E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSCurrently 21 states and Washington, D.C., use automated cameras at traffic intersections to catch violations such as running through red lights and stopping over white lines. While the cameras bring in thousands of extra dollars, drivers and some government officials argue they are inaccurate and rip people off. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
Drivers dread it -- that flash as they try to speed through a yellow traffic light. It’s a red light camera, and a signal that a ticket is on the way.
A rarity 15 years ago, red light cameras have become ubiquitous in many U.S. cities. Communities in 24 states and Washington, D.C., now use the cameras to try to decrease illegal -- and sometimes deadly -- traffic violations. Supporters say it’s worked.
"In the last five years we went from 54 traffic fatalities to 19,” said Cathy Lanier, police chief in Washington, D.C., which began using the cameras in 1999. “I mean, that's dramatic!”
Red light cameras are one piece of a growing network of automated traffic enforcement. Cameras now monitor speed, bus and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and intersections with stop signs. Proponents like Lanier say they help to deter accidents, nab violators and allow states and municipalities to keep an eye on the roads for less.
But critics of red light programs worry about the Big Brother aspect of using cameras instead of cops. Many also say cameras, which are generally run by private companies, have spread not because they make streets safer, but because they mean profit for cities and companies.
“What the issue really comes down to is these companies are ripping people off by hundreds of millions of dollars, in the name of caring about our safety and our health and our kids,” said New Jersey Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, who has introduced anti-red light camera legislation to the state Legislature.
Recent news stories have fueled opposition. In Chicago, an alleged pay-to-play scandal led the mayor to ban one company from bidding for future contracts. Millions were spent on pro-camera lobbying in Florida and other states. In Iowa, doubts about the constitutionality of using cameras as traffic enforcers led a state senator to introduce a bill to ban red-light cameras – a move already taken by at least nine other states.
What does science say?
Red light violations were associated with some 700 deaths and nearly 90,000 injuries in 2009, according to a study based on data reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatalities and injuries have decreased in recent years, the study shows.
Researchers, however, are divided on how much red light cameras increase safety.
Charlie Neibergall / AP file
Traffic passes a red light camera at an intersection in Clive, Iowa.
In 2011, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by the insurance industry, released a study that found red light cameras decreased fatal accidents by an estimated 24 percent in large cities that use them.
But a 2005 Federal Highway Administration study painted a more nuanced picture. Data from seven jurisdictions showed a decrease in front-into-side crashes at intersections with cameras. But it also showed an increase in rear-end crashes. The researchers said that apparently was the result of drivers hitting the brakes to avoid a ticket. Overall, however, the research showed the cameras saved money by both decreasing the most serious accidents, and generating revenue.
However, the FHA says that red light cameras shouldn’t be a knee-jerk traffic enforcement option. The agency issued a number of recommendations regarding the implementation of red light cameras, saying cameras should be considered only after engineering solutions have failed in problem intersections. Among the possible solutions, it says: Give drivers more cushion. Increasing yellow time by one second, it found, can result in a 40 percent decrease in crashes in stoplight-controlled intersections.
“It all hinges on proper yellow light time,” said John Bowman, communications director of the National Motorists Association, a drivers advocacy group. “If yellow lights are set properly, based on established traffic engineering, red light cameras are unnecessary because you almost automatically have low numbers of violations and low numbers of accidents. If you shorten those yellow light times beyond bare minimums, that’s when you start to generate more accidents and more violations.”
Problematic cameras
A yellow light in Cary, N.C., had Howard Bond seeing red.
Last year Bond’s son was issued two different tickets for turning left on a red light at an intersection. But when Bond watched videotape of the alleged traffic offenses, he saw that in both instances his son had legally turned left on a flashing yellow light. The town had recently switched to a flashing yellow at the intersection, but Redflex, the private company running the cameras, kept treating it as a red, Bond said.
Each time, Bond, who lives in nearby Chatham County, went to the office that issued the tickets to complain. Each time, he said, his tickets were dismissed but the larger issue was ignored.
"I just basically stood there and said, ‘No sir, you’re going to look at the video,’” Bond told NBC News. But law enforcement officials told him he would have to attend a hearing to contest it.
"I said 'We’re not going through all that,'” Bond said. “He started hee-hawing around. Then he looked at the video and said, ‘This is wrong.’"
After a local television news station approached town officials with Bond’s tickets, details emerged about tens of other tickets wrongfully issued in Cary by faulty red light cameras last year. A review of its red light cameras found that cameras in one intersection had generated at least 31 false violations, many of which led to $50 tickets.
Town officials told the Raleigh News and Observer that Redflex had failed to report the error to the town.
But Jody Ryan, spokesperson for Redflex, said the company took action as soon as it discovered the wrongful tickets.
“In this situation, changes were made by the Town of Cary to the traffic light phases without Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. knowledge,” Ryan said. “Because we were unaware of these changes, our systems triggered a set of false positives. Once we were notified of the issue Redflex either dismissed or refunded all the affected citations on behalf of the Town of Cary.”
While major cities can make millions off red light cameras, in some contracts red light camera companies keep the majority of funds paid by violators. Redflex’s contract with Cary, for instance, allowed the company to keep 88 percent of the money generated by red-light camera tickets in Cary. Between April 2004 and July 2012, ticketed drivers paid $5.7 million to the company, and $646,000 to the Wake County Public School System, which received the city’s proceeds.
The controversy led town officials to abandon its red-light camera program altogether.
Cary is one of a number of communities, including large cities such as Houston, that have recently abandoned their camera programs amid opposition from residents.
Dollars and cents
About 700 municipalities in the country have cameras. One of the most prominent companies, Redflex, had about 2,000 cameras in operation around the nation in 2011, bringing in over $92 million in revenue, according to its annual report. American Traffic Solutions, another big player in the industry, reports more than 3,000 road safety systems installed in the U.S. and Canada, which include red light cameras.
Red light cameras can also pull in big revenues for cities. An investigation by NBC 4 in Washington, D.C., found the Capitol region drivers received tickets with at least $18 million dollars in fines in one year attributable to the cameras. NBC 5 in Dallas found a single camera in Arlington, Texas, generated $2.5 million over four years.
NBCDFW.com: Red light cameras make millions
Communities continue to adopt the technology. In 2011, East Cleveland residents voted to keep red light cameras. Last year, New Jersey’s Pohatcong Township voted to extend its contract with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions.
“The bottom line is that those who oppose cameras are the minority,” said Charles Territo, spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions. He added that American Traffic Solutions doesn’t issue tickets: a police officer reviews each image before issuing a violation. According to ATS, about 50 percent of traffic “events” each year are rejected before a violation is issued.
“The majority of voters around the country know the dangers of red light running,” Territo said. “Nobody likes to get a ticket, but cameras are used in a number of places around the country and the world. They’re used to help police officers do their job.”
But cameras have faced increasing opposition from drivers who object to the automated systems for many reasons, including the inability to confront their accuser in court. Facing pressure from constituents, local and state politicians in Iowa, Florida, New Jersey and other states have recently introduced measures to change or end the camera programs.
Other controversies have raised questions about red light cameras. Problems with short yellow lights, which may increase the number of tickets issued, have surfaced in cities from California to Tennessee. Judges in Baltimore have castigated the city and thrown out tickets after finding the city had shortened yellow lights below recommended limits. Last summer, the New Jersey Transportation Department ordered 21 red light programs suspended after finding yellow-light timing issues. Meanwhile, camera companies have sued, or threatened to sue, cities who back out of contracts. And they’ve been investigated for possible pay-to-play schemes with local governments.
“They’re very aggressive in terms of lobbying for favorable legislation or favorable court cases,” said Bowman of the National Motorists Association. “It’s big business, and there’s a lot of money at stake.”
