quote:I suppose the obvious drawback to such a department would be that if it was effective in deterring traffic violations, it would eventually *stop* paying for itself.
Yup. Some cities with red light cameras have considered turning them off because when people became aware of them and stopped running red lights city revenue went down.
I love the irony of this statement. It's almost like the cops want people to break the law, because then they'll be able to fund their department. No one else finds this funny?
Except, of course, it's not the police department making the choice. It's general the city council, mayor, and/or some advisement board.
And as has been noted, they cost money to run. While reducing red-light running is an excellent thing, I have seen no studies that indicate that such lights do so overall -- just at the specific intersections with the lights. I know people who take alternate routes to avoid the lights. They're not running fewer reds; they're just changing the locations.
Given that, it makes perfect sense to remove the cameras from intersections that were only somewhat problematic to start with, if they're not bringing in enough revenue to pay for their own operation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is similar to my basic problem with unmarked police cars. I see no legitimate use for an unmarked car. In my opinion, police are there to prevent crime, to be available to the public, and to respond to situations. It should never be to their benefit to not be seen by the populace at large, so that they can nab people and shake them down for revenue.
The only argument in favor of unmarked cars is that their possible presence prevents crime through the establishment of a fear state. I don't want to live that way. I have nothing against undercover work against organized crime... but on the other hand I would very concerned if the cops were, say, going undercover among us just in order to catch us at whatever random mischief we might get up to.
The cops need to be a presence, not a watchword or a boogyman. And as for the cameras, I feel the same way- the idea that they are out there at intersection, that there may even be speed cameras you are not aware of is too much to expect us to accept.
And as was pointed out before, this kind of intrusion is only going to escalate if it produces revenue. I railed last year about a cop who gave me a ticket outside my house in a secluded residential circle for being 18 inches off of a soft curb, IN FRONT OF MY OWN HOUSE. I felt that this kind of thing was what you must come to expect from a city that has grown used to papering all the cars downtown, and has begun to look with interest on the possible revenue stream its tax-paying citizens might provide. This can all be done under the guise of "keeping order," but in what way does the letter of the law necessarily express its spirit? What does it do for me to have a portion of the police department my taxes are paying for driving around papering windshields for 18 inches? It's not as if their "needing" the revenue is an excuse for that kind of nonsense. If the ticket was useless and pointless yesterday, it is the same today- and I can assure that long term residents of the city complain far louder than I do that the police take more and more liberty to appropriate their money.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While they're installing those devices, they should go ahead and install software on Blayne's computer to deduct money from his account every time he downloads pirated software.
Its legal in Canada to download stuff.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also use my middle name, Gordongrad.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Canada's like international waters. Anything goes up there.
I once bet on a Mountie in a firecracker fight against a moose that was at the same time being married by a 50 year old man and his 13 year old daughter and in the background someone was showing films that they had physically stolen from MGM. And no one had a problem with this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yeah, Canada's like international waters. Anything goes up there.
I once bet on a Mountie in a firecracker fight against a moose that was at the same time being married by a 50 year old man and his 13 year old daughter and in the background someone was showing films that they had physically stolen from MGM. And no one had a problem with this.
Awesome, I totally need to check Canada out now.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm sure that the red light cameras are a deterrent to some people, others just take different routes (as noted above by rivka). However, while they do cost money to run, the reason some cities are considering removing them has a lot to do with the problems that they cause. Red light cameras don't discriminate. They start taking pictures when the light turns red and anyone who crosses the intersection during that time is issued a ticket. The problem is that some of the people receiving tickets may have been in the intersection before the light changed (and in some places, this means they should not be ticketed) or perhaps they have a reason, such as a funeral procession, which permits them to run the red light. The city then has to spend time and resources dealing with people who should not have been ticketed, determining if they were or were not in violation of the law at the time their picture was taken, and either enforcing the ticket, or removing it from the records of the drivers.
The cameras also ticket the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver of the car. Which means that if I loan my car to a friend because I have a station wagon and she has a mini cooper, and needs to haul something that won't fit in her car, I get the ticket and it goes on my record, unless she either admits to the city that she did it, or I can somehow prove that I was not driving the car at the time of the infraction.
