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?"
Unbiased? I think not. (Score:4, Interesting)
At least if a human cop sees you run a red light for a reason, you can explain that to him and he can let you go. The cameras are unforgiving. They are totally biased, because they assume if the camera catches you, you are in the wrong. That's not always the case.
Re:Mixed views (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Iowa, red light cameras have been shut down because the courts ruled they were illegal. The story can be found here. [thenewspaper.com] There is even a proposal to ban all camera-based ticketing in the state.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is why the state laws are written to keep this kind of hooliganism down and hopefully prevent these accidents.
But most states can fairly accurately determine intent as in many jurisdictions the cars have cameras any way.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
One night I was coming home late and stopped at a Red light. A police car pulled up opposite me waited a moment then hit his lights and ran the light. He immediately turned them off and sped up. I was young and stupid so I pulled a U-turn and followed him. He was definitely speeding and all my youthful angst was sure he was just in a hurry to get home everyone else is.
He was pretty far ahead of me when he turned off the road. I turned into the neighborhood that he'd gone into. I spotted three stopped cop cars, lights off, parked on the street. I didn't know what to think when finally saw the cops.
One was carrying an M-16 and the other two were armed with shotguns, I saw them doing quick hand signals before darting off into the neighborhood in opposite directions.
I kept on driving and decided it was better not to worry too much about the cops pulling privilege because, at least in this case, they had a good reason.
Maybe a cop runs a red light because he's lazy or maybe he runs one because he's following a suspect car. I'd rather let the cops have leeway and discretion in this matter.
Cops see suspicious cars all the time. Maybe they're driving strangely, whatever, the point is that they need to have the freedom to investigate.
It gets better (Score:5, Interesting)
However, in the course of a disagreement between Scottsdale and the State, use of the cameras to generate citations was stopped but the data was still collected for analysis by a local professor. It seems that during that time, a lot of law-enforcement cruisers were caught going far over the limit without lights, etc.
On top of that (IIRC) there was a wreck a bit ago involving a private vehicle and law enforcement; needless to say, the private driver was cited by the cop. Said private driver's attorney subpoena'd the speed cameras and guess what?
I've also heard of other cities where the red-light cameras where police involved in wrecks at intersections wrote up the other party only to have the camera results subpoena'd and turn the tables. Fine by me -- a red-light camera would have saved me a lot of time and expense several years ago.
IMHO you can argue speed cameras either way but red lights should just plain have recorders, period.
From Dallas (Score:5, Interesting)
There's lots of other places, recent construction has literally removed some intersections, but not the lights, which are left running just as before(some with extended hours! Typically blink yellow after 9, but not anymore). Although, I seriously run them and they haven't put cameras up there yet and I would argue and drag it out long enough to make a police officer regret stopping me, but I have seen others stopped because of it. The lights going into downtown(mainly Elm and Main) are typically tuned so you're going to just miss each one and have to wait the full length of time to go, or buses are everywhere and because of continuing construction have to block all traffic going in a certain direction, as the bus lane is now a construction lane. It's quite aggravating and these traffic cams are an insult to everyone in Dallas, "We don't have good roads or a decent traffic system but we'll ticket you for it!" and probably an insult just about everywhere else in the country. I can see reasons, especially at dangerous lights, and I hate to defend myself, but a 3 mile trip shouldn't be 20-30 minutes because of 8 traffic lights(typically having to wait twice at two of them because of some additional not syncing up on cross streets). Fix the system first where running a light is trying to be a bastard instead of trying to go to the grocery store, then let's put them at dangerous intersections and highway/feeder type intersections, and let's go from there.
That being said, and the cameras not about to go anywhere, I find it quite fabulous that an officer is being forced to pay. We had a whole spat of police fired within the past two years because of unpaid traffic fines in different cities and counties and this just adds to the fun. Of course we're completely understaffed, have a terrible corrupt staff, and a high crime rate by police officers who will not look at anything except a speeder. I actually went to report a break in of a car(that was happening at that exact moment) and an office told me he needs to steal the car and speed or he won't care. Then they tried to beat up on our Derby Girls! [dallasobserver.com] C'mon! That's just low.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the ambulance driver is certified to be safe at the higher speeds and is trained in "illegal" driving maneuvers so that he will not collide with anything (except when purposely and safely plowing stopped vehicles out of the way). He also has no tickets or criminal record, ever (most ambulance services are careful to verify this) and, one must assume, is therefore capable of following the law.