Last October, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel barred Redflex from re-bidding on the city’s red-light camera contract after a Chicago Tribune investigation found that Redflex company executives and lobbyists had paid for hotel rooms and spent thousands on entertainment for the city official overseeing the red light program.
Chicago’s red light cameras raised big revenues for the city. Redflex has operated a red-light program in the city since 2003, generating about $300 million in fines for the city and $97 million in revenue for itself. Redflex. Residents in the city have long complained about discrepancies between yellow light times in the city and its suburbs.
“We authorized an internal investigation and, though the inquiry is not complete, have learned that some Redflex employees did not meet our own code of conduct and the standards that the people of the City of Chicago deserve,” said Ryan, Redflex spokesperson, of the Chicago case. “We will take corrective action and make additional information public.”
Automated traffic enforcement companies spend millions persuading local and state lawmakers to expand programs, using lobbyists, municipal partners and nonprofits to advance the cause. After spending $1.5 million lobbying Florida lawmakers over four years, American Traffic Solutions became the main-red light camera supplier in the state, winning contracts in more than 65 cities.
Territo, the spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions, defended efforts to expand red light camera programs, which he emphasized are above all about safety. “Just as opponents of red-light safety cameras fund efforts to remove cameras, we expend resources on efforts to defend them,” he said.
Recognizing growing opposition to red light enforcement technologies, companies are looking to new markets. Both Redflex and American Traffic Solutions have active speed cameras in various markets, though 12 states have banned the technology. Both companies have also started programs to enforce rules prohibiting drivers from going around stopped school buses.
Redflex recently became the nation’s largest provider of school bus arm cameras, which catch drivers who speed past the stop signs that swing out from the side of school buses. The company has launched 10 pilot programs in six states.
More from Open Channel:
- Suburban Chicago cops allowed to work 'half drunk,' investigation shows
- GAO: Climate change poses big financial risk to federal government
- Death takes no holiday: Tracking gun violence over one long January weekend
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
People haven't changed much, there's always a few around who act like they are the only ones on the road and everyone else is just a nuisance. That was true before the automobile when they would gallop horses down the street. Only thing that's changed is the mode of transportation, lol, it still all comes down to "Get out of my way!"
One of the fundamental thing people are missing is the driving habits of many Americans. Compared to many other countries in the western hemisphere (and I've been to most of them) Americans are in a league of their own for their flagrant disregard of red lights - to many, a red light is just a basis for negotiation, not a sign to STOP! Go to any country like Britain, Australia, Germany, etc, and watch the reaction when lights go through their cycle. The very basic difference is that elsewhere, people see the yellow portion of the cycle as the point of will-I-won't-I decision process. Once it turns red the debate is over - they stop. America? Give me a break! Watch your average intersection on any given day, and you'll lose count of the amount of people who blast through intersections after the light has turned red. The fact that this practice is one of the most dangerous pieces of behavior any driver can indulge in seems a moot point - it goes on ALL THE TIME. People want to talk about revenue raising? If a cop simply parked himself at your average intersection on his bike, during rush hour, he'd make a fortune for the city writing up all the transgressors, but that would be too much hard work - better to sit in the local gas station having coffee and stuffing their faces with donuts. That's why I have absolutely no problem with red light cameras, and would pay for the city to put more up out of my own pockets if I had the cash to spare. The habit has reached epidemic proportions on our roads, and as far as I'm concerned anything that discourages the practice and makes it safer for my wife and children is absolutely fine with me. If every set of traffic lights had such a unit built in, you'd soon find that the practice would grind to a halt overnight. People only continue to drive through now because they're so randomly placed. In places like Australia, they have mobile units which the police set up at different points almost on a daily basis - keeps the populace on its toes and red light running down. This isn't about some weird reinterpretation of the bill of rights that entitles people to drive recklessly and dangerously on the roads. It's about driving responsibly and about keeping the greater populace safe from reckless drivers, and there are just to many of the latter around these days.
