traffic cameras as enforcement

[javasaurus]

News item on WTOP today:

Apparently a lot of people are upset about red-light and speeding cameras. Personally, I don't see the problem -- don't run red lights, and don't speed, and you don't get fined. But people are making the claim that the cameras are overly invasive, somehow invading privacy. What privacy? You're on a public road, in a situation where if a cop was there, he wouldn't be invading your privacy by pulling you over, right? So why is the camera more invasive than a cop?

What really got me was the woman they interviewed who said (I paraphrase): There are some laws where if they don't catch you, it shouldn't be illegal.
Well, lady, you were caught.

Sigh...

I know there are issues regarding who gets the money from the fines, and some other issues regarding administration of the cameras. But I just don't get why people feel they have the right to break certain laws.

Comments

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

My biggest problem with red-light cameras is the fact that they don't know who's driving... Okay, so the car belongs to you. If your spouse is the one who was driving it, then the only way to get them to not give YOU the ticket is to rat on your spouse... Which technically speaking, you're not supposed to be able to be forced to testify against your spouse. Therefore, if you don't rat out your spouse, they'll give you the ticket anyway.

Hello? Problem?

Plus, if it's an automatic camera, who's to say the camera isn't malfunctioning? I've seen intersections where the red-light camera is blinking constantly, like it's taking pictures of every person's license plate... How do you prove that yours was the car that wasn't running the light?

It's very difficult to face your accuser, when your accuser is a piece of machinery that may or may not be malfunctioning.

Re:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

You raise a valid point. My understanding (and this may depend on the locality) is that the ticket is for a fine only, not points, and that the registered owner of the vehicle is responsible for all actions taken in the vehicle (unless it was stolen). As for ratting out your spouse, I would think the guilty spouse would fess up and take their lumps.

As for defective cameras, I've seen two tickets (not my own), and the guilt is pretty much clear. Each ticket shows three pictures: the first is the rear of the vehicle prior to entering the intersection with red light, the second is rear of the vehicle after entering the intersection, and the third is a close up of the licence plate (a blow-up of the second exposure).

As with any ticket, they can be contested in court.

Re:

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Are the lights shown in the pictures (i.e. in the same frame)?

My problems with the camera's is that it is said that a lot of them are at intersections that have yellow's that are shorter than recommended (length of yellow is supposed to have minimum time based on speed limit of road, slope of road approaching the light, and width of intersection). They also inflate their stats (look at the decreased number of accidents within the intersection ... does ANYONE look at the accident rates just outside the intersection?).

I also have been known to run a light in order to avoid being plowed into by an idiot behind me who was GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LIGHT come what may. I also go vs. no-go based on the actual driving conditions (even if I am going slowly due to ice, I will go through an intersection instead of risking a spin).

I do wish, however, that more people would make a decision as they approach a light about the Go/No Go point on the road (if the light turns before I reach that tree, I can safely stop, otherwise, I don't think I can) instead of waiting until the light turns, trying to decide and giving off some really mixed signals to the traffic around them (esp. those turning right on red).Y

Re:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Yes, in the tickets I saw, the lights were clearly visible and clearly red.

As for yellow light times, there is a national standard. If you feel the light is short-timing the yellow, you should make a note of it and send the info to the local or state authorities. Chances are, however, that the light is not short-timed.

As for avoiding a rear-ender, you gotta make the call. If you think he's going to hit you, and you'd rather get the ticket than get rear-ended, then also get the a**hole's licence. If you receive a ticket, he'll probably also get one, and there will be a photo-record of how close he was behind you, and at what speed. But with a properly timed light, and if you are at a legal speed, you should be able to slow down safely, and so should the rear-ender.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

short-time is relative. yes, there's the NTSB's ratings, but then there's the local community (jersey lights are generally longer), and there's the history of the intersection.

sure, a yellow light can be shorter than it used to be and still be compliant, but shortening it is an effective way of trapping those who are used to the original light's length and catching more money in the initial months of the installation (all to make the camera "look good" when the police or council want to give a self-congradulatory "hey, look what we've done already" press statement).

Re:

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

Well, the point is not whether or not your spouse would fess up, but the fact that you are being forced to either take the lumps yourself, or to rat out your spouse. The burden of proof lies on you to prove you DIDN'T do it, instead of the burden of proof lying on the prosecuters to prove you DID.

