Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras 807
caffiend666 writes "According to a Dallas Morning News article, any 'Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law ... Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.' Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"
The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mixed views (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I really detest red light cameras. They basically operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, sometimes they get you on yellow. Most of the time, they are designed for profit (I've heard companies that manufacture these are often paid per conviction, thus increasing incentive for abuse), not public safety.
Where I live, the traffic cameras are not placed at the most dangerous intersections, but at the ones they think will generate the most revenue for the city. Gines are more than $350 per offense, and go as a point (4 in a year can mean suspension) on your license.
I think my hatred of these red light cameras outweigh my delight about the police getting their ironic comeuppance. I think they should be banned.
My biggest problem with the Po-Po (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't follow street laws
They tailgate people at night to "nudge" people into doing wrong.
So it's caught on camera you say? So they object you say?
Go figure. Hey while your at it meter-maids, grow a backbone and give them a ticket for illegally parking going for coffee.
Bah
Yo Grark
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, firetrucks or ambulances should not be exempt if they are not responding to an emergency, which was the original poster's point. A police car should not be exempt if its driver is getting more donuts, but should be exempt if it's responding to a call.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
The law exists for a reason. Allowing someone to ignore it--particularly when that person is responsible for enforcing it--undermines its authority.
If we're talking double standards... (Score:4, Insightful)
The law makes exceptions for emergencies, hot pursuits, etc. Those are the only times when an officer should be running a red light. If they break the law, they can pay the price like other citizens.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
police, fire, ambulance...politicians, celebrities (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen countless police officers that pull people over, then cruise down the road at 90mph, set up another speed trap, pull someone over...if there's no need for the officer to speed, he shouldn't be doing it either.
Re:Unbiased? I think not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes you are simply going too fast to stop in time.
Speeding.
What if there is rain or snow on the ground?
Unsafe driving for conditions.
You might also run a red light if someone is following too closely to you and you don't want to get rear-ended when you slam on the brakes.
Good point. Of course, having the photo as evidence would help you when you go to court to contest the ticket.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. "Equal protection" will then... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only time an officer should be able to violate traffic law with impunity is when it is required for performance of their public duty. (i.e. a pursuit, or when responding to an emergency situation)
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Applying your strict utilitarian logic elsewhere, firetrucks and police cars shouldn't have the right to disobey traffic rules if the fire endangers fewer people than disobeying traffic rules does.
Re:I had a comment, but changed my mind (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't 1984 man. Write "Fuck the police" if you want.
Enjoy life. That's my opinion.
The quickest way to ban them ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, as I see it, there is no reason they shouldn't get a ticket if there is no clear evidence of the applicability of an emergency exception (clearly, if the camera shows their emergency lights on, that's another story), and be allowed to respond to the ticket and present the case for a non-obvious exception if they so desire.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops should be FIRED for breaking the law.
Re:Well, within reason? Sure. (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that the police officer is indicating that he is operating in a situation extrodiary enough that he must break the law, there is no excuse for keeping a record.
Sounds like a lot of bureacracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless there is an emergency, then nobody should be running the redlights ... but this "solution" looks
like a nightmare.
How about adding a small RF transmitter to the siren & lights in emergency vehicles so that when *both* are on, any redlight cameras in the vicinity add a notation to photographs they take that there was an emergency in progress. This would allow the emergency vehicles through without tickets and without bureaucracy.
Photo Radar (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they work on the "Innocent until proven guilty, and here's the proof" principle. Your objection probably stems from the mistaken belief that you should be able to get away with an infraction because a human isn't there to catch you. However, I agree that they seem to appear in revenue generating areas, which makes one wonder if they are really after safety or money.
In the Greater Toronto Area we used to have photo radar. Basically, a van would park by the side of the freeway and snap the license plate of anyone who was speeding. People complained loudly that it was merely a cash grab, and there's no doubt that it generated its share of revenue. However, cash grabbing aside, the photo radar did reduce the speed on the freeway, and thus made it a safer road to travel.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is like saying that a camera catching someone killing someone else is not probable cause for a murder investigation.
The two holes in your theory are that, observation in public whether you like it or not is not considered search.
The other being that the camera only observes the traffic while the red light is in operation.
Other than cost, there is no difference between this and having an officer at the location observing the traffic and ticketing people.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great. "Equal protection" will then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there's no compelling reason to exempt them from traffic laws in non-emergency situations.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Photo Radar (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I'll give you that.
But not that. Decreasing the speed does not necessarily make it a safer road to travel. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an Easy Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. As soon as certain men are exempt from laws because of their status as government officers, we're a nation of men. That's bad.