It's also about the government ensuring safe driving. Lol, folks are fired up over citations as a revenue enhancing program. Cool, so, obey the laws and there won't be any revenue enhancing. We hear all the time about gun control, in-depth background checks, etc., relevant to gun control. Well, since more people are killed on the road in accidents maybe we should be concentrating more on "Driver control," more in-depth background checks. Since driving is a priviledge we should make sure that drivers are earning that priviledge and not just having it given to them because they were able to pass a simple test.
@ Mellowfello - I think you miss the point. One people are angry that the government cheats with these by sending out erroneous tickets and force people to take time off work and such to come in and fight them. They cheat by cutting the standard yellow light time to a too short of time in some locals. Obeying the laws will not protect you from these.
Beside people like feel you deserve to see your accuser in person at the time the ticket was created. Not have it made in some officer 500 miles from the intersection you were driving through.
If a camera takes a picture of you running a red light and you get mailed a citation how is that erroneous? You either committed the offense or you didn't. People deserve to see their accuser in person? When the cameras were first implemented that particular aspect was covered. So what if police didn't catch you, police officers are not perfect, they may see things the way they want to see them. A camera is non-human, lol, it doesn't pick and choose, and, for that reason alone I'm totally in favor of cameras, everyone is treated the same regardless of social position or wealth. To a camera you either broke the law or you didn't. What could be fairer than that? Lol, going to court and meeting your accuser face to face sounds good, but then the arguments start; "You say you saw me, how do we know you weren't looking elsewhere, were you trying to fill a quota,?" Argue against a camera and all the State has to do is produce the picture, lol.
This is a no brainer. Stop at red lights and this won't happen. I'd bet there are more mistakes made by Cops in tickets then any camera ever made. All in all these have been very effective as a deterrent and those concerned about big brother are probably the same wack jobs who think Obama wasn't born here and who have already stockpiled supplies and dug a bunker for the "end of days" and the "rapture". Just because a few nuts are loud, must we give them a bigger voice then what they really should have by reporting on them? Most folks out there know that the only ones who worry about these cameras are law breakers.
The problem with your rationale is that's not how the cameras are being used. An Illinois study showed that 90% (that's not a majority, it's closer to all) of the tickets issued by the cameras were for right turn on red violations. "This is a no brainer. Stop at a red light!" Not the issue in almost all cases. So, "Stop before turning right!" you say? A court found that when putting the cameras in, most locations had also moved the wide white line you stop at before turning right, back quite a bit. The cameras were configured to give you a ticket if you stopped after passing that line, still well before the intersection. In Chicago, in case after case after case, the city has had to pay restitution because it was found that they had lowered the yellow light times down below legal limits, sometimes by more than a second, in order to catch people who thought they had plenty of time to cross given their, say, 40 or so years of driving experience. Yeah, this is about safety, not revenue. You need to start thinking about not how you would LIKE this technology to be used, but, given it's potential for revenue and profit, how it ACTUALLY IS BEING USED. Another issue is discretion. If I slow down to an "almost" stop at an intersection where there are no cars coming at all from the left, with clear visibility in great weather, no responsible police officer is going to give me ticket. I do that all the time under those circumstances, sometimes with a police officer right behind me, and have NEVER been stopped for it. If I do that same thing when there are cars around, especially if cars had to slow down to avoid hitting me, I would almost definitely get a ticket for that. That's called discretion. The cameras don't have that. And, they say that all violations are reviewed by law enforcement going out. But, I was told point blank when I went in to contest a ticket (the only when I've gotten) from a camera (which I won), that the reviewers are told EXPLICITY not to use any discretion. Their job is simply to state whether, technically, a violation had occurred. If what they saw on video is something they would never have ticketed is completely irrelevent. It's violation yes or violation no. There's a reason they made that rule explicit (revenue anyone?). So, no they're not there because police can't be everywhere. If they were, every attempt would be made to treat the results the way law enforcement would normally handle things. My treating this demonstrably DIFFERENT than police officers would had they really been there shows that they are NOT being used a surrogate police.
