Research: Red-light cameras work

My home is my castle, and "in the privacy of my home" is one thing I cherish.

The roads, on the other hand, are things that I must share with others. They are public places.

The standard I use is that of cameras being a substitute for police officers. If it would be appropriate for an officer to be standing at the corner, watching people who run red lights and ticketing them, then it should be appropriate for a camera.

The only issue is this - the camera records the license plate of the offending vehicle, but unlike an officer who pulls someone over and asks for ID, the camera cannot identify the driver. Therefore in Canada, where some jursidictions, mine included, have red light cameras, they don't take demerits points off people which would impact people's insurance. But they can and do fine the owner of the vehicle. Its not perfect, but I can live with that.

James

Here in Ohio, they have just passed an anti smoking ordinance. One part of that bill is that you can not smoke in a business. So, if your business is in your home, then you can not smoke in your own house.

Now, I smoke. But, I understand why this law was passed. My brother is on oxygen because of second hand smoke. Do I think it's an invasion of my privacy because if I run a business from home I will not be allowed to smoke there. yes i do. But, do I think that this law will save lives. Yes I do, which I think is more important then that privacy. I could say, screw them. If they don't like that I smoke, then I don't want their business. I do not feel that way though.

I guess that is what is different about me then the holly rollers that feel their privacy is more important then how ever many lives are affected. I don't think my privacy is more important then a life, they obviously do.

Dan

For the record, my parents smoked(both quit), I have brothers who smoke, I've never smoked.

I am in favour of workplace anti-smoking laws, even in bars. If you are a waitress and the only available job in town is at a smoking bar, you shouldn't have to risk your health to earn a living. And we have had deaths of waitresses in Ontario who never smoked a day in their life, never lived with smokers, and died of lung cancer.

I do think if you are running a home office where you are the only employee, feel free to smoke. If you are working with others sharing your space, I agree with you.

If you take out the personal habits part of it, and see it as a toxic event, which it is, no one would argue the point. If we suggested that emissions of trace amounts of cyanide, formaldehyde etc., in a manufacturing process was permissable, the workers in that plant would be up in arms, and rightfully so. But cigarette smoke does contain those chemicals, yet somehow its acceptable in public places.

I'm not allowed to have a firepit in my backyard. And yes that an invasion of my privacy in my home. But knowing how close my next door neighbours house is to mine, and knowing that his idiot son would love to have a backyard fire, and that he is prone to drunken benders and the fire might not only take out their house but mine too, I can live with that restriction. I'd say I'm better off.

James

they excluded "tobacco stores". They cannot logically explain why this does not violate the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

by inkling Feb 20, 2007

In my opinion, the real solution is to make the punishment fit the crime. Running a red light should be a much more severe penalty than it currently is.

I don't like the idea of having cameras replace police officers.

As far as smoking...I knew it was going to happen and it has started to. Soon, smoking will be banned while driving too. As far as I'm concerned, if it's legal to ban talking on a cell phone while driving it is legal to ban smoking.

by dr dij Feb 15, 2007

of rear end type, I saw some figures, I think was 10 to 20%. These are people who are already going too fast and jam on the brakes, trying to stop before light, then someone hits them, typically between 10 and 20 mph (the jerk behind them who would have been even MORE illegally running a red light).

These accidents are usually much less serious than the side impacts caused by red light runners. Red light runner accidents are a side impact, and at 40 to 60 mph. This kind of accident is reduced a HUGE amount, so overall the accident rate is reduced, and fatal accidents are reduced more than the accident rate.

(Sorry for the misleading title :)

Are fixed to a pole, and adequately signed. They also had major signage up before the installation.

I don't have any numbers but I doubt we would see increases of accidents after the instaltion of these automatic red light cameras.

I can attest that when we had photo radar, it caused some near accidents that I witnessed. People were flying down the road at well above the speed limit, and when they spied the particular model of van that was used for these mobile photo radar units, they jammed on the brakes suddenly and that caused a number of domino panic stops.

