Slashdot Log In
Cities View Red Light Cameras As Profit Centers
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:21 AM
from the criminalize-everything-spread-the-guilt dept.
from the criminalize-everything-spread-the-guilt dept.
Houston 2600 writes "Chicago could rake in 'at least $200 million' a year — and wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009 — by using its vast network of redlight and surveillance cameras to hunt down uninsured motorists, aldermen were told today. The system pitched to the City Council's Transportation Committee by Michigan-based InsureNet would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists. That's already happening daily in 13 states, but not here."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Mississippi Passes Law To Ban Traffic Light Cameras 629 comments
DaGoatSpanka writes with news that Mississippi Governer Haley Barbour signed a bill into law on Friday which instituted a ban on automated cameras that would snap pictures of motorists when they ran red lights. "The new law says the two cities that already have the cameras, Jackson and Columbus, must take them down by Oct. 1. Other cities and counties are banned from starting to use them." We've discussed situations in the past where cities looked at such cameras as "profit centers," and even tampered with their traffic light timing to catch more motorists. Now, in Mississippi, the contractors who installed the cameras are unhappy, since they received a cut of the ticket revenue generated by the cameras. However, lawmakers overwhelming voted to get rid of them (117-3 in the House, 42-9 in the Senate), because "the cameras were an invasion of privacy and their constituents thought they had been unfairly ticketed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution: Create more laws for people to break.
Parent
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't even think Rand, in even her most paranoid fantasies, ever imagined that the government would last long enough to achieve the level of corruption required to add ambiguity to laws against running red lights.
And yet, here we are.
Did you stop before the line and make a right turn on the red light?
Did you stop after the line and make a right turn on the red light?
Did you not come to a complete stop and make a right turn on the red light?
Funny, the pictures don't seem to tell the difference. Here's one of your car before the line. Here's one of your car partway over the line. Here's one of your car over the line.
Sure, we could build a camera that captured video instead of stills, which would unambiguously (or at least, to within one frame of animation) answer the question of whether (and where) you stopped, but that might exonerate you. Sorry, but all we can "afford" is this still-camera system that takes pictures once every second.
Parent
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Informative)
2007 Virginia Study shows that red-light cameras increase rear-end (and total number) of accidents at intersections. [thenewspaper.com]
Parent
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with much of what she said, but this has a certain ring of truth to it.
Parent
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with the insurance companies in this case.
Imagine: you get hit by an uninsured motorist, and wind up in the hospital with serious injuries, miss work, maybe lose your job, have a totaled car, and are unable to climb out physically and financially.
Maybe no one was at fault. Maybe they were. As motorists lacking insurance statistically also lack assets, responsibility for one's actions are shirked.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Your actions bear responsibilities, no matter the boorishness of insurance companies and accident litigators.
Parent
Side effect (Score:5, Funny)
But boy is it safe to drive in Denver now. That's the problem with cities getting greedy, they don't see the positive side of their efforts.
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Houston, TX installed "red light cameras."
Then the greedy-ass city council wanted more revenue, so they shortened the yellow-light timing. They now have yellow-light times that are around 2 seconds on most of the camera-watched intersections. Other cities have done the same thing [motorists.org].
The problem is, the shorter a yellow-light timing, the more accidents. Study after study has shown this. Shortening the yellow light timing (to trap motorists "still in the intersection") to get more ticket revenue also makes for more accidents.
It's literally blood money, coming at the expense of people injured or killed in those accidents, but the city councils don't care because it's "their" blood money.
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a simple way to fix it...
Sue the city that shortens the light, showing accident rates, long waits at the lights causing wasted fuel, out of sync lights, causing wasted fuel.
Make it too expensive to operate the lights in question, and they will disappear.
Better yet, take your own video of the intersection, then send it to the local news to show how the lights are *too short* but only at the camera intersections. Site safety issues and government corruption... They won't stay in office for long.
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have anything to back that up?
This report [click2houston.com] suggests that rumour isn't true, and the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines 3 to 6 seconds for the yellow light. ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trf/final_report_rlc_1008.pdf [state.tx.us] (last page).
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because state law tells a municipality they can't do something, doesn't mean they won't do it anyway. Laws are for us little people, not those in power.
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing wrong with that, even if it is a profit center for the city.
Law enforcement should never be a profit center for anyone. That's begging for abuse. Collected fines should simply be destroyed, increasing the value of the money supply for everyone.