Hope you take some of this into consideration the next time you might reconsider your utopian idea of what these things are supposed to be doing for us.
Discretion? Based on what, the particular attitude of the police officer? I believe in only one thing; Was there a violation or not? A police officer may not want to ticket a "Cutie" or a member of his own race. Lol, using discretion can cover a lot of ground, so, it's much better to ticket according to whether or not a violation happened. The courts are set up to be discretionary, not the police officer.
No mellow, that simply isn't true. Just because discretion can be misused in the way you mentioned, doesn't mean discretion shouldn't be used. I have several police officers in my extended family, and they HAVE TO use discretion all the time. They see hundreds of small violations a day of every kind. They don't waste their time giving a jay-walker a ticket who they see crossing a street on a block with no moving cars in perfect weather - they'd have to give hundreds a day - AND they'd get fired or reprimanded because while they're doing that they can't be doing anything else.
You're just wrong. Police officers use discretion CONSTANTLY (in appropriate ways, not just the inappropriate ways you mentioned) - we're not talking murder here. They ALWAYS consider whether a violation they come across warrants action. More often times than not, the answer is no. They are aware that jay-walking laws are there for safety reasons. If they see NO POSSIBLE SAFTEY RISK when someone VIOLATES THE JAY WALKING ORDINANCE/LAWS they USE DISCRETION.
Same things is true with ALL minor type violations. The fact that you aren't aware of the extent to which police use AND ARE INSTRUCTED TO USE discretion, doesn't change that fact. It's an awareness issue on your part.
Also, mellow, I noticed that you apparently have no comment about the lowering of yellow light times that mysteriously occur wherever these things are installed, no comment about the moving back of the white line you stop at (you get a ticket if your tires are over the white line when you stop) that mysteriously happens when these things are installed, etc. I know for a fact that Chicago was caught dozens of times lowering the yellow light times (only at red camera light intersections) below the legally set limit, until the courts ordered them to pay restitution.
No comment on those. I guess it's all good, right?
Also, as far as police using discretion, the courts are heavily overloaded beyond abilitiy NOW. And, that's WITH police using the discretion I'm talking about. I hope you love paying more taxes, because if police worked the way YOU want them to, we'll have SEVERAL TIMES the number of pending court cases waiting for your discretionary courts. Don't complain then. And, again, you're just wrong about police and discretion. I know a police officer in New York who was told straight up by a judge that if he brought in just one more small time marijuana possession violation with no other violations, he'd throw HIM in jail. He wasn't joking.
You're right, the courts are overloaded, the courts claim anyway, but I don't think a police officer using discretion is going to change that any. Actually, the implementation of cameras will do more in helping the overload problem than a police officer using discretion, despite the fact that some who are assigned to traffic duty are told, before their Watch hits the street, to use more discretion. That's why I like cameras, a person either broke the law or he didn't, and, since most folks would rather just mail the thing in it too helps the overloaded system. Cameras are fair, they don't discriminate. Is it fair for someone to get a pass because a officer used more discretion than for someone else to be ticketed because his officer didn't use any discretion? The practice of shortening the time for a yellow light is wrong, if, it results in making it impossible for a driver doing the limit to react safely. I think the DOT has guidelines for that, as do the traffic safety engineers working for the government. Lol, shortening the time may be another way to regulate traffic flow, a second or two in a series of intersections each can help a lot. Hell, I got pissed at a cop once for ticketing me for going through a stop sign, at 3:00 AM and not another vehicle in sight, except for the police unit. I got out of my car pissed and stared right into the muzzle of a gun. "Be careful how you come out of a car sir." Yeah well, I can't comment on the marijuana thing, never used drugs and I couldn't care less if someone else does, if, it doesn't affect me personally. And, that's why I'm in favor of unbiased cameras, reckless and irresponsible drivers do affect me personally.
If red light cameras are just for safety sake then implementing a lottery should not be an issue. Right?
