Slashdot Mirror
Red Light Camera Use Declined In 2013 For the First Time
SonicSpike writes "2013 may be a turning point for red-light cameras across the United States. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a non-profit largely funded by auto insurance companies, this year is the first time in nearly two decades that the number of American cities with red-light cameras has fallen — the systems were installed in 509 communities as of November 2013. While a single-year drop may not ultimately mean much, legislators across the country are increasingly agitated about the cameras. Bills are also pending in Florida and Ohio that would ban the devices entirely. A state representative in Iowa has also twice introduced legislation to ban RLCs (he was not successful). Part of this backlash has to do with the (sometimes accurate) perception that RLCs are a moneymaking scheme, pure and simple."
DOT studies a while back showed that increasing yellow light time by a second or so would reduce red-light accidents. However, RLC contracts often come with a stipulation that yellow light time is reduced, by at least a half second or more, to increase revenues. These things need to go, the sooner the better.
I think red-light cameras have a negative connotation _because_ they make money and that is unfortunate.
Most every successful business makes money so if you want to contract out police work such as traffic speed enforcement, that contractor _has_ to make money.
If you want to keep the job in-house so-to-speak, well the government doesn't have to make money but then everybody whines about how expensive it is to maintain this wonderful society we have _because_ of government. They think it costs too much because all they look at is the expense of taxes, not benefit of courts, police, and laws that form a well-regulated market safe for businesses and customers.
Then all it takes is enough wealthy citizens and politicians getting actual tickets they can't talk or bribe their way out of and traffic enforcement gets to stop.
We either want laws or we don't. If you think less government is best, move to Somalia.
We have yet to analyze our systems correctly (i.e. scientifically instead of politically).
I know a lot of privacy minded people have a problem with it, but there really are a lot of people around here who ignore very red lights and could cause accidents.
I don't see safety as an excuse for ignoring people's privacy or rights.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Rraaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhxxannne!
Another thing that should be banned is one- or two-second yellow lights. At every intersection in my area (Chesterfield County, VA) where they've shortened the duration of a yellow light, accidents have spiked dramatically. The original reason for the implementation of such was so that more tickets could be written, but as usual, the PHB's in the county offices didn't acknowledge that costs for police, ambulances and fire-engines to respond to an accident scene would outweigh any additional revenue.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
You're saying you have a right to run red lights? And law enforcement should not be able to identify you in your vehicle? Really?
Proverbs 21:19
Then live in a liberal-dominated state like California, where there are state laws about how long the yellow light must be on before the lights turn to red.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The real reason legislators are agitated is that you can't bribe a camera.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I am reminded of a conversation I had with my daughter when she was about four. We were driving around and came to a stoplight. "What does red mean?" I asked her. "Stop", she replied. "And what does green mean?" I said. "GO!" she yelled. "And what does yellow mean?" She thought for a minute, and said, "Go real fast?"
This gave me some insight into the driving habits of her mother.
I know that red light cameras have sometimes been abused, but what are we supposed to do about the pandemic of red-light-running?
Proverbs 21:19
In driver's ed, we were taught that yellow means "stop, if it is safe to do so." In practice (I live in Mass), yellow seems to mean "stomp on the gas" to most people.
And being a San Diego native, I was pretty damn surprised as well, because San Diego is a big city for law enforcement-bootlicking. Here in San Diego, a red-light camera ticket was around 500 bucks, and surprise, only 100 of those dollars from each ticket went back to the city. The other 400 bucks? You guessed it, a private corporation owned by somebody who knew people in high places.
Because of this city's horrible public transportation and suburban sprawl, you need a car to be able function. So you get a red light ticket, which costs you 500 bucks, and now you have to cancel your vacation or choose between paying rent or the ticket. I once saw a red light camera on Aero Drive off the 15 north with its head beaten off, hanging by a threat. I'd like to shake the hand of that good samaritan who beat the shit out of that fucking camera.
Self-financing police departments create a conflict of interest. It pressures the police to go for the crimes that bring them the most money - ones that are easy and cheap to detect, even if they don't actually cause any time - and to resort to dirty tricks to increase the profit further. There's a simple solution to this: Don't give the fines to the departments (or, in this case, contracted companies) who actually enforce the law. Put them into a big state-wide pot, and each year divide it up between departments in the ratio of population (Possibly adjusted for crime rate). Likewise to any proceeds from police auctions and asset seizures.
You're saying you have a right to run red lights?