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, don't accidents that take place with the front/back of one car meeting the front/back of another car tend to be far less dangerous than a T-bone? Mostly because of the extra crumple zone protection that is available. Before side airbags was common a number of injuries were caused by people banging their heads sideways against pillars and doors and windows. A lot of research has gone into making cars safer against the T-bone, but there's still less room for metal to give sideways...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse yet:
- You try to stop for the light.
- You don't make it.
- Some asshat rear-ends you, pushing you into the intersection
- Some OTHER asshat floors the pedal and t-bones your already rear-ended car.
Now the intersection's REALLY clogged.
I watched this happen a couple years back. Shortened yellow light, guy with bad brakes... so he tries to stop, and he's halfway into the intersection. Next thing he knows, one of the two drag racing motherfuckers coming through the intersection from the other side slams in
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. ITE shortened the yellow light timing in their 1985 updated standard. [thenewspaper.com] It was further reduced in 1989. This coincided with the time that New York City started testing red-light camera systems.
Parent
Did you even read the summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
...in your mad dash to be first post?
Summary says: "...to hunt down uninsured motorists"
I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists.
Parent
Re:Did you even read the summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't either, but, I also don't want the cities photographing, id'ing and logging everyone as they drive about just to catch the few people out there that are driving w/o insurance. That is just WAY too large a dragnet.
Parent
Re:Faster! Faster! Faster! (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last time you could cross-examine a camera?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Snellville, GA did the same thing and it really pisses me off. I wouldn't mind them taking the cameras down for legal or ethical issues but to take them down because they're working? That's almost as bad as the politicians complaining that tax revenue gained from tobacco sales is down because the increased taxes are actually getting people to stop or at least cut down on smoking (which was the stated purpose of such taxes in the first place).
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Informative)
The incidence of red-light-running didn't go down because of the cameras, it went down because a new state law went into effect this past January that lengthened the yellow light time. (Or rather, put it back to the safe value that the engineers intended, rather than the unsafe too-short value that the politicians changed it to in order to increase revenue from red-light cameras!)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, the system worked so they are getting rid of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some suburbs of Atlanta are considering the same thing, since the state government passed a law lengthening yellow times for 1 second. It turns out that actually giving people enough time to react to the yellow decreases the number who end up running the red! Gee, who'da thunk it?!
Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are broke (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't get blood from a turnip. Much of that money will not appear as the uninsured motorists have no money. It may be great for enforcing the law and getting them off of the road but not a great source of income.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They may not have money, but they have a vehicle. Confiscate it.
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
They actually tried doing that down here in New Orleans...back before Katrina. The measure got thrown out as that it was branded a 'racist' ordinance. That just blew me away. I don't care what color you are, if you can't afford to have lawful insurance on the car, you shouldn't be driving one. A car costs money (fuel, repair and insurnace)...if you can't afford one, don't drive one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, life is tough my friend. And in the US, equal opportunity, does NOT mean equal results [culture11.com]. Things (like owning and driving a car) cost money, and you have to work to earn it. Some have to work a little harder for do to luck of the draw at birth (genetics, parental skills of paren
Re:Driving as right vs. privilage (Score:4, Interesting)
While you're at it with your socialist rant, please add "everything I need to live well" to your wishlist, because in reality, that's what you're really requesting by that.
Cheating on taxes is unethical, but way more ethical than skimping on car insurance. Because you're hurting The State financially, but your the impact is so low that society as a whole can probably cope with if only some people doing this.
If you're skipping car insurance and hurt someone, you're against ONE single selected individual and you can bankrupt them for decades or the rest of their lives.
So choose if you're hurting our anonymous society a small bit or destroy one individual with name and face for the rest of their lives.
I would rather start a revolution than to ruin an innocent family, I tell you.
Parent
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:4, Interesting)
The city of Philadelphia does this.
If you are caught driving without insurance in the city of Philadelphia, your vehicle is confiscated ON THE SPOT, and you will walk home (or ride SEPTA, but walking may be faster/easier).
Parent
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm under the poverty line, I still make sure my car insurance is kept up. Before I could afford a car, I rode the bus.
This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able. I have about as much sympathy for those folks as I do for the folks that took out mortgages they couldn't afford... or is that "discrimination against the middle class"?
Parent
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not always true, and I'd go so far as to speculate it probably isn't even usually true. A lot of them probably had cars when they could afford it, then fell on hard times, and still have the car.
I'm a decent example. When I left my parents' house at 19, I had an old 1986 Volvo, then a fourteen-year-old car -- a total beater, but it worked. The only place I could afford was on the ass-end of town with nowhere to work within walking distance and the busses were too infrequent to realistically use. So, since I had a car, I was able to get a really lame, low-paying job, but the place was far enough that driving there was the only option.