Kind of runs the exact opposite of what a court of law is supposed to do. Innocent until proven guilty. Until someone can prove you were the person driving the car, you shouldn't be automatically declared guilty unless you can get someone else to fess up. In any other form of a court of law, it's up to the prosecutor to prove that you are guilty without a shadow of a doubt, and if they can't be 100% sure, there's a likely hood it could be thrown out or you are found not guilty. In traffic court, it seems to be up to the defense to prove that they didn't do it, rather than having the prosecutor prove that they did.

That's my biggest problem with redlight cameras. but that's me.

As to cameras, both cameras and pictures can be doctored. Not that I'm accusing the legal system of attempting to doctor pix, but a picture combined with eyewitness statement is always more believable than just a picture.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

"ratting out your spouse" is already something protected as spousal privilage by court decisions as part of the 5th amendment.

and the only contesting one can do in court is to say "i wasn't driving the car" and face obstruction charges if you don't rat out on who was.

it is the responsibility of the system to prove the offense on the individual who committed it. AFTER they prove that, on their own, they can then catch you for being and accessory if it was your vehicle. if they can't nail the conviction/confession on the driver, then the accessory (vehicle owner) can't be charged either.

that's how it works for every other crime in the system, and traffic violations should be no different.

don't say "the car did it" and "i'm responsible for the car" -- PROVE IT WAS ME, or I should be allowed to walk just as if you had to prove i was a thief or a killer.

Re:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

You could make the same claim regarding parking tickets. The justification (not my justification, but the one indicated, for example, by Montgomery County) is that the citation does not confer points or penalty to insurance premiums, only a fine, similar to a parking ticket, which is connected to the car's owner, not the driver. So they have a combination of precedence and proven effectiveness (Howard County reports a 70% drop in violations at intersections with red-light cameras).

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Unsafe driving should be penalized by points and eventual loss of license. the fact that unsafe driving practices are ONLY penalized by money when the cameras are used really proves that the intent of the governments placing the cameras is not public safety, but monetary income.

Re:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

More info for you regarding the "unknown driver" element of it.

This is taken from a red-light camera faq page:

"The registered owner may present a defense in person or, in Virginia, by mailing in an affidavit stating under oath that he or she was not the driver at the time of the offense (Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-833.01(D)). In other states, an owner only has to identify the driver to rebut the presumption."

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

its a workaround the 5th amendment, entrapping you into a catch-22. either you basically confess (violating your 5th ammendment rights) and pony up the cash (and that's all they get out of it, as cameras currently don't actually affect your license or points), or rat out on the one who was driving (and if its your spouse, that's also a 5th ammendment violation of spousal privilage) lest you face obstruction charges.

there's also the issue of the incentive, as proven in a recent San Diego case, where the company who makes the cameras get a share of the money for each breaker they catch -- thus giving them incentive to reprogram the yellows to short-time in order to catch more when breaking for the red would be even more unsafe...

there's also the "flow of traffic" issues when it comes to the speed cameras. if i went 25 because i was worried about a camera, yet everybody else was just going forward at 35, then i would be causing a traffic obstruction (which in the UK is grounds for a ticket, regardless of the flow of traffics speed). however, if the flow of traffic was going 35 in a 25 zone, and i was just keeping with the flow of traffic, should they catch ALL of us? 100s in a day, raking in millions of dollars in a month, simply because the speed limit is too damn low for a particular road and all of us decided not to piss off the other drivers around us by driving too slow? where's the justice? where's the "safety"?

(oddly enough, in some areas, the speed limit is set not for "safety" but for noise control. In particular, Sterling Blvd is 35 for most of its stretch, even through stretches that have service roads so there are no pedestrians on the main road, simply because they *think* it might get too loud if the speed limit was a more reasonable 45.)

then there's the whole big-brother issue when homeland security decides they want to tap into those cameras records to "catch terrorists". we'd be better off if there were no records to tap into in the first place. really, we would. that's the "privacy" factor. enough cameras and they can track a single person ANYWHERE...yeah, useful if trying to catch the serial sniper, but it can also lead to information that can be wrongly used against people in stalking cases, wrongful terrorism-connection charges, and much more that i'd rather not dream of right now...

Re:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

As I've already noted, one way to rebut the photo is to sign an oath that you weren't the driver.

As for the companies who make the cameras getting a kick-back, in many areas, they've gone to a fixed-fee system, the companies no longer get more money for numbers of tickets issued. As for catching all speeders in an area, I'd love to see it. If the community doesn't like the law, then they should send letters to congressmen, sign petitions, and seek other legal means to fixing the problem. That's how federal speed limits got repealed. Otherwise, we have roads full of people setting their own speed limits based on what they think is OK for them, and not everybody agrees, and (I suspect) most people don't know they are driving unsafely until it is too late.