The cause of the increased rear-end collision at intersections is a result of so many people abusing the yellow light drivers assume the guy in front is "going for it" instead of obeying the law and slowing at the yellow. As drivers fail to maintain proper distance and accelerate at a yellow, they are surprised by anyone slowing or stopping?
I say raise the price of the ticket! I'm tired of watching people cheat the light or better yet having to look twice before entering an intersection when I get a green just to protect against the fool running the yellow.
Absolutely right Critic, I've stopped when it was obvious that if I went on I would still be in the intersectiion when the light turned red. Lol, man, you should hear the honking by the lead foots behind me, and, I've had them pull up alongside me and cuss me out for not running the light. Some say that the surest way to avoid accidents is to drive like everyone else; Slip through stop signs, run the red, speed, pass on the right. No wonder there are so many accidents, people trying to be like everyone else and if that's the case then who started breaking traffic laws in the first place? Lol, probably someone who didn't get caught, so, everyone else did the same hoping they wouldn't get caught. What's really funny is all this discussion, arguing and all that needs to be done is so simple; Obey the damn traffic laws. Drive at the posted speed and when the light turns yellow you can safely stop, and, no tail-gating, full stop at a stop sign, no "Slipping on through." Is that too much to ask of those individuals who drive recklessly "By gawd, I'll drive any damn way I want too, I got my rights?"
If this sort of technology has not been perfected or maintained properly, it should be stopped. We have enough stress in our lives without having to fight against a freaking cam not working properly. The whole idea in itself is repugnant to most people. If you want to really cut down on traffic fatalities, cut out that freaking cell phone use while driving. No one can succesfully text and drive an automobile, it's utterly ridiculous! What is so important that you just have to get a message out, especially in our overcrowded traffic these days??
Lol, sounds good but how does anyone know if the camera is working properly? What, run the light and if it catches you it must not be working properly?
To mellow,
I don't know if you read my response to you about discretion (you were wrong) by police officers, but here's another one.
There was recently a case involving a motorcycles. Most bike riders have run into this before. After a certain hour in the evening, it is common for many stop lights to switch to a pattern where they are green for the main road, and only change to green for "not main" road when a car pulls up and hits the sensor. But, a lot of times, a bike doesn't set off the sensor, and the light never changes. After waiting a long time, bikers will (if there are no cars coming) run the red. If a police officer sees this, they are familiar with this issue, and will generally USE DISCRETION - they rarely if ever ticket this as they are aware of this problem. A red light camera would just take the video of him running the red. There are dozens of times (most I probably haven't even thought of yet) where the law only works BECAUSE OF the discretion used by officers. BUT, they are not ALLOWED to use discretion when reviewing the red light footage. That's NOT for safety reasons. It's for revenue reasons. If you're OK with that fine, but only you will know if you're one of the whiners in the future when in the NAME of safety or security, the federal/state/local government finds ways to suck money out of you where that is their primary intent. Don't be a hypocrite then - even if you know the safety excuse is a sham, pay up with a smile.
Yeah, I read your other responses, what, three of them? I replied about a minute ago, so, as for your comment about the motorcyclist running the red because he knows his bike weight won't trip the sensor I can only say, since I don't ride the things, they are accidents looking for a place to happen, so, a cyclist takes his chances. If he runs the red he broke the law, very simple. But, a police officer who happens to see that should use some discretion, if the conditions are the way you say. Thing is, those intersections probably won't have cameras, cameras are put up at heavily travelled and dangerous intersections, where many accidents have happened because of running red lights. Sometimes cameras are demanded by the public; In Murfreesboro, TN there were a lot of accidents caused by reckless drivers running red lights, so, the college in town, Middle Tennessee State, asked for them along with many concerned citizens. Anyway, traffic accidents dropped in number, including the rear-ending deals once people realized that the red lights were going to be obeyed. Lol, obeyed because of the cameras. Yeah well, you have your thoughts on the issue and I have mine, I really appreciate the way you responded to my comments. A hell of a lot more intellectual than; "You're a moron, you're a idiot." Which, lol, seems to be the standard online.
