javasaurus | traffic cameras as enforcement

traffic cameras as enforcement

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

"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.

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).

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.

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."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

traffic cameras as enforcement

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re:

no subject

Re: