10 crazy red-light camera cases

[radcen]

10 crazy red-light camera cases

10 crazy red-light camera cases

 

[Thoreau72]

Thanks for posting that! Some funny, most sad, but the one about the reviewing cops getting rid of the tickets for other cops' families was the best.

RLC is highway robbery conducted by the authorities. :smash:

 

[HonestJoe]

Thanks for posting that! Some funny, most sad, but the one about the reviewing cops getting rid of the tickets for other cops' families was the best.

It is mostly about blaming technology for human failures isn't it. I bet you could find the same kind of mistakes, flaws and corruption with manual enforcement too, it's just that nobody has a vested interest in highlighting that.

 

[radcen]

It is mostly about blaming technology for human failures isn't it. I bet you could find the same kind of mistakes, flaws and corruption with manual enforcement too, it's just that nobody has a vested interest in highlighting that.

I sense an unfilled niche for another article. Have at it.

 

[radcen]

Where are the usual suspects who usually come into threads regarding red-light and speed cameras to defend them as "another tool for law enforcement"? :shrug:

 

[penn1954]

Where are the usual suspects who usually come into threads regarding red-light and speed cameras to defend them as "another tool for law enforcement"? :shrug:

Maybe they are finally figuring out that Big Brother is a bad thing.

IMO this newer technology is causing all of us a big problem.

 

[HonestJoe]

Where are the usual suspects who usually come into threads regarding red-light and speed cameras to defend them as "another tool for law enforcement"? :shrug:

That was basically my point. Maybe I was too subtle.

The fact remains that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with traffic cameras. There are plenty of problems with how they're often used but that's no more a reason to dismiss use of them out of hand than all the problems with how people drive is a reason to ban cars.

I do find it laughable that there are all these often legitimate complaints about how officials are using the cameras to make money yet the response is to ban the cameras but keep the officials.

 

[radcen]

That was basically my point. Maybe I was too subtle.

The fact remains that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with traffic cameras. There are plenty of problems with how they're often used but that's no more a reason to dismiss use of them out of hand than all the problems with how people drive is a reason to ban cars.

I do find it laughable that there are all these often legitimate complaints about how officials are using the cameras to make money yet the response is to ban the cameras but keep the officials.

Got'cha. I did misinterpret your point somewhat.

 

[Thoreau72]

That was basically my point. Maybe I was too subtle.

The fact remains that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with traffic cameras. There are plenty of problems with how they're often used but that's no more a reason to dismiss use of them out of hand than all the problems with how people drive is a reason to ban cars.

I do find it laughable that there are all these often legitimate complaints about how officials are using the cameras to make money yet the response is to ban the cameras but keep the officials.

I have no objection to traffic cameras for purposes of traffic control and such, if that's what you mean.

But if you mean there is no trouble with Red Light Cameras, then you are very wrong. This thread's linked article gives but 10 examples of how wrong they are.

They greatly encourage abuses of authority, they take money from people (like a tax, ya know) and give it to private companies who are running a scam, as the ATS part of the linked article demonstrates.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Ten examples from around the planet is hardly an epidemic.

 

[radcen]

I have no objection to traffic cameras for purposes of traffic control and such, if that's what you mean.

But if you mean there is no trouble with Red Light Cameras, then you are very wrong. This thread's linked article gives but 10 examples of how wrong they are.

They greatly encourage abuses of authority, they take money from people (like a tax, ya know) and give it to private companies who are running a scam, as the ATS part of the linked article demonstrates.

I don't have an issue with them in concept, either... as long as the proper process is undertaken to ensure that the actual driver is identified and cited.

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't have an issue with them in concept, either... as long as the proper process is undertaken to ensure that the actual driver is identified and cited.

I'm surprised that you take that position, especially considering the story you started this thread with.

I hate to be repetitive, but they are but a scam, meant to enrichen certain companies. They defraud the public, and do not contribute to safety. Indeed, much evidence suggests they work against safety.

I was briefed by 2 different police officers on how the systems actually work, and it's a scam. Both those cops are now retired. They told it like it was--it's a scam.

The article you provided demonstrates it with 10 examples. It sounds good, but it's a scam.

 

[radcen]

I'm surprised that you take that position, especially considering the story you started this thread with.

I hate to be repetitive, but they are but a scam, meant to enrichen certain companies. They defraud the public, and do not contribute to safety. Indeed, much evidence suggests they work against safety.

I was briefed by 2 different police officers on how the systems actually work, and it's a scam. Both those cops are now retired. They told it like it was--it's a scam.

The article you provided demonstrates it with 10 examples. It sounds good, but it's a scam.