Which is all to say that, no, they don't endanger the lives of others at the expense of their passenger because they are specially trained not to. And no, you can't take those courses and have a perfect license and violate traffic laws because violating them causes chaos. Chaos that is acceptable to save a life, if it is controlled and safe. Chaos like that is NOT acceptable because you a late for work. I suppose if you took those courses and had the appropriate safety gear on your car (like lights and siren and special brakes and engine) AND you were transporting a nearly dead passenger, yeah, that would be ok. But that's not your plan, is it?
Re:It gets better (Score:2, Interesting)
True story: I was driving on the loop 101 while traffic cameras were still operating. I saw a clapped out 70-something Chevy truck approaching at an estimated 80 MPH. As I have at least some situational awareness, I signaled for a change into the right lane. Mr. Asshat ignores my signal and whips into the right lane (strike one: Passing on the right, strike two: Ignoring signalled intentions). Then, as we approach the traffic camera installation, he pulls down his sun visor and rotates it so that it is between his face and the camera. This leaves him with maybe as much field of vision as your average submarine driver gets from a periscope (strike three: Endangering others). He then jets by the camera at 80.
At this point, I'm tempted to buy a Janet Napolitano mask and wear that whenever I drive the loop 101. When I get the letter asking me who was driving, I'll just forward it to the governor's office
Re:Great. "Equal protection" will then... (Score:4, Interesting)
Only the most anal actually do it, but they're required to nonetheless. My best friend's dad is incredibly anal and I felt very safe when I got stuck in the car with him travelling at high rates of speeds on an emergency call (bad car wreck). He definitely lost time at lights, but he didn't accidentally kill anyone.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:4, Interesting)
I have some data.
First, a friend of mine was stopped at a red light on Market street in San Francisco. It was near some theaters, so the light may have been hard to pick out among all the neon, but SHE saw it and stopped.
A moment later, she was rear-ended by a cop who saw neither the light nor her ENTIRE CAR. He started backing up, taking her bumper with him, then started forward, but stopped short of ramming her again.
When she got out and told him to call the police, he said, "I'm the police." She called bullshit on him and said he was not going to investigate his own accident.
Another friend was slowing down in the right-hand lane, turning into a burger place. He also was rear-ended by a cop with no lights or siren. The cop tried the "silent response" trick on him. Again, the cop was told he was not going to investigate his own accident and had to comply.
The really moronic part is that, even if lights and siren had been going, my friend was already in the curb lane and would not have been obliged to drive up onto the sidewalk to get out of the cop's way.
Re:Mixed views (Score:3, Interesting)
From my perspective, the worst thing about red light cameras is that there's no human entity there to accuse you of committing a crime.
If I go to court over one of these tickets, aren't I entitled to face my accuser? Obviously, I can't question the box that took my picture, so it's my word against whose exactly? The manufacturer? The guy who periodically calibrates the device? Or is it just assumed that the machine is infallible and no argument on my part is necessary or worthy of consideration?
It just seems that red light cameras subvert some of my fundamental rights as a citizen, and the local governments are willing to be complicit in that because the cameras generate bigtime revenue.
Re:My biggest problem with the Po-Po (Score:5, Interesting)
I have often gotten very far with police by affirming, as opposed to challenging their authority. At times, you can put an authority person into a complicated position by behaving as though you believe they have much more authority than they do -- for them, it becomes a challenge between asserting authority that they lack (which is a no-no for them), and admitting to you that their authority is limited.
On the other hand, the magic words have gotten action many times: "I realize you don't have the authority to tell that guy to move his car, but it sure is a nuisance that it's in the middle of the park", (and so on.)
But then, I have never had a police car tailgate me, unless it was moments before turning on the lights to pull me over for my expired plate.
Re:Here's an Easy Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Wild ass guess but I think 99% of the "police deterent" should be presence. Undercover and discrete work should not be for blanket protection, but for isolated specific instances.
An example. In Northern VA, the HOV lanes are patrolled by many non marked cars. Having an unmarked car is not a benefit in anyone in this situation. You are stuck on the HOV lanes with no way off, marked or not, the cop will see you without the required number of passengers in your car. Think about this situation. If all of the cops were marked, the people that do slip by without being noticed would see all of the cops that actually patrol that area and may not try to use the HOV lanes illegally next time.
On more thing with HOV in northern VA, the HOV are also packed with people or "police" commuting back and forth to DC for work, it seems if you have a blue light in your dash, you are exempt from the rules. Those people are not on active duty, they are going to DC for work in their personal cars with a fu*king light placed in the dash. Yes, in theory, they could be called to duty at any time but they can take the regular lanes like everyone else.
Re:It gets better (Score:2, Interesting)
The justification is most likely matched up against logs from the dispatcher to ensure that the car really was called out to an emergency.