These problems are common across the board in cities that use these cameras, and it's a major reason for why the governments in some places are removing them. Unless the city can afford to maintain cameras at every traffic light they aren't a true deterrent, and they cause a lot of problems and extra work.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And as has been noted, they cost money to run. While reducing red-light running is an excellent thing, I have seen no studies that indicate that such lights do so overall -- just at the specific intersections with the lights. I know people who take alternate routes to avoid the lights. They're not running fewer reds; they're just changing the locations.
Wait a minute, people actually go to the trouble of finding alternate routes just to avoid cameras on traffic lights?? So, what, they set out intending to run red lights? It's actually more convenient for them to take an entirely different route than to simply stop at red lights?
posted
As for the effectiveness of the cameras, I saw a report on the news some weeks ago about how the numbers in my area show that the cameras decrease the number of fatal collisions, but also greatly increase the number of fender-benders, as people are prone to slam on their breaks suddenly to avoid running the red.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. This is according to my spouse, who works in traffic saftey research -- red light cameras are very effective at reducing fatalities at intersections that have a high rate of T-bone collisions. They consistently reduce these types of crashes. They also consistently increase rear-end collisions, which typically don't involve serious injuries or fatalities.
That is actually why a lot of cities are removing them -- if they're there just to catch casual red light-runners and increase ticket revenue it's usually not worth the increase in minor accidents. But at the intersections that really need them they save lives.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: While I'm sure that the red light cameras are a deterrent to some people, others just take different routes (as noted above by rivka). However, while they do cost money to run, the reason some cities are considering removing them has a lot to do with the problems that they cause. Red light cameras don't discriminate. They start taking pictures when the light turns red and anyone who crosses the intersection during that time is issued a ticket. The problem is that some of the people receiving tickets may have been in the intersection before the light changed (and in some places, this means they should not be ticketed) or perhaps they have a reason, such as a funeral procession, which permits them to run the red light. The city then has to spend time and resources dealing with people who should not have been ticketed, determining if they were or were not in violation of the law at the time their picture was taken, and either enforcing the ticket, or removing it from the records of the drivers.
Although I agree in principle, there are a few misconceptions or over-generalizations I need to address here. When the cameras were going up in my city, I read the articles about it with these concerns in mind.
The cameras, at least the ones near me, do not in fact "start taking pictures" when the light turns red. They use a computer and motion detector to sense whether or not it appears a car will cross an intersection after the light is red. This actually means that you can, at least in my case, avoid a ticket by stopping at the light, and then crossing slowly, without priming the detection system.
As for the second part, I agree that the logistical problems are various. I would go a step further, and the legalistas can confirm or disconfirm, but I believe that the margin for error with these systems presents a threat to 4th amendment rights– the right to confront one's accuser.
Amazingly, the framers built a legal language so useful through our history that it deals with a device and a function for that device that they had never imagined- and yet they had prepared for it. We should never live in a world where our value judgments are being made by machines.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Illinois the department of transportation will not allow traffic cameras to be on state routes, because while it may reduce the number of fatalities, increasing the number of fender benders is exactly contrary to what they want. I don't think the state of IL discriminates in the "accident" statistics from fender benders vs. fatalities, in the same way that dkw just did, because the politicians tend not to.
However they *do* have mobile speed enforcement vans, that they have started putting in construction zones, where the minimum fine is $375, and the IL DOT is extremely happy with these, because it protects the lives of construction workers. The vans have to be operated by an actual cop. He chooses when to pull the trigger and he has the ability to ticket all of the lanes of traffic at once, if he wants.