But surely wouldn't a fixed unit be different?

James

It addressed both the privacy concerns of individuals and the benefits of the laws themselves.

And, to be truthful. The only court case brought about by these camera's that I do think is legitimate. A lady took it to court that offenders are being treated differently. Ie, a person pulled over by a police officer receives a criminal citation(number of points I guess) versus someone identified on camera is only considered civil offense. Now, I think it was james that pointed out that because you are not identified at the time of the incident, that this is right.... But, is it??? I don't know. Same person, doing same thing. Running red light, endangering lives. Receiving two different types of citations.

Oh well... I really don't know, and that's for the courts to decide. But, I think the benefits of these camera's far outweigh any concern raised so far by anyone. I don't think they have a pot to piss in.

Dan

How do you know who the driver is?

It may or may not be in the same house. And as the cameras are shooting the car from the back, with angles and glass and tints, you don't even see the driver much if at all, you catch the plate.

If you only catch the plate on camera, you can't issue a criminal citation, as you have no proof of the driver.

James

by thechas Feb 15, 2007

I recall seeing an article where studies showed that rear end accidents dropped back near normal numbers around 18 months to 2 years after the red light tickets start flowing. It takes that long to get the word out and change the driving habits of the majority of the population who avoid "hard" news.

You will see clear evidence of how many people avoid hard news when the time changes in the US on March 11th. The changes to DST start and stop dates were widely discussed in the news back in 2005 when the energy bill was going through Congress. Watch and see how many people show up for church late on Sunday the 11th.

Chas

by why me worry? Feb 15, 2007

because by the time you run through the intersection, that yellow light is now a red and the innocent motorist is now guilty of running a red light, according to the DOT. Many people are fighting back, although illegally, by buying plastic screens for their license plates that obscure any attempted photos by the red light cameras. Also, there are special spray on coatings that make the license plate reflect the flash from the camera, resulting in a blurry and usleless image. I am not saying that I condone breaking the law, but the law is being abused to ticket people who just happen to run through an intersection when the light just turns yellow. The NYPD calls is a "steady red", and uses it as a pathetic excuse to issue tickets for runnning red lights. My dad has been issues tickets by mail due to such stupidity, because anyone who drives in NYC knows that the traffic lights are programmed to display yellow for about 2.5 seconds or so before changing to red. Unless one plans on slamming on their brakes, risking getting read ended and causing a 50 car pileup, it is safer to just continue on through the intersection. These red light cameras are causing people to slam on the brakes as soon as the yellow light appears, causing rear end collisions. I was once rear ended this way because I didn't want to run through the intersection on a yellow light because I knew a camera was positioned there, but the guy behind me had other intentions and wanted to blow through the yellow light instead.

That is doing nothing but fueling the resistance to something that is saving lives. They are abusing a very helpful and powerful tool that is making a difference.

They deserved to get slammed for that one, and rightfully so.

Dan

by why me worry? Feb 15, 2007

These red light cameras are intended to prevent broadside collision on intersections, but drivers should not be ticketed for simply running through the intersection when the light is green and then changes to yellow and red all in 4 seconds. The city is making money off of this method of entrapment. They are actually causing people to slam on their brakes to avoid getting ticketed, but the end result is getting rear ended. How is this supposed to prevent accidents?

I'm sorry if my post seemed to state otherwise.

I agree with you, the city is ruining something that is very beneficial. That's what I was trying to say.

I think if you read dr. d's post, he addressed about the rear ending.

What the city is doing with the yellow light is wrong. I agree with you. But, as Dr. J said. The side impacts is much more destructive then what is occurring with rear end accidents. Due to the fact that people are going faster, striking an area of the car where people are closer too.

Dan

Thats all I was trying to say.

Trust me, I think the camera's are a good thing.