Being young and stupid and poor, I drove uninsured for much of the time. I felt I didn't have a choice -- I couldn't afford insurance (especially at the rates they charge young males), but I had to get to work somehow. Even looking back, the only "option" I can see was maybe quitting my job, getting an even lower-paying job at the Wendy's three miles away, and somehow scraping together enough money to get a bike. With the reduction in income there I'd never have been able to pull myself out.
The point is, having a car and being poor doesn't mean one purchased a car one couldn't afford; this isn't analogous to the idiots extending credit they don't have to buy houses they can't afford.
And in many ways, the current traffic laws are discriminatory against the poor: Even a simple, non-moving violation can run a few hundred dollars, which is disasterous for someone who can barely afford rent. Yet someone pulling in six figures gets charged the exact same amount for that same violation, and it's practically pocket change to them.
If the point is deterrence, then the fine should scale to the person's income. A $200 dollar ticket would ruin many low-income people, and be barely noticed by someone more wealthy. Of course, many higher-income types can afford a lawyer for an hour to get the ticket reduced or thrown out entirely before it ever goes to court -- an option poor people don't have, and there are no court-appointed attorneys during the pre-trial shenanigans in traffic court.
Parent
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.
How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.
Parent
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
The point still stands - if you can afford a car, you can afford to insure it - simple as that. Liability insurance is all that's needed to keep legal, and when talking liability only, car insurance is pretty cheap. I've seen prices the neighborhood of $25-30 per month if you're a safe driver. If you "need the car for work" then you obviously have some source of income and that is part of your required bills. End of story. It's as much required as the gas you need to fuel that car. If you DON'T need it for work, then take the insurance off and park the car - you've got more important things to pay for anyways.
Parent
This is a Tax (Score:5, Interesting)
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
Re:This is a Tax (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This is a Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw uninsured motorists, IMO. If you can't afford compulsory insurance, you can't afford to drive, period. Take the bus. I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects minorities, if they are the ones disproportionately breaking the law.
This is a good use for traffic cameras, much better than for catching red light running or speeding, because there's always room for subjective calls on what was safe under the particular circumstance of the infraction. If you are uninsured, that is just a fact and you should not be on the road in the first place. End of story.
I agree that this probably isn't much of a revenue stream, since if you can't afford insurance you probably can't afford the fine.
Parent
Too bad Chicago is a bastion of integrity (Score:4, Informative)
Ahh, sorry, I have an update coming in. That should be "too bad for the motorists that Chicago is not a bastion of integrity".
You'd think more people would be worried when law enforcement is publicly billed as a revenue source.
It's why they'll never end the war on drugs or even legalize pot: the departments couldn't afford to lose all the free money they get from drug related forfeitures. And pot heads make very easy targets. Which do you think a cop would rather bust: a vegged out pot head or a well armed group of Mexicans with a meth lab in the middle of a corn field?
Re:Too bad Chicago is a bastion of integrity (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember this: In Chicago, when Mayor Daley announces that city government will be downsizing, and therefore laying off or firing from various departments, there is one office that never downsizes: The Dept. of Revenue (notorious as the issuers and collectors of many forms of tickets/citations).
My recommendation if you're visiting Chi and are not familiar with the city: if in downtown, park in a garage, forget about parking on the street. Also, read every sign on the same side of the street within a block of where you park.
Parent
Not so bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm generally opposed to this sort of stuff, but this particular application doesn't seem so bad. Uninsured motorists are a problem for everyone. If you're going to drive a car, you should have a license and your car should be registered, insured, and inspected according to state laws. Yes, this makes money for repair shops, insurance companies, state government, and the police. However, all of this is important for having safe roads and keeping down the cost of insurance.
Re:Don't stop now (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon the confusion, but you said:
Do I drive more carefully when I need to "stay beneath the radar?" Yes, I am always aware of my illegal status.
Makes sense, but then you said:
Licenses and insurance do not necessarily make for safer streets.
Not to play the part of Captain Obvious, but even if you DON'T have insurance, you know you SHOULD, and so drive with more care. The little piece of paper may not change your habits itself, but the thought of it does...
Personally, I like the German system {as I remember it circa '82}. State-sponsored driver's ed, around $700.... MANDATORY. You lose your license? You go back to driver's ed. Driving wasn't seen as a "right" as perceived in many places; it was seen as a privilege and responsibility. Man, I miss the Autobahn.