Interpreting what I said in that way is like saying that people who oppose DUI checkpoints are asserting the right to drink and drive. Absurd. I simply oppose having government cameras everywhere.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Im sorry, where did you get the idea that this helped keep intersections safe? Keeping intersections safe is actually fairly trivial without any sort of RLC or punishment. All you need to do, which many places already have done, is slightly increase the length of yellow lights, and delay the green transition on the other traffic lane, so that there is a period of 1-2 seconds where all sides are red; and thus cars that may have been late past the line, have time to make it through.
Sure it may not play into some people's fetish for punishment and strict rules enforcement, but, it does a great job of increasing safety.
And in light of that, when cities get caught reducing the yellow light time at lights, which is less safe and increases the chances of an accident, then YES it is a money making scheme.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
law enforcement should not be able to identify you
Sure, LEO's absolutely have the ability to identify me, RLC's have zero to do with LEO's, they are private money making machines with the profits split with the municipalities. Basically they're the modern incarnation of the robber barons of the River Rhine, and when they receive too little income the companies pressure the municipalities into reducing the yellow time at the intersection which multiple studies have shown significantly reduces the safety at intersections where the cameras are installed, exactly the opposite of their stated purpose.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Also, around here, they paint these lines on the ground leading up to an intersection. If you're doing the speed limit, on a dry day, a moderate amount of breaking force will bring you to a safe stop if you begin braking at the beginning of the line. If the light is yellow at or before the beginning of that line, you stop. If the light turns yellow and you're past the line, you generally have enough time to cross the intersection safely.
It is rather funny how people blame everything and everyone for accidents but not themselves. Yes, of course, RLC are to blame for collisions, not drivers who speed and follow too close! Drive according to rules and RLC won't cause any trouble. Moreover, it seems to me that accidents caused by RLC would be minor comparing to accidents caused by running red light. During this type of collision everybody is already braking, speeds are lower. Rear end collision in most cases hits the front of the car which is design to absorb this hit, also car in front slides forward and in most cases there are only one or two occupants in the front of the car, so they are not hit by car in the back. But if you look into commissions caused by running red light the story is different. Car running red light is actually accelerating in a hope to 'make it' - the speeds are higher. One of the vehicles is being hit in the side causing much more damage. So yeah, RLCs are a moneygrab. Just like any other type of law enforcement. And prisons are legitimate form of slavery. Anarchy - the way to go, right.
Hmm actually I would say you have the right to only be subject to as much legal scrutiny as is necessary; and not just whatever old arbitary standard somebody makes up. Which is where I would put "no turn on red".
Since turn on red already requires that one stop, and already requires that it only be done when safe to do so, and to yeild to oncoming traffic; there really is no justification to ever have such a sign. Also, since there are much more effective ways to make intersections safe than to quibble over split seconds over lines (like a slightly delayed green).... running a red light really should only be the case of blatant runs after the change, or careless driving, rather than just "the rules justify the rules" BS.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I don't know where you live... but where I live (Colorado), RLC "tickets" can't do anything to your driving record or your insurance. In fact, we just throw them away. The cameras are operated by a private company and collected by another private company; are NOT legitimate citations; and you cannot be issued any kind of warrant whatsoever for failing to do anything whatsoever about them.
The "ticket" you get in the mail has all sorts of threatening legalese on it, but read it carefully, and you'll find it's carefully crafted nonsense. You have no obligation to pay or even respond, as there is no legal force behind it. The traffic court it says you're to appear at has zero jurisdiction *until* you show up. No cop can come cite you either, since no cop physically saw you do anything. Throw it away.
This spreading knowledge is, I think, why we're seeing a reduction in the use of the cameras. The scam isn't working so well any more, and the collected "fines" aren't justifying the operating costs paid by the cities to the private contractors.
And once you've done all that, and you still have people running the red? My city did all of the above, and now people run the red because they know the other side doesn't get the green right away, so it's "OK".
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
But you wouldn't have an issue with a cop on every using a camera to film everyone who at the intersection, right?
That takes manpower. Disallowing government cameras in public places except those that are on a cop's person or on a cop's car seems like a more sensible policy to me. Mass, automatic surveillance is far different than a guy carrying a camera.
After all, you are in a public space.
Public space or no, it's our money, and they're supposed to be working for us. Hopefully they'll do what we say.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
They took our jerbs!
Frankly, that sounds great. I'm all for automating tasks that keep real police doing something other than sitting at intersections on motorcycles trying to fill the city coffers.
If you do that AND put in red light cameras, it increases safety even more.
I disagree. Now I used to hate red light cameras.
In the evenings, especially Friday and Saturday nights there are sloppy drivers that have many times nearly hit me because they ran red lights.
I'd like for those sloppy drivers to get tickets in the mail --- there aren't enough police.
