off to jail -- somebody with that many *valid* outstanding traffic citations would have been, I think.
All of this would suggest to me that municipalities are stepping away from the photo-enforcement revenue trough because there may be serious legal implications if they don't.
A 386 running red lights? What sort of modern utopia are you figuring are in those boxes?
I've always figured that most of them are run via a series of relays and mechanical timers, much like the older appliances like washing machines, back when they'd last a couple decades, easy.
I don't read AC A human right
Red light cameras cause more rear end crashes at differences in speed going the same way, but help reduce sideways collisions at full speed of one of the moving vehicles.
Studies differ.
Roughly speaking, from my reading of the material, 'on average', red light cameras reduce side impact collisions maybe 25%, but rear end accidents go up about 20%, and they're more common to begin with. Overall, the reduction in accidents is like 1%, and reduction in death, injury, and injury severity is negligible. Reducing injury/death from the 'more dangerous' t-bone collisions is the whole reason to justify the cameras despite more rear-end collisions, right?
My figuring is that the worst accidents come from people who are drunk driving, high, or racing(fleeing cops). These aren't the types to worry/know about red light cameras, so the worst accidents still happen.
As for documenting accidents - it's nowhere near as expensive to simply stick a set of cameras on an intersection, and works as well for hit&runs and accident recording.
The conclusion I've seen pretty much everywhere is that it'd be cheaper for everyone if they set the yellows properly, adjusted the speed limit, and/or made improvements to problematic intersections.
I don't read AC A human right
His miserable life.
So, the Famous Mayor is On The Take from organized crime for sure.
Naughty naughty smelly mayor. Your 'sent' gave you away. !
Dude, if you're having to do all that to use a handsfree set you need a new one.
I can stick mine in my ear while turning it on, and after the beep I can talk regularly. Don't even need to touch my phone.
I don't read AC A human right
The OP is assuming that the state is getting $490 profit from each ticket. The reality is that a good chunk of the ticket money ends up going to the contractor who installs and maintains the systems. Several studies showed that the accident rates at red-light-camera equipped intersections actually went up because the contractor shortened the yellow light durations (memory seems to recall one state found they were shortened by an average of 1.6 seconds). The higher accident rate may eat up any actual profit by a corresponding increase in emergency services.
So bottom line is that these cameras may have actually been costing the state money, with no tangible improvement in safety. I wonder how long it will be before cars are required to snitch on their owners or enforce the speed limit. All the tech is there in many new cars, just a GPS, periodic map updates, and fly-by-wire throttle.
That's my problem with it. The cameras are not owned by the city, they are leased, and the company who owns the cameras earns a percentage of the proceeds gained from the ticket fines. That ain't right.
A system which changes a green light to red because of cross-traffic approaching is a no win scenario. Unless a car is going 4, 5, or more times the speed limit it's going to take the person who has the current green light about the same amount of time to stop as the person with the red. If a car approaching the red light reaches the point at which it is no longer possible for him to stop before it enters the intersection, changing all lights to red would be pointless. Anyone approaching the green light is already at the point of no return themselves. Maybe you make it a 2-3 car pileup instead of a 10 car one. Or, maybe you cause the 10 car as the green light approacher does something crazy realizing he's in a basically no-win situation.
Like the ones being test-driven on public roads right now by Google, Nissan, Toyota, Audi and others (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car ).
The only thing that's needed is to mandate the things, say within 20 years every single private vehicle must be driverless and driving licenses will be issued only for professional drivers.
I'm sure that Google, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Daewoo, Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, and others would agree. So it should be easy enough to drive this kind of legislation through congress.
Oh, and before you ask, the second amendment doesn't protect your rights to drive manually. Cars can admittedly be used as weapons but they still aren't covered.
>> I wonder how much a system would cost that could switch my light from green to red if it detected a vehicle approaching from a red-lit direction at dangerous speeds.
I don't want to encourage yahoos to drive faster through an intersection against the light, in order to potentially make it safer for them to do that.
How about smashing the lens and making you eat it while filming it with another red light camera. Then beat you from the feet up with the partially disassembled camera being sure to break every bone. We'll leave the head intact.
No well use the working red light camera to crush your skull, that lens should hold up long enough.
I have to say I'm a bit surprised that my city is voluntarily shedding potentially $9.8M in revenue after objectively evaluating a program
Yes the idea of a government for by and of the people is completely alien to a large number of slashdotters who have drunk the Ayn Rand / John Galt / Libertarian Kool-Aid.
Hey Australia follow suit those cameras do nothing but generate revenue for politicians re (S)election campaign and other services that dont help out communities
In my town, Geneva Switzerland :the opposite would be done. It generates millions, lets build more of this.
A few years ago they tripled the municipal Police because they were generating millions in parking tickets.
There is now 1 guy for every 2-3 road.
And the speed/red lights cameras are multiplying like rabbits...
California police mail out fake/phishing red light camera "tickets" to fool the registered owner into identifying the actual driver of the car. (In California red light camera tickets are a criminal matter and by law the police cannot file a real ticket with the court if it is obvious that they are naming the wrong person - such as with a gender mismatch.) One city sends out about 10,000 of the fake tickets annually. The fakes have not been filed with the court, so they don't say "Notice to Appear," don't have the court's addr. and phone #, and may even say, "This is not a ticket." Since they have NOT been filed with the court, they have no legal weight whatsoever. You can ignore a fake ticket. If in doubt, Google the street term, Snitch Ticket. And once you understand how tricky a Snitch Ticket is, tell your friends who live in or visit California about them, so that they won't get tricked.
Also let your friends know that REAL tickets issued by cities in LA County can be ignored, because the LA County court does not report ignored tickets to the DMV. This info applies ONLY to tickets from cities that are in LA County. Skeptical? Google red light camera voluntary.
If you take the time to educate your friends about these things, you may find that suddenly you are eating better. A lot of people will be buying you lunch after they realize that you have just saved them from paying a $500 ticket.
Green go. Red stop. LMFAO.
All else is just whining at the universe about your own shortcomings.
Obvious.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/laundry-game/wikis/scorpion-stare
It may be slightly off-topic, but I wonder if some of the red light camera tickets are because traffic lights are set in "dumb" mode a lot of the time? Where I live, for many years the lights wouldn't react to traffic at all and be put on set intervals, which is infuriating because you sit at a red light and there is no change at all, despite no perpendicular traffic for 20-30 seconds. I bet a few drivers get fed up and (safely) jump the red light because of this!
In my home town, they experimented with a smarter program for a while and it was a great success - lights would change to red either when they hit a fixed time on green *or* when there had been a few (maybe 5) seconds since the last vehicle had crossed the sensors (with probably a minimum green time of something like 10 seconds). It was so successful, the idiots in charge of them switched it back to a fixed time on green now and you are waiting - I kid you not - up to a minute on red (especially if someone presses the pedestrian button), with up to half of that minute spent with little or no traffic crossing your path.