Dan

by pmcgrath1 Feb 15, 2007

Unfortunately it is more about revenue generation than saving lives. Follow this scenario:

Traffic light has 5 second yellow. Running red light is a problem. Put in camera. Camera company takes cut of revenue, City gets the rest. After some time cars stop running red light. Revenue drops. City now has to pay company for cameras. Positive revenue now becomes negative revenue. City has traffic engineer change 5 second yellow to 3 second yellow. And the revenue returns

Don?t think it will happen. Wait.

I don?t believe in relying on stream of revenue that is solely dependent on the average citizen breaking the law.

If you have a red light issue, there are many ways to correct the problem without using cameras.

Have the traffic engineers do a study to determine if the yellow is to short.
Delay the green for a second or two after the opposing light turns red. This saves lives.
On highways (+45 mph), consider putting up lights to warn motorists when the light will turn red. I have found these to be very effective.
Finally, do it the old fashion way. PULL PEOPLE OVER. This is infinitely more effective at stopping red light runners than sending them a ticket in the mail. A little public humiliation goes a long way.

Those statistics have shown that lives and injuries are decreasing. Localities are always going to try and generate revenue.

Look at DUI and DUI stops. That's pure revenue generation for the locality. But how many lives are being saved because of it. The benefit far outweighs the downside.

And people will always try to run lights, no matter how much time they have. That's a given, seriously. I'm sure you've seen it. Person is 10 cars back, see's the light turn yellow. Floors it, and runs the red. They knew the light was changing, they had time to stop. They ran it anyway.

Dan

ok, its pure revenue generation by the localities. But, if they place these camera's in high accident area's. They generate boat loads of revenue and save lives. Because people know these lights are there, they begin to slow down automatically because they know they are going to get nailed.

What the hell, same principle as speed traps. I know where the speed traps are, I slow down. Speed traps are usualy in high accident area's. hey, lives are being saved. it's worth it.

Dan

by pmcgrath1 Feb 15, 2007

The whole point of a DUI stop is to get drunk drivers off the street and keep them off the street. Most DUI convictions come with the loss of driving privileges.

The red light cameras on the other hand do nothing more than charge a fine. (revenue generation) no points, no loss of driving privileges. If my pockets are deep enough, I?ll just keep running the lights. Last time I checked, if I was pulled over for running a red light, that would be a moving violation complete with points etc.

Yes, there will always be red light runners. But I firmly believe that pulling them over, writing them a ticket for a moving violation and fining them is a more effective way of handling the problem.

by tig2 Feb 15, 2007

I know that red running is a big problem, especially downtown. I refuse to step into the street on green for at least several seconds so that runners can either run the light or stop.

But we have an additional wrinkle. Ice. Lots of ice. In winter, the yellow is extended a bit (I think it is 2.5 sec) so that someone trying to come to a safe stop but hits a patch is somewhat protected... as is cross traffic.

I really don't have an issue with the cameras. I just wish that there was consistency. After the ice season is over, they change the yellow duration so that the pattern that you have lived with for several months is no longer valid. Granted, you also no longer have the issue but there are many who are gonna run the light because they think they have enough time.

Some of the worst driving I have ever seen... and I have driven in New York and California.

What Who me worry said is total crock... That is not trying to save lives, that is just pure money. I understand that localities will try to make money, but do it in a way that isn't bull chit.... Ie, extend the yellow. Only ticket when it is already red. There is no excuse at that point.

Dan

by onbliss Feb 16, 2007

Sometimes runners just keep running even after the several seconds we allow them. Once my car got hit - side impact. I started after couple of seconds of getting the green light, just in the intersection - boom - a guy comes and hits the car from the right side. Luckily no injuries to both of us and I was close to work (I was going out to lunch on a fine summer afternoon). The car had damages.

Does extending the yellow light really do something? I have seen very very very very few people really attempting a safe/slow stop. In most cases, yellow light means - drive fast and cross the intersection.

But the yellow light is a boon during the winter. I never take a chance when there is snow or ice on the road.