I don't think automated speeding ticket cameras are a good idea, but I don't see the harm in red light cameras --- just stop and they aren't a problem. Now the yellow times in my city are very reasonable and I understand if some cities are cheating on yellow light times to induce *FALSE* and/or *DANGEROUS* situations to generate revenue. I'm just stating that I think red light cameras, if used correctly, can be helpful --- *IF* the local government isn't abusing them.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Bingo. I'm pretty sure RLCs are illegal in South Dakota (not sure where exactly to look, but a google search seems to corroborate the theory), but in my town....there'd be an outcry if they tried to install them, at least during the winter.
I drive a 2003 Mustang. Rear wheel drive, not particularly heavy. Even with 250 extra pounds of icemelt bags in the trunk, it takes me an extra 5-10 seconds of feathering the gas to get moving on icy roads, and I have to start slowing down about 50 feet earlier than when it's dry.
Add to this that, during the winter, only the 4 or 5 major artery roads are ever satisfactorily cleared (and not due to plows, but due to the amount of traffic they get), sand is rarely re-applied to the intersections once it gets swept away by traffic, and it takes the city about 3 days after it stops snowing to actually start clearing the snow out in the first place.
Anyway, this morning's short drive to work is a perfect example. It was 31F yesterday - surprisingly warm, enough so that some of the snow and ice melted in the sun. Then it dropped back to 0F overnight, freezing the wet roads. This morning we had a thin-but-troublesome layer of ice pretty much everywhere. If I was less than 50 feet out of an intersection, even going slow, and the light turned yellow....if I hit the brakes, I'd end up in the middle of the cross street. Red light cameras here would wreak havoc on people who can't help that they can't stop in time.
Drivers will adapt. When they learn that there are 1-2 seconds during which all lights are red, passing a red light two seconds after it turned red will become normal.
Philipp
Says the 10 millionth person who's failed to actually look at the studies. Sorry, buddy, there's actual science that says you're wrong. What you have is a hypothesis. Guess what, it's an obvious one that's been tested and proven false over and over again.
Guess what else the studies show, all else being equal, adding a RLC to an intersection increases the number of accidents and injuries. Now is the time to go educate yourself and, if you're intellectually honest, change your mind.
Drivers will adapt.
No they don't. One or two seconds of "all red" causes a permanent reduction in accidents. This is not a hypothetical new proposal, where we have to guess how drivers will react. It has been done for decades in many cities.
Another way to reduce accidents is to have a count-down timer next to the light. I have never seen these in America, but they are common in some other countries. The countdown commonly starts 30 seconds prior, while the light is still green, giving drivers plenty of time to either slow down or speed up enough to make the light with time to spare.
I like what you wrote. This reminds me of a guy who rear ended my car and blamed me for it. He was 4 - 5 feet behind me going 70km/h before I started braking. Yes I did break suddenly and it was due to a minor lack of attention (I was looking in my rear view mirror trying to understand why he was tailing me).
The other driver argued with the cop about how it was my fault and the cop told him the following: "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front". Case closed!
Some legislatures assert that the person whose name is associated with the cars license is ultimately responsible for illegal operation of the vehicle. Such legislatures usually cancel the fine if you have reported the car stolen or will reassign it if you provide information on who actually drove the car.
I agree. If you trust your Government to enforce the law without abusing it for the indefinite period of time after red light camera installation, then I believe them to be a useful measure which will help to prevent red light running.
I do not, however, trust my Government not to abuse the system (escalate fines for revenue), abuse the light (create accidents through shorter yellow light), and not allow appeal (allow light running rainy/unsafe conditions, which it represents the safest alternative). In the event that I trusted my current Government (I don't), I don't know that I could trust the Government of 15 years from now.
DISCLAIMER: I have received a ticket from red light running via automated camera on an occasion when I ran a red light and should have received a ticket. My driving habits changed to become more dangerous after this time, as I would rather chance a minor fender-bender than receive a guaranteed ticket.
Problem is people get paranoid around them (don't want to get fined!) and slam on their breaks the instant the light turns yellow - even if it's safer to pass through the intersection. People sloppy enough to run red lights are probably inebriated and will do so regardless of the fine, so while having the camera will punish them, it won't protect you from getting rammed in an intersection. Additionally though the cameras will increase the number of people who slam on the breaks in front of you, causing lots of rear end collisions.
Point to any study that shows this for which the increase in accidents and injuries cannot be attributed to other variables (such as the city reducing the yellow light timing, thus actively trying to use the RLC as a money-making scheme).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I fail to see how this is a privacy issue if you're out driving in public
Because there is a different between surveillance equipment and people.
What rights, exactly, are being trampled on?
My rights to not be recorded by random government surveillance equipment. Don't see that as a right? Well, I'd say you're part of the problem, then. I simply don't want to live in a world where government surveillance equipment is installed in random places, even if those places happen to be in public.