Parent
False positives? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the system would scan a license plate, see if it appears on the list of insured motorists and, if it doesn't, then fire off the ticket/fine? They would be basing this scheme on the absence of information?
For many reasons, that just doesn't seem right.
The Internet runs on... (Score:3, Funny)
Red stoplight cameras. Excuse me.
Pimp your teacher (Score:3, Interesting)
Rare (Score:5, Insightful)
Rarely does a single article capture so much of what is wrong with a culture. We have:
- Broken window
- Excessive fines
- Government corruption/collusion with private businesses
- Legislated business models
- Original sin as defined by the One True Authority. And, of course, only they have the cure.
Disgusting if you think about it for more than 15 seconds.
Mr. Reality Check Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello. I am Mr. Reality Check. Let us examine this proposal in detail.
Chicago, the shining star of all good and right [wikipedia.org], wants to install a sophisticated network of cameras to (a) track every motor vehicle in operation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, (b) record the license plate tag, location, and time of motor vehicle operation, and (c) cross reference the license plate tag information with a comprehensive insurance coverage database in in order to (d) send out $500 citations via mail to potential offenders.
Unfortunately, this system is not realistic and poses some massive privacy concerns. While it may be feasible to create the network of cameras described in (a), it is substantially difficult with current technology to implement the optical character recognition required to implement part (b). Furthermore, the privacy implications of tracking every motor vehicle in the Chicago Metropolitan Area are enormous. This network would take public surveillance to United Kingdom levels.
Assuming that (a) and (b) were implemented successfully, there are major jurisdictional and scale issues with (c). In order to assure a minimum of false positives, the State of Illinois would have to implement a comprehensive insurance-to-registration tag database that would be automatically updated by the insurance companies within seconds of issuing or changing a policy. The cost of this type of project are enormous. The coordination of all involved stakeholders is extremely difficult given the various processing cycles, business policies, cross jurisdictional politics, and potential for error. There is also problems with the handling out of state registration tags. The system must be able to effectively deal with the tags of every state in the United States. If this system only processes Illinois residents, there may be some serious constitutional repercussions under Amendment 14 (equal protection of the law).
Finally, after gathering the data in (a), processing the information in (b) and (c), we get to the collections portion of the process, (d). Now, assuming for the moment that this system works and is accurate, we can now send citations to every uninsured vehicle driving on the road way. However, since most citations carry the weight of a parking ticket, most people tend to ignore them [ocregister.com]. Since these uninsured motorists usually (i) can not afford the cost of insurance or (ii) do not want to pay for insurance, it is logical to conclude that they will not pay for their automated traffic violations. While the "more than $200 million" figure is impressive, I would be even more impressed if they managed to collect 10% of that number.
In conclusion, this system will not work. It is technologically, politically, fiscally, and logistically unfeasible given today's technology and political climate.
This is Mr. Reality Check and I am signing out.
Can we ticket cars that stop on the crosswalk? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we? Can we PLEASE?
I'm a lifelong pedestrian. Running red lights, gunning it on yellow, and the Pittsburgh left [wikipedia.org] don't bother me. What bugs me is the endless supply of $%$#%@! who stop at a red light ON THE CROSSWALK, instead of at the line well behind it. This behavior forces those of us who are on foot to either walk behind the offender, or worse (when the offender realizes their mistake, tries to back up, and the car behind them just Does Not Care), walk out into traffic.
Find a way to ticket THESE idiots for being a public nuisance. You'll make the pedestrians happy and you'll be rolling in dough. :P
Re:Red light cameras CAUSE ACCIDENTS (Score:4, Insightful)
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
I wish I lived where you live.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.
It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).
It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).
Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.
Parent
Re:Red light cameras CAUSE ACCIDENTS (Score:4, Funny)
That's all great. Do you have any citations to back up your assertions?
Parent
Re:Red light cameras CAUSE ACCIDENTS (Score:5, Informative)
While I'd like what you're saying to be true, with some people it simply isn't. I stop for yellow lights, and I routinely get honked at by people behind me for stopping when they wanted to keep going -- even when it means they would have been running a red light. This is particularly egregious when it's a left turn lane that has a red "no left turn permitted" arrow. I often (as in daily) see fully five cars go through the intersection after the arrow has turned red, obstructing cars that are trying to go straight through the now-green light.
This is not a matter of poor timing, just a matter of people deciding that it's more important for them to get through the intersection than to obey the traffic rules. We have horrific crashes around here on a regular basis because someone comes through the green light and hits someone who was running the tail end of a previous green that is now red.
Parent