[i]Delay the green for a second or two after the opposing light turns red. This saves lives.[/i]

Almost all computer controlled lights (and that's the overwhelming majority of them) already do this.

[i]On highways (+45 mph), consider putting up lights to warn motorists when the light will turn red. I have found these to be very effective.[/i]

Except for one of those idiots who thinks "Let's see. It just started flashing, so if I speed up a little, I can probably beat the red"

[i]Finally, do it the old fashion way. PULL PEOPLE OVER. This is infinitely more effective at stopping red light runners than sending them a ticket in the mail.[/i]

at the cost of how many additional police officers?

[i] A little public humiliation goes a long way.[/i]

It would if it were actually humiliating.

It's real simple: If you don't want to donate to the city's revenue, don't run the red lights.

by pmcgrath1 Feb 21, 2007

As to your first point. I disagree. Most of the traffice lights in my area have no delay between the red/green change.

You are never going to stop the idiots with the red light camera if it has no effect on their priviledge to drive. Pulling them over, assesing points and fines, and revoking their license is going to be significantly more effective at changing their behavior.

I do think that most people are at least a little embarassed when they are setting on the side of the road getting a ticket while their peers and co-workers pass by.

And once you city gets hooked on cameracrack revenue it wont just be the idiots that'll be paying.

by pmcgrath1 Feb 15, 2007

Same principle applies here. If I get pulled over for speeding, I get written up for a moving violation. Radar camera, like the red light camera, assumes car owner is operator and does nothing more than charges a fine.

You fall on my side walk when I'm not at home, and someone else is baby sitting. I'm still responsibile. I paid that person to clean the walk, they didn't. I'm still responsibile. I still must pay.

You lend your car to someone, then you are responsibile. Remember the lawsuit. This is no longer a criminal case where you have points applied against your drivers license. But you are forced to pay a fine. If you don't know who had your car for you to get the money from, then there is more an issue of just the light being ran.

Dan

by drowningnotwaving Feb 15, 2007

In our state they are accumulated for 3 years from the date of paying the fine.

Up to 11 points - safe. 12 points - off the road for a period. That period depends upon how many other times you've been off the road.

Over here it's the demerit points that people work very hard to avoid.

The fine itself is not cheap, but in the overall scheme of things it's a nuisance rather than a reason to stop offending.

What happens over in your land?

edited - read the other posts in full

Statistically, it was shown that less convictions are occuring. That tells you more lives are either being saved and less injuries are occuring.

I'll concede my argument of DUI, but you havent addressed the fact that the statiscts are in favor of these red light camera's. Like the article says, jury is in. Convictions down, accidents down. What more is there?

Dan

by daveo2000 Feb 15, 2007

If you run your business out of your home, do you use the whole home or just a single room as the main workplace? Wouldn't you be able to say "This room is my workplace. The rest of the building is my home. I don't smoke in the workplace."

Of course, that could get into problems if you deduct your whole house on your taxes as the place of business. ;)

by danlm Feb 16, 2007

I don't run a business from the house, so I just let it go. I just know about it because of seeing it in passing.

dan

if that building contains a workplace, or abuts a building that contains a workplace (excluding existing tobacco stores, which are grandfathered. New tobacco stores must be freestanding buildings to be excluded. And up to 20 percent of hotel rooms may also be excluded). There is still some question as to whether apartments above businesses are excluded.

A business is also excluded if there are no employees, or all of the employees are family members, AND the business is not open to the public. Private clubs are excluded, as long as they have no employees.

As relates to your home, if you hire a contractor, or even a baby-sitter, or if you see clients in your home, you cannot smoke in your own home while they are there.

In addition, any business required to ban smoking must also prominently post signs saying so, and the sign must include a 1-800-RAT-LINE for reporting violations.

Sieg heil, Baby!

by daveo2000 Feb 15, 2007

I received one of those tickets and it showed 2 photos of my car: one at red+1 second and the other at red+ a little more. (At the time, I had been negotiating around a wacko pedestrian crossing the street against the light and didn't notice the light change.)