Maybe I should back up a bit. Ok, I'd still have issues, primarily due to the increases in rear-end collisions, etc., but I wouldn't oppose them nearly as much if they used proper due process and targeted the actual driver.

IMO, it's a scam... and it indeed is, the way it's run now... BECAUSE they don't go through proper due process (in most places). All states are different, but here for example, a camera ticket is a "civil offense" and does not go on your driving record (because they make no effort to prove who was driving), hence a lower standard of 'proof' (none, really) required. If they did go after the driver, then they would be legally bound by proper due process and would lose many of their cases... which is why they have devised this loophole (not unlike devising civil asset forfeiture to take stuff without criminal proceedings being too inconvenient).

As a side note: My town has speed cameras (in addition to red-light cameras). As I mentioned, a camera ticket is a minor civil offense, while a ticket from a live officer is a traffic offense with points on your record, etc. Could be the same speed on the same road, two different penalties based on *how* you were caught. Seems to me that if I got a ticket from a live officer I should be able to argue that, under equal treatment under the law, I should get the same lesser penalty that camera tickets get.

 

[HonestJoe]

I have no objection to traffic cameras for purposes of traffic control and such, if that's what you mean.

Well red-light cameras are traffic cameras which can be used for traffic control.

But if you mean there is no trouble with Red Light Cameras, then you are very wrong. This thread's linked article gives but 10 examples of how wrong they are.

No it doesn't. Some of it's examples aren't about red-light cameras at all and most of them are about corrupt officials, profiteering companies and flawed laws rather than problems with the technology or principle at all. As I said, that applies to pretty much any form of technology you can think of to some extent.

Linking the problems to the technology rather than the guilty people isn't just incorrect, it's immoral - you're basically letting the corrupt and criminal get away with their crimes. Do you really think that if you take away the red-light cameras, they won't go on to corrupt something else?

Let's be honest here. A key reason for the vocal public objects to this kind of thing has nothing to do with corruption or misuse but the fact people don't like being caught and fined for breaking the law. If you had a similar situation where all the key factors were the same apart from the fines going to large companies rather than individuals, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

There are certainly things to change and improve here but I don't believe the angle the attacks are coming from will (or, in honesty are intended to) make the changes and improvements that should happen.

 

[Thoreau72]

Well red-light cameras are traffic cameras which can be used for traffic control.

No it doesn't. Some of it's examples aren't about red-light cameras at all and most of them are about corrupt officials, profiteering companies and flawed laws rather than problems with the technology or principle at all. As I said, that applies to pretty much any form of technology you can think of to some extent.

Linking the problems to the technology rather than the guilty people isn't just incorrect, it's immoral - you're basically letting the corrupt and criminal get away with their crimes. Do you really think that if you take away the red-light cameras, they won't go on to corrupt something else?

Let's be honest here. A key reason for the vocal public objects to this kind of thing has nothing to do with corruption or misuse but the fact people don't like being caught and fined for breaking the law. If you had a similar situation where all the key factors were the same apart from the fines going to large companies rather than individuals, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

There are certainly things to change and improve here but I don't believe the angle the attacks are coming from will (or, in honesty are intended to) make the changes and improvements that should happen.

I think I understand your point, but my point is that the system greatly encourages such corruption. Is it smart to have a system set up that encourages corruption? Especially a system that does not produce any safety enhancement? A system that in many cases makes intersections LESS safe? No, that's not smart.

When I was briefed by those cops years ago, here's how they explained the ideal setup for the cameras. We realize that the ideal setup may not be available, but the ideal is a perfectly symmetrical intersection with 90 degree intersection of the two roads. 5 cameras at such an intersection is the ideal. In the center of that intersection, as defined by the white crossing lines, is an imaginary box.

When the light turns red, if any part of a vehicle is in that box, it's a ticket. So that means we are talking about fractions of seconds, and mere feet inside the box. As they explained, in the ideal setup, it is a mathematical certainty that some vehicle, perhaps multiple vehicles, will be at least partially inside that box. It was so certain that the ideal intersection with RLC could produce more than $1000 a day in revenue.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, and has nothing at all to do with safety. It is revenue for the company and for the city.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think I understand your point, but my point is that the system greatly encourages such corruption.

Well, that's your claim. I'm not convinced you've supported it though. It isn't as if there aren't lots of examples of corruption in government, law-enforcement and the private sector that don't involve red-light cameras so the fact that there is some corruption that does proves nothing. You'd need to either demonstrate more than average corruption with red-light cameras or identify a direct causal link.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't corruption, only that the existence of corruption is a poor reason to scrap the tools the corrupt happened to use. It could be easily argued that giving the police to power of arrest had been often abused by corrupt police, you could even argue that giving them that power encourages corruption but you wouldn't seek to get rid of the power of arrest as a result of those facts.

