Red Light Cameras

[Kung Wu]

An interesting article about red light cameras: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal...ne-rule-of-law

Curious what y'all think. I can see both sides, but my instinct is to say that they should be banned.

There is a human aspect to driving, and sometimes violating a law has the socially best outcome. A contrived example might be if you are stopped at an intersection and witness a person collapse grabbing their chest. You are sitting at a red light and there are no other cars in sight. A decent human is going to go ahead and proceed through the intersection and help that person as quickly as possible. No court or policeman would even think twice about bothering you about it. But an automated system?

[jdshock]

An interesting article about red light cameras: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal...ne-rule-of-law

Curious what y'all think. I can see both sides, but my instinct is to say that they should be banned.

There is a human aspect to driving, and sometimes violating a law has the socially best outcome. A contrived example might be if you are stopped at an intersection and witness a person collapse grabbing their chest. You are sitting at a red light and there are no other cars in sight. A decent human is going to go ahead and proceed through the intersection and help that person as quickly as possible. No court or policeman would even think twice about bothering you about it. But an automated system?

The article says:

Specifically, use of these cameras could violate the Sixth Amendment. The Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. Since it is a camera and not a person that witnessed the offense, such violations generally cannot be considered a criminal offense. The ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle, not to the person driving it, leaving a lack of certainty as to the identity of the offender.

That is a fairly large misstatement of the law. If you murder someone, and it is caught on camera, you can be certain it does not violate the confrontation clause. Without a doubt, the police, storeclerk, whoever, will have someone paid to show up and explain the process for recordkeeping, who owns the camera, how the data was captured, etc. There would be no confrontation clause issue. The confrontation clause issue with red light cameras has to do with the fact that no one is presented to offer that kind of testimony (why would they? It's a relatively small civil fine). If the company flew out representatives who could talk about the cameras and how they work and store the data, there would almost certainly be no issues.

All that to say, I have no issue with red light cameras if there is an appeal process. As the article points out, when there isn't a simple appeal process, that's when you start to have problems.

[SB Shock]

I have no problems with red light cameras.

[WuDrWu]

I don't have a problem with the theory behind them, EXCEPT that's why there's a problem with them.

We continue to head down a path of being a society that will legislate anything and everything to right a singular wrong. Do we really have that big a problem with people running red lights? Yes, I understand it happens, and that once in a few million times a tragedy will occur and nobody wants those tragedies. But at what cost? And I mean at what cost to the taxpayers and what cost to society? And what's next? Where does it stop?

We continue to pander to the worst case scenario, the least common denominator, and to the expense of most everyone that's not affected at all. The Pool Lift Law is a perfect example. Every public access pool must have an installed mechanical lift as of 2010. Do you have any idea what one of these costs? They are 8-10k installed, each, and if you have a separate wading pool or hot tub, then times 2. And that's before you have to instruct your staff on how to use and maintain the things. Of course we all want access for everyone. Nobody wants to see people shut out, but who gets into a swimming pool that can't walk? It defies common sense. But now EVERY public access pool in the country has to have these for the 2 dozen people that might be stubborn enough to test it out. Nobody will say anything about it though because you'll be called handicapphobic. It's idiotic, it defies common sense. So of course it's embraced by government.

Maybe we should empanel a grand jury every time a lawyer goes to sue someone, when we know they aren't going to court and just want to settle to put some cash in their pocket at 40% per case. You'd have to get 100% of the folks to agree that the case is legitimate and that the lawyer can and will actually take the time to try the case. Maybe they could pay the costs if they lose?

We need more good ideas like that.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Adding cameras to traffic lights isnt legislation.

[Kung Wu]

Yeah, I assumed they over simplified the law.

If you murder someone, and it is caught on camera, you can be certain it does not violate the confrontation clause. Without a doubt, the police, storeclerk, whoever, will have someone paid to show up and explain the process for recordkeeping, who owns the camera, how the data was captured, etc. There would be no confrontation clause issue.

Yeah, that makes sense. So in the case of murder, wouldn't the witnesses be the experts that review camera footage?

