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?
Oh my gosh, its Traf-O-Data on steroids. It won't work though cause the ppl will just charge the lights.
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.
"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.
The problem has been the open secret which allows anyone with any technical knowledge to get out of a ticket and open the city to counter-suit: The contractors who created the motion control software refuse to open source it, and so all you have to do is ask for the source code at your hearing so that you can defend yourself properly. The judge will throw out the case because the city cannot produce the source, and does not want to pay an expert to testify.
IANAL but I have direct as well as anecdotal evidence that this will work.
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.
I haven't received a ticket for running a red light, but I used to drive several intersections daily that had cameras like this. And I'll tell you that the length of the yellow changed frequently at each signal. I would travel the route at the same time of day every day, and the yellows would change about once a week. Compare that to once every year or two for regular signals.
After a year or so of this, people would slam on their brakes as soon as it went yellow to avoid the ticket. This caused such a large number of rear-end accidents that the city was finally pressured to remove the cameras citing 'safety concerns'.
You're thinking too much like a government official. The goal for traffic safety shouldn't be revenue for the city, it should be... traffic safety.
It is a violation of my civil rights to obey red lights.
You have no right to drive a car on public roads. That's why you need to be licensed to do it. When you don't obey the laws your license should be revoked.
And it is a violation of my civil rights to be filmed in public.
There is no right to privacy when you are in public.
And it is a violation of my civil rights for the government to spy on my private affairs (I'm just driving my car, which I -own!).
Driving on a public road isn't a private affair.
See a problem?
The problem is you.
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
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.
I use public transit all the time and it saves tons of money with gas prices the way they are. It must suck to be a racist.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Habitually running red lights definitely puts other peoples' lives and property at risk.
And to go Logan's Run, retire anyone over 30 who still has the nerve to drive without perfect reflexes and vision. Also, eliminate people who drive while distracted by kids, they're a menace.
Unless you're capturing video all the time, you can't get a camera to distinguish between tailgating and just being close to a car because someone hit the brakes unexpectedly. The only way to be sure someone has been driving too close to other cars is a history of them rear-ending people.
The issue for many people is not really money. Yes, criminals can and should pay a larger percentage of the taxes. However, there are two other factors. First is the contract. It seems to many that due to the costs, these camera companies are bounty hunters and therefore the revenue stream to the city is not what is expected. Second is the idea of the surveillance culture. I personally don't want to live in a city in which there is so much fear and mistrust that we must spy on each other all the time.
All in all not news and not interesting. I suppose the next headline will be that San Diego elects a gay mayor, if it every gets around to doing so.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
Law enforcement should not be a profit centre. If you give people a financial incentive to find people guilty, then they will focus on trying to find people guilty rather than to stop the harm that the law was supposed to prevent.
"You have no right to drive a car on public roads"
This is a problem with your country. This SHOULD be a right. I find it disturbing that more people do not understand why.
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.
In the United States, you have a right to travel. You have no right to specific modes of transportation. You can walk, run, ride a bike, drive a car, take public transportation, fly a plane, etc... Some of those have inherent safely risks to other people so they are regulated.
Habitually running red lights definitely puts other peoples' lives and property at risk.
It depends. If you habitually run a red light at 2 AM every other morning because there's never any traffic then, and you can see the headlights of any vehicle coming, the only people's lives you put at risk are those who drive without headlights in the middle of the night.
I think that if we are to start fining people more, let's start with:
- Tailgaters. Including those who hit you from behind if you stop on a yellow light.
- People blocking intersections.
- Doubly so for people who make a right turn on red and blocks the intersection. Someone on your left actually stopped on a green light to not block the intersection, and you turn right on red to do so instead? Immediate loss of license is not too hard for this egotistical disregard for both the law and other drivers.
- People who don't accelerate up to speed on the on-ramp before merging onto highways.
- People who turn onto roads without stepping on it to match the speed to other cars as quickly as fucking possible. I've seen plenty of accidents due to this - including a fatality, where a driver swerved to avoid hitting the crawler, and killed a pedestrian.
- People who habitually rest the foot on their brakes whenever cresting a hilltop. This is likely the #1 cause of stop-and-go traffic, with rubberneckers being #2.
- People who don't yield to right when there is no marking or signals of who has right of way.
.
I wouldn't mind if there was a mandatory driving test every three years. And real driver's ed, not the farce we have here in the US, which includes neither slick driving and avoidance, night driving, nor what to do in case of accidents.
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.
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.
Yeah. You do. First Amendment guarantees you the freedom of association. Freedom of association requires the freedom to travel. And traveling, in many parts of the United States, means the freedom to drive.
Changes nothing. Voting is a right, but comes with certain requirements - that you be a citizen, that you be at least 18 years old, and not be a felon. Gun ownership is a right, but you have to get a restricted license before you can purchase a machine gun.
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.
Let us assume that freedom of association implies the freedom to travel. ... In NO WAY does that mean the freedom to travel also means the right to travel in a specific fashion. Last I checked, walking, biking, taxis, buses, and airplanes are all forms of travel where the traveler need not be a licensed driver. Now, the freedom of association really doesn't require the freedom to travel. The magic of the internet lets people associate, in real time, without moving from their chair.
voting is a right, which you need not be licensed to exercise. You need not prove a modicum of any knowledge, political or otherwise. Contrast to a driver's license, where you must prove at least minimal knowledge of the rules of the road and vehicle operation. Also, why a felony conviction (something that is supposed to be fairly damaging to society) can get your right to vote pulled. Contrast to a driver's license.. which you can lose merely by failing to renew it.
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
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.
Speaking of gay mayor, -conservative- Houston elected Annise Parker. Hah!
Life is not for the lazy.
Hawaii.
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.
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.
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...
"You have no right to drive a car on public roads"
This is a problem with your country. This SHOULD be a right. I find it disturbing that more people do not understand why.
Why? You are in command of a potentially lethal vehicle, you should demonstrate that you are capable of being responsible for it. No-one in their right mind would argue that all persons with intellectual disabilities (or whatever the PC term is now) should have a right to drive, for instance. Where I live, if you get caught drunk driving twice within five years you lose your licence for life. This is exactly as it should be, as you have clearly demonstrated an unfitness to drive on public roads. If driving had been regarded as a "right" those fuckers would still be endangering lives of others. Note that I have nothing against alcohol, but drunk driving is ridiculously easy to avoid, and if you don't even manage that, you and your judgment should not be in traffic. Ever.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
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.