Re:

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

But as you also noted, that's only in the state of virginia. In every other state, you have to actually point out the person who was driving. If that's your spouse, that means that in order to declare yourself innocent, you have to rat out your spouse, and that's in violation of spousal privledge.

Oh, and the "people setting their own speed limits based on what they think is okay for them, and not everbody agrees" part... I suppose that REALLY qualifies for the ass this morning who decided that I shouldn't be driving at the speed limit, even though it was posted as such, and I should be driving five miles under like he was?

Sorry, traffic is my gripe this morning. I also had someone who decided to try and prevent me from getting onto the highway this morning, by closing the gap that I signalled I was getting into... Sorry, but if there's a big gap, and someone signals to get into it, you DO NOT attempt to close the gap and cut them off so they won't be able to get in...

Argh. I'm just full of traffic idiot stories this morning... I haven't even told the half of them. People who don't use signals, people who weave in and out of traffic, people who try and become their own version of traffic enforcement, people who don't follow "driver courtesy", people who feel that the extra ten seconds they save is going to make a tremendous impact on their lives...

Argh.

I haven't gotten a speeding ticket since 1994. With the exception of that accident over the summer, I hadn't gotten a moving violation since 1997 (and witnesses even said that the accident wasn't really my fault, the other driver wasn't paying attention and was giving off the wrong signals, but since he had the right of way, I got nailed). I consider myself to be a relatively safe driver (considering that my auto insurance decided to NOT raise my rates after the accident should say something).

I still object intensely to traffic enforcement cameras. Because of that "rat or be nailed" thing.

Re:

[xpioti.livejournal.com]

As for being cut off in traffic... one thing I do is "thwart". If you signal, I don't thwart. If you are driving in a manner that makes me think you will try to cut me off, I ensure that cutting me off will cause an obvious accident. And it will not be my fault. In my Saturn, I even had designated "accident quarters" -- specifically, the corners of the car that I would voluntarily put into harms way, since they had previously received damage that I had not fixed (typically because of price).

I've pretty much concluded that I absolutely love my car, but I know how it handles when struck, I know I wear my seatbelt and the only loose thing in the car that may cause a problem is the breakfast soda and my purse (if Curvy is inverted, laptop will go flying; likelihood: slim). Also, the big thing to remember is... many of the people who yank in and out of traffic are blithering idiots. The only thing they know is how small a space their car can fit in. If you can convince your subconscious to set that space as your "follow while doing less than 35mph on 270" (in my case) speed, you'll tend to not be cut off.

I absolutely loathe DC metro area drivers. It is far too easy to get a drivers license, and the road rage education is laughable. If you are actually a courteous driver (like you, Cyd -- or me, in general), you obviously are not a DC metro area driver.

*mutter*

(BTW, a thwart can be as simple as not being cowed when someone makes an intimidating move.)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

playing a large game of chicken only goes so far. if you lose, so does a lot of other people around you when the accident happens, stopping traffic in a major way.

Re:

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

1) I agree with the comment that getting into a problem causes problems for everyone else with regard to traffic.
2) Even if the accident isn't your fault officially, you can still get hit with higher insurance (I know someone who is getting seriously jacked up rates because [he] was hit from behind while stopped on the ice ... the company says that he shouldn't have stopped on the shoulder ... he should have stayed in his lane (and hit the person there I guess) ).
3) The real problem is that even with the seat-belt on, the forces on the body can be pretty severe. When I was involved in a fairly minor crash (was rear-ended by someone going about 15 mph), I ended up with a severely sore neck and a concussion. If you get hit from the side, the spin can still do major things to your neck/back/etc. even with a seat-belt on. I am tall enough to hit the windshield even with a locking seat-belt.

I understand the thwart tendencies ... and have been known to do a bit of it myself, but the sacrificial corner worries me a lot.â

Re:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Your problem driver this morning really has issues. While I am in favor of obeying posted speed limits, etc., what the other driver did to you was arrogant, dangerous, and just plain stupid. We cannot take it upon ourselves to enforce the road laws (though I have cheered the "moving roadblock" of a protest group driving together in all but one beltway lanes at the speed limit to specifically protest the speed limit). It only causes a more dangerous, and angry situation for all. If he was going the speed limit, and keeping to his lane, then good for him. But the weaving thing made me go "grrr..." when I read it.