Red light cameras are a stupidity tax.
Cool Vern, I hope you mean a stupidity tax laid on the reckless and irresonsible drivers.
Ever considered how easily these lights could be converted for security purposes?
Excellent thought, cool, the people have two ways to be safe with one camera. Promoting security from reckless drivers AND promoting security for the government, us, from those who want to destroy it.
This discussion wouldn't be happening if it weren't for the people who have a great desire to get over on the system, tweak the noses of the police and others in authority. They delight in doing it as they sail along through traffic, through red lights and stop signs while merrily waving the "Finger" in the air. "Yeah, I showed them, they can't tell ME how to drive, I'll drive any damn way that I want too!" Well, that seems to be the American Way, live any damn way that we want too, we got rights and everyone else can just stay out of our way." Lol, the new "Power to the people!"
This discussion is happening to keep the system honest. Everything has a beginning and a end. Privacy ends invasion begins.
Let us put a device in your car that automatically sets off the cameras where ever you go, the picture will be scrutinized and you will never hear from anybody. But for the picture that got through the system, and now you need to explain how you have a device that sets off the cameras and you didn't run any red lights, I'm sure thats ok with you, at least for awhile. You can't tell me you would get a little tired of it. But in your post its worth other people explaining themselves if it means one nasty bad attitude red lighter pays for their injustice. Not the way our system is set up, or at least not yet.
This kind of intrusion will certainly lead to other types of intrusion. The red light camera is a good idea in my opinion, just not as a sole means of infraction but complimentary.
The red light cameras will lead to other intrusions? What intrusions, what intruding? Intruding on what some think is their right to drive any way they want? Here's one "Intrusion" that I hope will become a permanent thing; The infamous "Black box." A device in every vehicle that monitors the manner in which a vehicle is operated, safe or unsafe, for the protection of those involved in accidents through no fault of their own it would be a advancement in driver safety. Man, some drivers might think twice before they decide to make the wild-ass move in traffic.
A person can drive how ever they want? Why not? Tell why people can't drive how ever they what? The little black box is already in use, Progressive Insurance reduces premiums for taking the choice of using the little black box, as you call it. You didn't address my point of you being confronted with false accusations. Maybe you don't see false accusations as intrusive. The tenth amendment can be used to justify putting cameras everywhere and anywhere to monitor felons. Probably those same people you are referring to who make wild moves in traffic. I imagine someday cameras will be everywhere, but just like driving we need guide lines and rules. I say red light cameras can be used as a method to back up your right to file a complaint or accusation of another driver whom you think is driving how ever they like and taking their driving beyond the rules of the road.
Wantnot, I hope that when you ask why can't people drive anyway they want that you're just being "Cool" and so individual. I don't see false accusations as being intrusive, I see them as mistakes that will sort out in the proper way, hell, I've had tickets dismissed because a cop made a mistake. You answered your own question about telling why people can't drive anyway they want when you brought up obeying the rules of the road. I suppose that red light cameras could be used to back up a "Not guilty" claim but it's unlikely because they are installed to catch law-breakers and if a picture is taken of someone breaking a traffic law a "Not guilty" won't stand up. I'm sure though that a picture of someone running a light and that someone runs into you, well, that picture may help in the ensuing law suit, if there is any, against the insurance company of the law-breaker, assuming of course that the state has mandatory liability insurance. Yeah well, it all can get a bit confusing, all the "If's" considered, so, why not just obey the law? Lol, and that brings into play the drivers who just HAVE to get over on the system.