This is simply for people who willfully blow through a red light.
Naive; much in the same way as people who say that the NSA is only a threat to terrorists.
The cops can't be everywhere
Nor do I believe they should be.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
A RLC near me gives tickets to drivers who make a right turn on red, if the cars fail to COMPLETELY stop COMPLETELY prior to the intersection painted lines. On a daily occurrence, I see several drivers get tickets because they came to a complete stop INCHES past the intersection painted lines. In no rational universe would a police officer ever give a ticket to any of these drivers; yet, the municipality is collecting several thousands of dollars each day due to such minor infractions.
Actually, that's the way they got around the laws to put stop light/speeding cameras up in New Orleans.
It is nothing more than a revenue collection device, as that you don't go to traffic court over these and no points or marks go against your driving record.
It shows that is nothing more than for revenue generation. When people were protesting them (they almost got taken down awhile back) the first thing our govt and police said, was "we'll be losing $X if we do this...oh, and it will also make things less safe". That is a true story.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The problem is that no one has interest in doing it right. As far as I am concerned, the camera-at-traffic-light was solved in the 90s, when I was at MIT. I worked on the project for a while, and I remember the problems that we faced (and solved). Even better, time has made every single one of them trivial, through better cameras, faster and cooler processing, and cheap reliable communication.
So, here is how to make traffic cameras that work and save lives:
1. Once yellow is displayed, monitor the speed of the first vehicle in each lane that should be stopping.
2. Do not turn on the green (for any other lane) until every yellow (and later red) facing vehicle has initiated a deceleration that can bring to rest before the intersection.
3. Start flashing the red early if you detect a car that appears to be going too fast to stop before entering the intersection, but too slow to to enter it before the red is scheduled to appear.
4. Issue tickets to everyone entering the interception on red. As you don't delay the appearance of the red, this won't reduce the number of tickets.
5. Send warnings to people who have delayed the green, but have still come to a stop, reminding them that emergency stops are wearing down their shocks, tires, and brakes.
6. Send warnings to people who have crossed at flashing red, or speeding tickets if they did so by breaking the speed limit.
Note that none of this makes the green come earlier, or the red come later. You can still use an underlying, tested, proven reliable system to ensure that the new-fanged system does not give green to the wrong people at the same time.
This is going to save lives, and it was successfully testing in Boston last millennium. OK, so after a few weeks, the hardware went kaput, but that left the standard traffic light in place and there was no harm done. We lost interest. With today's tech, I could rebuild the system for one tenth of the price, and it would probably last a long longer.
No good deed goes unpunished...
If there's a countdown pedestrian signal and the intersection phase is controlled by the pedestrian movement (i.e., there's not so much traffic that the light has to stay greener for more time than it takes a pedestrian to get across), then you can use the pedestrian countdown as a green light countdown.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
One reason I drive with a dash cam is that some red light cameras will randomly have no yellow light. Yep, green->red.
Shenanigans. I call bravo sierra.
Because we don't need fucking cameras monitoring us every moment of our lives!
If it's not important enough for a real, live cop to write up a citation and hand it to the offender personally, then it's not important enough to enforce!
The government really needs to learn their place. And their place is NOT micromanaging every little detail of our lives.
This isn't about safety, didn't you get that message? It's revenue, pure and simple, with safety as the excuse. There are many other ways to make intersections safer, such as improved timing, visibility and lighting, geometry (gentler curves, gentler slopes, wider lanes), lower speed limits, and lowering the amount of traffic. Red light cameras should be a last resort. No one gets away with repeatedly entering intersections when it isn't safe to do so. Most of the time, when the traffic light is red, it's not safe! (We do have a problem with brainless lights holding people up for empty cross streets.) The person who tries it will get in a wreck before long. It's such a stupid thing to try that it is very rare, and those who do so rightly deserve being nominated for a Darwin Award if they get themselvs killed.
The #1 way to make intersections safer is ensure that the yellow light is long enough. Cities and their business partners who run these red light camera programs are notorious for deliberately neglecting to set the yellow to a reasonable duration. They used to be brazen enough to shorten the yellow. Now to head off accusations of cheating, they instead seek out intersections where the yellow was never long enough to begin with, and throw up cameras there. Every time they slap cameras on an intersection without first adjusting yellow durations, they show their true colors. Busting people for missing lights by under 1 second does not improve safety. They even trot out this ridiculous claim that longer yellows will not help because people adjust to them. Of course they can't cite any evidence to back that up.
In many cases, red light cameras have actually decreased safety. These programs have caused an increase in rear end collisions thanks to hard braking to avoid a ticket.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"