The salient point being that the ticket was for ENTERING the intersection on red.

Yes, this was in NYC.

by drowningnotwaving Feb 15, 2007

In Australia, the automatic inference is that the registered owner of the vehicle is the guilty party.

When the 'citation' (as you call it) comes in the mail, there is a statutory declaration that can be used by the owner to identify another person. Interestingly, the onus is on the owner, not the 'state'.

The underlying principle is that the owner is responsible for their vehicle and should be aware at all times who is driving it.

For the most part this really does work fine.

It also gives you the opportunity to "share" demerit points around the family if someone is getting too high up on their points.

It has lead to a couple of funny situations:

* the popular 'ruse' was to record an international visitor's name, who was in the country at the time of the offence, but who has now left.

We've all used this one for years for all manner of driving offences, not just red light cameras.

Up until 6 months ago when a Chief Justice (of the state's supreme court) wrote down the name of an international friend. In some sort of vendetta, the local press discovered that this person had been dead for 8 years prior to the offence.

The auditor general is now going back through all fines for the last two years where any international peron has been used as an excuse. They expect to nab thousands of people.

* The other one was to register the vehicle to a company, not an individual.

In some states this still works. You pay an additional fine of $500 and the individual is overlooked. It's just to avoid the demerit points.

But in our state the company must identify an individual or the onus will be shared (with demerit points allocated against their driving record) for ALL the directors, as I understand.

by dr dij Feb 15, 2007

Captn what's-is-name old guy was speeding on his super-bike to get to the super-sub. The S. Florida elevated roadway had vision scanner to time his speed, it then read his plates (bar codes in the future) and automatically deducted the fine from an account of his.

How's that for gov't efficiency?

We do get points against us for traffic violations that are done the police. 6 is enough to make us go to class's, Im not sure what it is to lose our license... 1 point rolls off a year.

Dan

by thechas Feb 15, 2007

The increased adherence to traffic laws when there is either a police car behind you or law enforcement cameras in use is evidence for a theory I have about all criminal activity.

It is not the penalty for the crime, but the perceived risk of being caught that lowers crime rates.

People with a propensity to obey the law will take into account the penalty if they ever think about breaking any law.

People who desire to break a law only consider the penalty once the perceived risk of being caught rises above their risk threshold.

Be it traffic laws, or criminal activity, the only effective way to improve adherence to the rules is to increase visible enforcement.

I would like to see general traffic law enforcement follow what some of the car rental companies attempted to do with the on-board GPS system. I think a ticket and fee system based on how much over the speed limit, and how many miles you drove over the limit would have a significant positive impact on traffic safety.

Further, if it is an inconvenience to obey the speed limit and other traffic laws, it is an inconvenience for you to drive period! Take public transportation, or get a chauffeur.

Chas

by tig2 Feb 15, 2007

People who follow the laws will follow them. Those that don't, won't.

I am just thinking that consistency is a requirement for this to work- and work as well as it can. That may be a challenge to some states heavily impacted by weather.

Me personally? I just don't drive any more. I want to make it to my wedding.

I said that wrong... What I was trying to point out is how the law is being inforced in nyc. I appoligise for that comeing out wrong.... Sounded like I was totally disagreeing with him, and I wasn't.

Dan

by jamesrl Feb 16, 2007

For sure in my province and I believe in most if not all provinces....

Demerit points are only deducted if an officer witnesses and stops the driver. Photo radar and red light cameras are for fines only.

James

If a cop seen you run the red light with his own two eyes, would there be a question of privacy?

by jamesrl Feb 20, 2007

Driving is NOT an inalienable right, but a privelege. You have to share the road with others in a manner whereby you are not endangering them.

So if the police officer sees you committ an act with the car, he sees the plate of the car - which is external and must be visible to be legal, and he sees the driver, who he stops.

The red light camera sees the former. Thats why the driver does not lose points in most jurisdictions.

James