Burden of proof on who? (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt that police officers keep detailed logs of their daily activities. It's possible they keep track of the substantive activities that take place during the day, but I doubt they have a log of exactly what hour/minute/second they began and finished their drive to whatever police related activity they were headed to. It makes sense to hold police officers to the same laws as citizens, unless they have a compelling reason (emergency) not to be held to these laws, but how will we prove there was no compelling reason and who has the burden of proof? The idea of guilty until proven innocent that another poster referred to earlier will surely come into play in this aspect as well if cops are made to defend each ticket they get.
Anyway, this is all too 1984ish for me.
Re:Here's an Easy Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
B.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because when an ambulance or firetruck does it, their sirens are on and they're responding to a call. Any other time, they follow the rules of the road, same as everybody else.
And when that police cruiser's lights are on, you bet your ass I'm going to get out of its way and let it run whatever lights it damn well pleases. But if the lights aren't on, that cop had better be sitting his ass behind me in line waiting for the light to turn green, just like everybody else on the road does.
Re:Unbiased? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the camera didn't sense me either so no one else ever knew.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
The cop caught speeding should be able to justify his speeding in some verfiiable way, (a call or other recorded situation) otherwise let him pay the fine...
Re:Well, within reason? Sure. (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing I could think of quickly is if they were responding to a crie in progress, such as a burglary or break in, where it may be beneficial to approach with as few things as possible giving you away early. In the situations I listed, an officer may be best to use only the lights for intersections only; I can't think of any reason to use siren only. Different types of calls need different responses.
I agree though, without lights and/or sirens, there should be reasons given for some actions.
Re:My biggest problem with the Po-Po (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if there is no emergency, there should be no need to endanger the public at large. I can't see any reason for a cop to run a red light in order to give a parking ticket to that guy who parks in front of my driveway. I don't care if it's 2:55AM and the roads are empty and the cop gets off at 3:00AM--if I can't do it, they can't do it.
From TFA:Well, anything can happen on "some calls." However, a dispatcher has spoken with the person who made the call and, I assume, made a determination whether something was an emergency or not. It is not the police officer's job to second-guess the dispatcher and decide whether or not a call should be an emergency.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
Safety first (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats that? You said that you know when its safe? Uh huh.
Re:I don't get the controversy here... (Score:4, Insightful)
It happened a couple years ago in Kansas City. The city pretty much let the PD off the hook for the whole thing. A local body shop took pity on the woman and fixed her minivan for free in the end. Now I doubt the policy will be any different if the city gives them license to do it without the lights and sirens.
I've watched cops flip on their lights and immediately do U-turns in major streets, "blip" their sirens as they run red lights, drive way over the speed limit. I know the excuse for that last one is this is the lazy way to find speeders. Drive at whatever threshold over the speed limit where you start actually giving tickets and then anyone going faster than you gets one. But that doesn't change that it is dangerous in some areas.
The whole idea of it being legal with the lights/siren on is
Flipping them on six feet before you pull a maneuver is not fair warning. It's called CYA if you get in a wreck so you can just lie and say you were answering a call.
Re:Here's an Easy Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Allowing even one person to violate public safety laws without ample notification to everyone around them defeats the entire purpose of the public safety laws: keeping people safe from other people.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
If and only if the public in general is allowed to take the same training and also be exempt from red lights. Unless that happens, no matter what training they get or such, it is still the police being exempt from laws they enforce in others, and inequity that generates contempt for authority.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
That phrase has always bothered me. The absence of evidence, assuming one has looked, *is* evidence of absence. It's just not proof of absence. In the same way that circumstantial evidence is still evidence although it may not be conclusive. We use this in science all the time when we look for some evidence that we expect to be there. When it's absent, that tells us something.
So, this isn't good enough for you? Ok, but it's customary to say why not. I think that particular cliché does us a disservice.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing the absence of CNN reports is evidence of is the absence of CNN coverage. By your logic third party presidential candidates don't exist because major news outlets refuse to cover them.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
Police are supposed to be "Model Citizens" that set the example for everyone!
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats that? the Police said that they know when its safe? Uh huh.
Police? Law? (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's not like you all spend your days in Baghdad, anyway. What do you need all that security for? You're being conned.
Re:Unbiased? I think not. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, within reason? Sure. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Camerals not allowed in Minnesota (Score:1, Insightful)
If the state wants to convict you for a crime (which is what such a fine is, it's just an extremely minor crime) then they need to prove you committed it. Proving your car committed it is not enough, because somebody else could have been driving. It's not up to the owner of the car to prove who was driving, it's up to the state to prove this.
Switch the scenario a bit: your car is observed fleeing the scene of a murder. You're hauled in on murder charges because you own the car. But, you protest, you weren't driving the car. Fine, they say, so tell us who was and we'll let you go.
This is pretty obviously absurd for the one case, and that should transfer to the other case. It's not your responsibility to solve crimes you're accused of committing.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't you ever been caught in a rural shopping strip in middle of the night whose main exits have a light which is not on a blinking red for some reason (with the main street blinking yellow) but instead force you to wait 10 minutes for a 15 second green?