The confrontation clause issue with red light cameras has to do with the fact that no one is presented to offer that kind of testimony (why would they? It's a relatively small civil fine). If the company flew out representatives who could talk about the cameras and how they work and store the data, there would almost certainly be no issues.

Right, and I think that's the point. No witness reviews the footage -- you are simply automatically mailed a fine, and they are difficult to appeal.

I guess this is just the beginning of the real Robocop era.

[jdshock]

That's probably a fair way to think about it. My only issue with the article was that one paragraph that said cameras generally mean it can't be a criminal offense. It can be, it just takes more work. .

But... it is much more obviously a money grab when the government body isn't willing to pay extra funds to ensure someone reviews the footage.

[SB Shock]

Do we really have that big a problem with people running red lights? Yes,

If you believe that, why would you not use technology that has become available?

IIHS did studies on the effect of red light cameras in Philly in 2007 after they had been installed for year. 96% reduction in violations. STL in 2007 in their first two lights saw 49% reduction. San Diego saw a 44% drop in accidents with intersection with red light cameras. Gallatin Tenn - 40% reduction, Garland Texas 56%, Houston 30%

I understand it happens, and that once in a few million times a tragedy will occur and nobody wants those tragedies.

47% of accidents at intersections are the result of people running red lights
Accidents involving red-light runners are more severe.
Deaths at intersections are 3 times higher for red-light runners than for other causes

But at what cost? And I mean at what cost to the taxpayers and what cost to society? And what's next? Where does it stop?

Make the offenders pay for the cost. Red light cameras cost about $60-80,000. Probably recoup that in one year.

Cost to society? It is a benefit to society.

[WuDrWu]

If you believe that, why would you not use technology that has become available?

I didn't phrase my response very well. No, I do not think it's a huge problem. Does it occur? Yes. Is it as big a problem as drunk driving? No. Do you want to put a breathtester in every car? That would all but eliminate drunk driving. How about weed detectors in every car? I'd love that.

IIHS did studies on the effect of red light cameras in Philly in 2007 after they had been installed for year. 96% reduction in violations. STL in 2007 in their first two lights saw 49% reduction. San Diego saw a 44% drop in accidents with intersection with red light cameras. Gallatin Tenn - 40% reduction, Garland Texas 56%, Houston 30%

%s don't mean a lot to me. Down from what? I'm sure they went down, but again, at what cost? And what's next?

47% of accidents at intersections are the result of people running red lights
Accidents involving red-light runners are more severe.
Deaths at intersections are 3 times higher for red-light runners than for other causes

I'm not disputing any of your numbers. Every accident is bad. Can we prevent them all? At what cost? And again, how about getting to the real problems? Unlicensed drivers? Illegal drivers? Uninsured drivers? Poorly maintained vehicles? Drunk drivers (the worst of the worst)? Otherwise impaired drivers? Inattentive drivers? Drivers on their phones? All bigger problems and/or the cause of running red lights. I don't believe it's addressing the problem, just the result. And a minimal result at that.

Make the offenders pay for the cost. Red light cameras cost about $60-80,000. Probably recoup that in one year.

Cost to society? It is a benefit to society.

To me, you don't have to get to this argument but I'd challenge the cost (and maintenance and associated costs like the % of fees actually collected etc). Most people that run red lights aren't problematic. A few are, but most aren't. I think there are better ways, and bigger problems without another big brother in the sky.

[WuDrWu]

Cost to society? It is a benefit to society.

Could a person make the same argument about eliminating private gun ownership?


And while that's an (intentional) exaggeration, I think one would be foolish to not believe that's exactly where this is heading.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

We continue to pander to the worst case scenario,

[Cdizzle]

Come for the red light tickets. Stay for the knowing where my vehicle/person is at all times.

[Kung Wu]

It's 3am in the morning. You pull up to a full stop at that weirdly placed light in the middle of the country where you can see for miles. There isn't a single person in any direction, and the light isn't changing.

What do ya do?