The other night when my bf was on the road and the cop was running the van, one guy actually did pull over, after the speed limit got flashed up, and started to walk towards the van. The officer got out with his hand on his holster, and the situation was diffused. But, the guy knew that there actually had to be a cop in the van in order for it to be legal to ticket him.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
Not funny, exactly, but it does make me wonder how they do their calculus. They are probably also taking into account resulting traffic congestion and delays.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
neo-dragon: somewhat, but then, anyone who drives at all says something similar vs extra time due to walking. Many trade-offs people make every day lead to a definite increase in the amount of death in the world.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
That's not what anyone is saying. The point is that putting redlight cameras at intersections that don't have a problem with fatal accidents increases small accidents with no corresponding benefit in lives saved. So the reccommendation is to use them only at intersections that have a significant rate of T-bone accidents.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And as has been noted, they cost money to run. While reducing red-light running is an excellent thing, I have seen no studies that indicate that such lights do so overall -- just at the specific intersections with the lights. I know people who take alternate routes to avoid the lights. They're not running fewer reds; they're just changing the locations.
Wait a minute, people actually go to the trouble of finding alternate routes just to avoid cameras on traffic lights?? So, what, they set out intending to run red lights? It's actually more convenient for them to take an entirely different route than to simply stop at red lights?
Don't ask me. I take the route with all the cameras. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
That's not what anyone is saying. The point is that putting redlight cameras at intersections that don't have a problem with fatal accidents increases small accidents with no corresponding benefit in lives saved. So the reccommendation is to use them only at intersections that have a significant rate of T-bone accidents.
That's what you're saying, but I've heard the stats used as an argument against using cameras all together. I'm just curious as to where one draws the line. If there are 1000 fender-benders for every 1 life saved, would that be considered worth the expense and the trouble?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Does it strike anyone else as funny that the whole fender-bender thing amounts to saying that the lives being saved simply aren't worth all the smashed bumpers?
No, because that's a distortion. The point was that in certain cases, the cameras prevent T-bone collisions in problem intersections.
The point is valid because the people who are now getting involved in fender benders are not the people who are running lights and killing people otherwise- at least most of them aren't, if the incidence of fender benders is increasing. So the question is, why would you create a generally unsafe situation for all commuters in order to deter (read also: not to prevent) blatant violations of the law? It is also very very hard for me to believe that T-bone accidents involving red light running are not alcohol related almost 100% of the time. If you want to deter people from driving drunk, why not put breathalysers in every car? That would have no negative safety impact.
But you can't equate x number of fender benders as acceptable collateral damage for preventing y number of T-bone collisions. At the very least, you cannot do so without being unsettled by it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: That's what you're saying, but I've heard the stats used as an argument against using cameras all together. I'm just curious as to where one draws the line. If there are 1000 fender-benders for every 1 life saved, would that be considered worth the expense and the trouble?
I don't see a particular need to draw a line in cosmological sand over the issue either. I'll simply say that the four camera'd intersections I know about in my town went up "to prevent accidents," after a three year period where no serious accidents had occurred. What really, REALLY, steamed my blood was when a camera went up on a 5 way intersection downtown where the speed of traffic is always under 20 miles an hour. The paper reported that there had NEVER been a fatal accident in that intersection, and if you could see what it looks like, you'd realize that the chances of a T-bone at that spot are disproportionately low.
And then last week I slowed my bike in a zebra intersection to watch a moron in a sportscar make a left from a parallel street across my path while speeding without looking. I yelled as loud as I could, standing in the middle of the intersection, but it didn't make me feel any better about having just saved my own life.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the highway I uset oget to work, there's a seriously tight curve, before they installed speed camaras you could guarantee a lorry jackknife about once every six weeks, with the associated traffic chaos.
Since the camaras, I haven't seen a single accident (in about 12 months so far - touch wood).
I am a reformed speeder - I got hammered by massive fine (350€, about $525) for being more than 50% above the limit. No excuses, it was a fiar cop, but from then on my foot is significantly lighter on the accelerator...
On the topic of speeding, I also read a cool (if unattributed) quote "If you drive 5mph below the speed limit, the road is empty. If you drive 5 mph over you will always be stcuk behind someone".
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maven, you do realize that for whatever reason, your last post contained more britishisms than the sum total of your posting history?
Lorry, touch wood, hammered, pounds, accelerator, and is "camara" a british spelling variant or a mistake?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