Are we supposed to abandon our brains entirely and wait that entire time when there is not one other car on the road? I'm against cameras for many reasons (they cause people to break and give they a higher chance of being rear-ended for one) but the main reason is that they can't practice discretion in cases. There just there solely to make money.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
I kinda want to cut the police some slack here. I don't like the idea of ON DUTY officers running lights for no good reason but there could be plenty of good reasons for them to run one even when not on any emergency call. Perhaps they just pulled up to an intersection and noticed something happening in a parking lot just past the intersection that may or may not be worth investigating. If they have a clear intersection they may want to go on through but if they have to worry about cameras they may just let it go rather than have to deal with the hassle of trying to remember what they ran it for.
The thing that irritates me more is when OFF DUTY officers speed with impunity because no police officer will give another one a speeding ticket.(I have a relative in law enforcement who gets pulled over for speeding once or twice a year and has never gotten a ticket)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know how ambulances have those twirly lighty things on the top (you know, emergency flashers)? And they have those loud noisy things (emergency klaxons), the kind loud enough to overpower your average car stereo from a good distance away? They exist to WARN people to GET OUT OF THE WAY OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE HIT BY A RATHER MASSIVE VEHICLE MOVING AT HIGH SPEEDS.
Further more, all emergency vehicles have these flashers and klaxons. The light color is used to signify what kind of priority this vehicle has (though your average motorist hasn't a clue). Also, these vehicles have strobe lights on them to trigger certain events at stop lights. They activate a bright white light and turn the other light (the one perpendicular to the vehicle) to red.
The guys who design these vehicles aren't nitwits. They know that they could cause more damage than most other cars on the road (except 18-wheelers). All these lights and sounds are in place to prevent this. So, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that more people are saved in ambulances than are killed by them. Besides, what gives me the right to make my left hand turn RIGHT NOW, and make somebody's (sibling/parent/child/grandchild/grandparent/signi ficant other/friend/complete stranger) have to wait to get to the hospital to save their life? I'll pull off to the side of the road, turn off the car, get out, and sit on the sidewalk to let an ambulance past. Unless you're in an emergency vehicle, NOBODY has any reason that they need to be that impatient. If you're late to something, that's your own fault. If you disagree, wait until it's your (sibling/parent/child/grandchild/grandparent/signi ficant other/friend) in the back of that ambulance, and then tell me how you feel.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because you would be wrong in saying it. The phrase you are looking for is "absence of proof is not proof of absence". As it turns out, the absence of evidence being evidence of absence is one of the bases of scientific reasoning.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:1, Insightful)
LK
Re:Unbiased? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I missing something? Why couldn't someone on the side of the road measure the frequency by using, say, a stopwatch?
"Driver in front never at fault" laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Utah has such a law, and I was ticketed there (maybe 16 years ago?) for rear-ending someone; so to answer your question:
"So who the fuck else could it be that was at fault? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy? The devil made me do it? I have a really hard time believing that you seriously mean that it's the driver in the front cars fault that somebody decides to run into him."
It was the fault of the asshole in front of me with the broken brake lights who didn't maintain his vehicle.
I.e.: the guy in front.
I still got the ticket, because that's the law (the officer had no choice), but I was able to fight (and win) in court as a result.
But it cost me the use of the bailment I had to pay until the court heard the case, the use of my vehicle and the cost of a rental car while the case was pending (the insurance would not pay for repairs or a rental if I was at fault), and a day in court -- all over a ticket which should never have been issued to me, but for the utterly stupid law.
-- Terry
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, your example works to the opposite. Yes, if a roof had collapsed, you should get there posthaste which is what the dispatcher told you. So I assume you did. Good for you. On the other hand, would it have been acceptable for you to say, "Oh, that dispatcher is always full of shit. We'll drive slowly and carefully," and arrive at the site and discover that the dispatcher had been correct all along?
To me, the dispatcher is the person who knows the most about what is going on and is able to judge how much of an "emergency" exists. If they err, they should err on the side of caution and that's fine. I have no problem with an officer who is responding to what he or she has been told is an emergency rushing to the scene. If that includes making illegal U-turns or running a red light, that's fine. If, after doing these things, they arrive and discover that no emergency exists, they certainly shouldn't be culpable for their illegal activities.
But if there's no emergency, there is no reason for police or firefighters to be deciding otherwise and break the law.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor will he be warning the traffic around him that they may soon be dealing with an unpredictable and potentially unsafe driver in their midst. Again, what makes the lives of the victims of the domestic violence call more important than those of the other drivers on the road, particularly if the LEO is going to be blowing through intersections sans lights?