I hope were not debating, but as far as people drive anyway they want, we can't stop people from how they choose to drive, just like the red light camera doesn't magically prevent an accident because it snapped a shot when a persons vehicle is in the wrong position in an intersection. There for, we need to take other per-cautions which never will guarantee yours, mine nor any bodies else safety from humans caring out senseless driving acts. The light is an effort to thwart the people that are willing to drive beyond the scope of our driving laws and etiquette. But I contend the light cannot stand alone. Alone the light may be intrusive, because a picture of an innocent individual could get out to the public possibly from an employee of the camera company, that could be undignified. I say people need to file a report then law enforcement match the report. These days, police are our witnesses, they drive around per say, and view driving laws being broken and then they follow the rule of engagement from that point. This too is intrusive, but justified because the person being accused has the ability to confront their accuser. I would prefer that police compliment a citizen forming a complaint rather then out on their own policing innocent people, but we as a society would rather pay for our dirty work to be done, even if it means some may mistakenly have to go through temporary hell defending their innocents. Profiling is a huge issue that really can't be extinguished, because many that join our police force develop, if not already developed, arrogant entitlement. For this reason we need public parties involved as witnesses, would really clear up a lot of confusion.
Of course we're debating, hell, that's why most people come online; To debate, argue and to be confrontational. It's being all that they want to be that they can't be in any setting unprotected by anonymity. I try to avoid that sort of thing, I hope I haven't appeared that way to you or anyone else. Anyway, if you feel that traffic laws are intrusive, attacking right to privacy, well, there seems to be a lot of people who feel the same way as evidenced by their driving habits.
Not true. In most states, the cameras take a picture of both the vehicle movement and the driver of the vehicle. Local law enforcement then can verify the photo in the car is the person to whom the car is registered (using the DL photo database) and send out the ticket only after they verify who was driving.
Mark, one thing that might happen; People might stop loaning out vehicles to those who are known to be reckless. I've refused to loan my truck out to a few guys because I knew how they drive, and told them so. If they have a problem with that, too bad. I don't want my truck wrecked because someone is a reckless driver. So, and then; "Well, kiss my ass, don't ever ask me for anything!" Lol, so long guy, better that the relationship is ended.
Pretty much like the Gun Control Advocates. Only people who want gun control are terrorists, criminals and the insane. Seeing their are advocates against red light cameras lets change the penalties. You run a red light its $1000 fine. Second offense a lethal injection. Settles that.
Lazaro, I don't agree that the only people who advocate gun control are all those that you named, but that's another topic. In one way you're right though; Advocates against the cameras are mostly folks who just can't stand having rules and regulations in place to control behavior, even when that behavior is clearly reckless, irresponsible and basically anti-social. Man, all through high school in the late 1960's I was against authority; "Who the hell are you, or anybody to tell me what to do?" As a consequence I had to redo my Sophomore year because of attitude, and, bad grades of course. I embraced the individualism of the times; "Question everything." Lol, I did, I asked why I was paying taxes that went to support people who turned and laughed in my face for doing it, and, demanded more. My brand of individualism evidently wasn't what the proponents of it had in mind. Anyway, after I finally graduated, enlisted in the army, 1961, got out and married, and had four kids I quickly came to the conclusion that society has the right to tell me what I can and can't do. As a member of society I had the obligation to live in a manner that best promoted the good, and safety of my fellow members of society. That means obeying the rules and regulations set in place, and, that included traffic laws. Well, whatever, that's my take on society vs the individual. Society is all of us who as members have grouped together for protection from those whose concept of individualism is to wave the "Finger" at the rest of us in pursuit of their "Get over on the system, kiss my ass and catch me if you can." Lol, well, the cameras catch them and they then call upon society, the society they abhor, to protect them in their practice of a individualism based on doing whatever the hell they want to do and to hell with the other guy. Unless of course the "Other guy" is the one lined up behind them and running a light, lol.
When are people going to put a class action suit against the makers of red light cameras. I all ready saw 2 accidents because drivers are trying to get through the turn without getting a snapshot.
In Murrieta, CA, voters approved a ban on the cameras. While the measure was being challenged in court, the cameras were turned off. However, it turns out the red-light camera company was still collecting data via the sensors. Here is the story:
florida sucks. i just got another damn ticket, which is why i left florida. they are crooks trying to make money that's what this is about not safety.