[jdshock]

Hang a right, pull a U-turn, hang another right. Boom.

[Kung Wu]

lmao

[SB Shock]

It's 3am in the morning. You pull up to a full stop at that weirdly placed light in the middle of the country where you can see for miles. There isn't a single person in any direction, and the light isn't changing.

What do ya do?

But that not where they are going to be put them at. You install these light at intersection where you are needing to change the behavior of drivers.

How much of our law enforcement resources do we use patrolling those problem intersections? Wasting limited resources when you can be leveraging technology.

[Kung Wu]

I guarantee you they end up on every lit intersection in America, once the money starts flowing in.

[SB Shock]

Could a person make the same argument about eliminating private gun ownership

i didn’t realize that running red lights was protected under the constitution. Or maybe you really can’t make the same argument can you.

[WuDrWu]

Good (and fair) point. My general tenor is just too much big brother, and where does it stop. And also is this where we should be focusing attention.

[abdullah_sharif]

red lights are like other principles in life.. merely suggestions

[ShockTalk]

But that not where they are going to be put them at. You install these light at intersection where you are needing to change the behavior of drivers.

How much of our law enforcement resources do we use patrolling those problem intersections? Wasting limited resources when you can be leveraging technology.

i didn’t realize that running red lights was protected under the constitution. Or maybe you really can’t make the same argument can you.

I'm not a fan of "Big Brother" laws, but having such cameras at the intersections with the highest accident rates, and signage designating them as such, should be a big positive. It may even be a positive to have a few, with signage, in lightly populated areas like up on 254.

As far as the "cost", what is a life worth, particularly an innocent one? People sue for $100,000s, millions today. Which would you rather have? A million in your pocket or a grandchild alive or not severely injured?

I don't think something like this should be everywhere, nor, where it is at, prevent every accident. On the other hand, I'm not necessarily buying Doc's thinking on who normally runs red lights. Yes, most of us have gotten in a position where we ended up "having" to run a just changed light. But if you intentionally run a light, you are the same person who drives drunk, speeds the most, drives without insurance, so on and so forth.

To me, comparing this to taking away private gun ownership is nothing the same. Now if one says take away everyone's right to drive, that's different. One of the silliest arguments for taking away gun ownership is the mass shootings. We're talking nut jobs here. The same person taking guns and using them against the public is the same person who, without the availability guns, would use pipe bombs, pressure cookers, trucks, or just blow themselves up in a crowd.

[abdullah_sharif]

the cost of the installation and maintenance will be covered by traffic tickets in time. there are certain intersections where i’d like to invest!

now if the monies were used to reduce the mill levy, i’d be a 100% supporter.. most likely ends up supporting another social program

[Kung Wu]

These will end up at every intersection in America, and will eventually be built right into the light itself. There's no "if the intersection needs it" or not. Those cameras are going to be used to track people's locations at points in time too -- they won't just be used for red lights. This is not a slippery slope argument, this is the way it will be in a short while.

That's a promise.

[ShockTalk]

You already have the technology in place on a number of toll roads. They track your license plate for payment.

[SB Shock]

With the proliferation of private and public cameras, gps data on your vehicle/phone, facial recognition, etc they already have the ability to track you at points in time.

I don’t buy every intersection argument, because putting in traffic lights is not cheap - cost is 250,000 to 500,000 per intersection. Then u have yearly maintenance.

[Kung Wu]

They don't have to erect a whole new traffic light system to install these things. This tech is mind boggling cheap to manufacture. Current businesses are probably gouging municipalities today, but that'll change with competition. This is part of the proliferation.

[shoxtop]

Cmon Kung, you of all people on this board know that camera tracking is the absolute least efficient way to accomplish tracking in this day and age. More and more detail is coming out about what info we’ve been able to buy from a marketing standpoint. It freaks people out but they sure don’t want to give up the conveniences that created (and maintain) that market. For the most part, the data these marketing companies collect and sell is fairly anonymized, but that’s not exactly the case when you own all the data right? Question is who are we more worried about? Big Gov or Big Corp?