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Broken bones don't really hurt unless they a) grind, b) shatter, or c) pinch something else with nerves in it. Bones don't have nerves in them.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to be an ambo, and when we were doing the driver training, it was emphasised that we could break road rules when the situation required it, however only if we were certain it was safe for us and the general public to do so.
The implication (spelled out by the instructor) was that if we were involved in an accident, we clearly had not made certain it was safe to break road rules, and therefore would not be protected from the law or from civil action.
Nobody I know objected to that. None of the ambos I knew were ever involved in a serious accident while on a high priority job, so I don't know what would have really happened if there'd been a big one.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
just wait until it's your turn to be that one dude... that's all I've got to say...
we have a convention in our society that traffic gives way to ambulances etc. on emergency calls... of course if you want to be an asshole then it's your right, but just wait until it's your turn to be the dude in the back... I hope some other asshole delays your ambulance ride...
Everyone (assholes excepted) gives way because they know it could just as easily be themselves needing the ambulance ride one day.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:1, Insightful)
In your case they used the lights to indicate that they were on a silent call and that's legal. They aren't supposed to use the lights just to get home early. But I am so sick and tired of watching the cops, without lights or sirens, routinely pulling illegal turns, runnings stops and lights, and speeding excessively -- even beyond the teens.
I made the mistake of asking my brother-in-law about this and he was pretty pissed off. He never did answer me. But it's pretty clear that all the cops consider themselves above the law most of the time. It's a dysfunctional representation of the law when the policeman is writing you a ticket for $120 on stop sign but routinely do the same with hesitation.
Makes it hard to take them seriously. Leaves you with the impression that everything is legal as long as you don't actually get convicted of the crime.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Serves them right (Score:3, Insightful)
I know cops are exempt from the cell phone law, but there is no reason they should be allowed going high speeds in a non-emergency situation calling their girlfriend, or rather anyone that hasn't have to do with the job.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
My personal feeling has always been that the House should do what the people want, and the Senate should do what the people need. Though honestly I'd prefer they both did nothing at all.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
Note: it seems to me that some lights have weight sensors in the road and will never change for a cyclist. I've seen the pedestrian sign flashing and then go back to walk again. The only solution is to go and push the pedestrian button for the direction I want to go.
Re:My biggest problem with the Po-Po (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The police need to be exempt or nothing gets do (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering us civilians are under scrutiny for talking on our cellphones + driving, cops shouldn't be trying to one-up that. That's going to get them into an accident. They should pull over.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm presuming a situation where, as is common, police are already generally forbidden by law or regulation to violate traffic laws except in emergencies, and the issue is just whether or not they should be automatically ticketed if the jurisdiction has a system which automatically tickets non-police vehicles.
If the jurisdiction has given police a blanket exemption from traffic laws even in non-emergency situations, for whatever reason, clearly they shouldn't be ticketed for violating them, whether automatically or otherwise.
IOW, if the law applies to the police, it ought to be applied to the police. If it doesn't, clearly it shouldn't; debate over whether the law ought to apply to the police is a separate issue from the point I was making.
Re:Unbiased? I think not. (Score:2, Insightful)
A safe distance between you and the car in front of you is the distance at which (1) you can anticipate the traffic conditions that could require you to respond (2) give you enough time to respond safely. It doesn't matter if its 1/2 a car length or 10 car lengths. There is no set rule. I don't know why you say 2 car lengths when we've made no assumptions about speed or driving conditions. City driving could reasonably mean anywhere from stop-and-go to 45 mph.
The hidden assumption in your case seems to be that traffic coming the other way is at a full stop when the light changes and will wait for both the semi and you to run a red light. Let's assume that there is no traffic stopped at the light when it turns green, but there is another driver half a block away travelling at 35 mph. That driver will see the light turn to green, see that the semi will be through the intersection before they arrive, and that driver continues at 35 mph. But wait! you're following two car lengths behind! Even if the other driver slams on their brakes as soon as they see you, there won't be enough time. You get completely side swiped and its entirely your fault! Let's hope you don't have passengers.
Does this seem contrived? It isn't, I've seen an accident almost exactly like this happen at 1 am, (I was walking at the time and not involved). Fortunately, everyone was wearing seatbelts and noone was hurt.
BTW, I'm a bit upset that you would jump to the conclusion that I love authoritarianism. At what point did I support traffic cameras? I was just trying to point out a common misconception about safe driving. Anyway, this has gotten severely off-topic.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: "I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."
I believe that just about sums it up.
Well, if it's the kind of call where a minute or two is significant, then wouldn't that be an... emergency call?
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Insightful)
There are times when an officer might be going to a sensitive situation where the flashing lights might cause trouble. I can't think of an example immediately, but I'm sure those exist. While I'm sure they're supposed to be using their lights all the time when they're responding, I don't think it's mandatory.