When I was briefed by those cops years ago…

Cops aren't engineers so I'm not sure why we'd rely on their statements about how the technology should or does work. I'm also not convinced what you've described here is an accurate representation of how they do work anyway.

HowStuffWorks "The Triggers"

 

[Thoreau72]

Clearly HonestJoe, you are absolutely entitled to believe as you wish. eace

We beat them here in my hometown when they were proposed, and for that I'm thankful. We filled the Commission meeting with informed people who could see it was a fraud and did not contribute to safety. What other cities do is no problem for me.

 

[HonestJoe]

Clearly HonestJoe, you are absolutely entitled to believe as you wish. eace

I'll take that as the closest to I'll get to an admission that I'm right. Thanks.

 

[radcen]

Well red-light cameras are traffic cameras which can be used for traffic control.

No it doesn't. Some of it's examples aren't about red-light cameras at all and most of them are about corrupt officials, profiteering companies and flawed laws rather than problems with the technology or principle at all. As I said, that applies to pretty much any form of technology you can think of to some extent.

Linking the problems to the technology rather than the guilty people isn't just incorrect, it's immoral - you're basically letting the corrupt and criminal get away with their crimes. Do you really think that if you take away the red-light cameras, they won't go on to corrupt something else?

Let's be honest here. A key reason for the vocal public objects to this kind of thing has nothing to do with corruption or misuse but the fact people don't like being caught and fined for breaking the law. If you had a similar situation where all the key factors were the same apart from the fines going to large companies rather than individuals, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

There are certainly things to change and improve here but I don't believe the angle the attacks are coming from will (or, in honesty are intended to) make the changes and improvements that should happen.

People are corruptible, no doubt. Said fact does not excuse making it easy for them to encourage their corruption. It seems that you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying, "It (corruption) is going to happen anyway, so we might as well just roll over and let it happen." Also, blaming others as merely wanting to break the law with impunity is an emotional retort that the claimant knows cannot be effectively refuted, so it is dismissed as a cheap debate tactic. So, yes, let's be honest... Believe it or not, it is possible to have legitimate concerns and higher expectations from those in positions of authority. Shocking concept, I know.

There are reasonable steps that can be taken to minimize corruption. We can put protections in place to minimize corruption.

Let's take the example of officers dismissing tickets issued to fellow cop family members. Yes, that will happen regardless whether the process is automatic or manual. There's not much we can do there other than discipline when/if we find it. (We'll still probably rationalize it and let it go anyway, but that's another topic for another thread.)

How about protections from over-reaching abuse? We have one protection, but have chosen to justify legal end-runs around it... due process. Whether you're talking traffic cameras or civil asset forfeiture, we have artificially created special legal provisions that skirt the purpose and intent of due process. This leave LE free to over-reach with no checks or balances placed on them. We set up due process a long time ago precisely to protect the average citizen from over-reaching and corruption, and we are being shown prime examples in today's world why it is a still-needed concept... LEOs are human and are just as easily corruptible by easy gains as any other human.

Another protection that we could easily institute is... if we simply must have traffic cameras, etc... then the money should go to the general fund, and be distributed from there. There should never EVER be a profit incentive in law enforcement, and again law enforcement is showing us why there should never be a direct profit incentive. Now, if a city council votes to then give all the proceeds from cameras to the police department, that's fine... it's at least above-board and the council members who choose to do so are directly answerable to the voters for their choices. (This would apply to civil asset forfeiture as well.)

Yet another protection we can put in place is taking away the profit incentive for the private company that sell and/or operates the equipment and program. Let me back up... they deserve a profit, but their profit shouldn't be dependent on how many tickets are issued. They should get a flat fee, period. Does this mean the city might lose money if ticket numbers aren't as high as projected? Possibly. But answer this question... is the camera program about safety or money? *How* you operate the program will give the answer.

Changing direction a bit, you say that blaming the technology instead of the people is immoral. Ok, here's your chance to propose solutions rather than simply denigrate those who have concerns with the program. What do YOU propose to minimize corruption from within the system? (I won't say eliminate, as that's not entirely even possible.)

 

[HonestJoe]

It seems that you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying, "It (corruption) is going to happen anyway, so we might as well just roll over and let it happen."

Not at all. I don't think attacking red-light cameras (or traffic cameras in general) is the correct way to address the corruption - they're not the source of the problem. If it's shown that government officials in a town were using the cameras to make money, I'd rather get rid of the officials than the cameras. I was getting the impression of arguments for the exact opposite.

Also, blaming others as merely wanting to break the law with impunity is an emotional retort that the claimant knows cannot be effectively refuted, so it is dismissed as a cheap debate tactic. So, yes, let's be honest... Believe it or not, it is possible to have legitimate concerns and higher expectations from those in positions of authority. Shocking concept, I know.

I accept that to a point. I'm certainly not saying everyone with objections has that negative motive but I stand by my belief that the wide-spread vocal objections to this kind of thing are, if only subconsciously, strongly influenced by it. Do note that I didn't say people want to break the law as such, only that they dislike being caught and fined for doing so.

There are lots of bad things going on out there and how much the general public cares about them is often not based on how fundamentally bad they are but how immediately apparent the effects are to us personally. It's human nature but that's no reason not to resist it where we can.

Changing direction a bit, you say that blaming the technology instead of the people is immoral. Ok, here's your chance to propose solutions rather than simply denigrate those who have concerns with the program. What do YOU propose to minimize corruption from within the system? (I won't say eliminate, as that's not entirely even possible.)

I really wasn't arguing in favour of the use of red-light cameras though. I was making a more academic point about the nature of the arguments and campaigns against them.

I certainly agree that removing the profit motive from those in control (public and private) is key, as is ensuring a clear and consistent legal process. I think there needs to be clear consistency on the technology too, doing the best to ensure it's accurate and effective.

I also don't think enforcement (with technology or otherwise) should be taken alone. Driver education is a key aspect too, in general and specifically for those caught (in general I like systems with driver training as alternatives to fines). A lot of these problems boil down to poor driving habits and, I feel, an element of growing self-centredness in our society. I mean, lets be clear here - under normal circumstances, there is zero justification for any driver to jump a red light in the first place. Most of the time, it will happen because the driver isn't paying attention, is driving too fast or tries to beat the yellow light before it changes. The ultimate aim of this should be to reduce the incidence of those things and I think we're all getting distracted from that.

 

[radcen]

For the sake of full disclosure, I'm sure that there are people who complain simply because they don't want to get caught, but not everybody is like that so I think it's unfair to make a blanket statement to that effect.

 

[Thoreau72]

Not at all. I don't think attacking red-light cameras (or traffic cameras in general) is the correct way to address the corruption - they're not the source of the problem. If it's shown that government officials in a town were using the cameras to make money, I'd rather get rid of the officials than the cameras. I was getting the impression of arguments for the exact opposite.

I accept that to a point. I'm certainly not saying everyone with objections has that negative motive but I stand by my belief that the wide-spread vocal objections to this kind of thing are, if only subconsciously, strongly influenced by it. Do note that I didn't say people want to break the law as such, only that they dislike being caught and fined for doing so.

There are lots of bad things going on out there and how much the general public cares about them is often not based on how fundamentally bad they are but how immediately apparent the effects are to us personally. It's human nature but that's no reason not to resist it where we can.

I really wasn't arguing in favour of the use of red-light cameras though. I was making a more academic point about the nature of the arguments and campaigns against them.

I certainly agree that removing the profit motive from those in control (public and private) is key, as is ensuring a clear and consistent legal process. I think there needs to be clear consistency on the technology too, doing the best to ensure it's accurate and effective.

I also don't think enforcement (with technology or otherwise) should be taken alone. Driver education is a key aspect too, in general and specifically for those caught (in general I like systems with driver training as alternatives to fines). A lot of these problems boil down to poor driving habits and, I feel, an element of growing self-centredness in our society. I mean, lets be clear here - under normal circumstances, there is zero justification for any driver to jump a red light in the first place. Most of the time, it will happen because the driver isn't paying attention, is driving too fast or tries to beat the yellow light before it changes. The ultimate aim of this should be to reduce the incidence of those things and I think we're all getting distracted from that.

Just so you understand my position, I am NOT claiming that RLC brought us corruption. No sir, I understand full well that we're dealing with humans and not angels, and that corruption in government is all too common.

The point is that RLC is just another public policy that enables more corruption, new corruption.

And for me personally, the corruption angle is relatively minor.

The big thing for me is that these cameras establish highway robbery, no pun intended. They are grossly unjust because the price of the ticket for some people today is several days worth of wages. And to add insult to injury, the cameras do nothing for safety. As the cop told me years ago, if they did increase safety, they would put them up at all intersections, including just stop signs.

But because they are about revenue and nothing else, they are quite picky about which intersections they put them up at. If the traffic count is not high enough, they are a losing proposition for the company, and they won't put them there.