Re:Great. "Equal protection" will then... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that most people would agree that a warrant, properly issued by a judge, is a compelling reason for police to break the laws aginst breaking and entering. (Or rather, the probable cause which leads to the warrant being issued is the compelling reason; the warrant is the law's certification that such a reason exists.) But GP is spot on -- without such reasons (warrants for entering people's homes, 911 calls for running through red lights, etc.) police have to obey the law like everybody else. In fact, I would argue that police, on or off duty, but especially on, who break the law should be punished more harshly than regular folks. Same for judges, DA's, and others* whose duty it is to enforce the law. Quis custodiet ipso custodes -- if the people who are watching the rest of us aren't watched themselves, they turn into the most dangerous kind of criminal.
*There is one individual who, in the US system, is ultimately responsible for the enforcement of Federal law. When that individual breaks the law in a way which leads to the death of others, the penalties should be the harshest which the law can inflict. But that's a whole 'nother argument waiting to happen.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of three things usually happens:
Most common: Officer calls for an ambulance, you follow to the hospital (though without breaking any more laws).
Second: Officer moves victim to squad car, bolts to hospital. You follow, again, without breaking any more traffic laws.
Third: Officer says "oh shit" and gives you a red& blue escort to the hospital.
I've encountered the first and third personally. Both times I was the driver, neither time was I cited for obvious traffic violations.
-nB
If you're interested, one was a crossbow bolt that may have ruptured the femoral artery (that's the escort one, as moving the person seemed to be the greater risk, the other incident was a displaced fracture of the forearm.
-nB
Ok mod me down but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
that word?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously there is no other reaction to this beyond intense, hearty, belly laughs. So it's "ok" if some schmoe (like me) gets a ticket with these cameras but god FORBID some COP gets one from them. Cops shouldn't be the EXCEPTION to the laws, they should be the EXAMPLE.
How many cops have I seen going home from their shift and "blue thru" a traffic light? (By "blue thru" I mean turn on their lights and pull through what is normally a busy intersection in their quest to get the fuck home, like the rest of "us") I've seen a LOT (growing up in a small town you just get used to seeing cops using their position for personal.. not really gain let's call it personal "comfort").
So all I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA really that's my only reply to this.
cops flip on lights/sirens all the time for lights (Score:3, Interesting)
Cops and ambulances are subject to the law except when their sirens are on. Since these are traffic light cameras, we could be able to tell that pretty easily.
I've watched Boston PD officers routinely approach a red light, flip on their lightbar, blip the siren a few times, go through, and then switch off their lights again.
Judging from the speed they approached and exited the intersection (ie, at or below legal speeds, leisurely departure from the intersection etc), it was pretty much just because they didn't want to sit at the intersection.
Re:Does this really effect you? (Score:3, Interesting)
IF we had red light cameras, I'd be at 0 risk of getting a ticket, I simply don't run red lights. But I still HATE the thought of red light cameras. Where does it stop? Only -people- should be able to fine or imprison or in any way, negatively affect the population. What's next after red light cameras? Litter cameras? When does Robo-Cop hit the streets? I don't want some faceless automaton, be it a camera, or a robot, writing me a ticket. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, "stuck in the 1900s" perhaps, but unless a "person" catches me, it doesn't really count in my book.
And this coming from someone who never runs red lights, rarely ever speeds, and drives a truck that's likely older than a vast majority of the people posting (it's 22 years old).
Re:Great. "Equal protection" will then... (Score:2, Interesting)
This happened in Baton Rouge in 1990. A city police officer was using radar to catch speeders while parked on the lefthand shoulder of I-10. He pulled out suddenly and caused a massive accident, causing a fatality and several hundred thousands of dollars in property and medical damages.
Despite the fact that parking on the lefthand shoulder is illegal, and that the officer failed to use lights and siren...AND that the officer failed to yield to traffic, he was allowed to remain on the force after a six-week "investigation".
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. The Dallas officer knows he was in the wrong and should be ticketed. Running a red light is only permissible in an emergency, with lights and siren, and when the officer uses "due caution" to avoid accidents.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, that depends on the police having to police themselves, and that often just doesn't happen because of the bullshit "brotherhood" thing.
Case in point - I have a friend of mine whose husband is a cop. A few years ago, she was out driving drunk with her pre-school daughter in the car (as she'd done a few times before and for which she'd gotten a bitching at from me) and got pulled over. She told the cop that pulled her over who her husband was. The officer on the scene called the husband on his cell phone (to keep it off the radio logs) and he came to the scene. End result - he took her home in his squad car, dropped her off, and picked up a friend to get her car - no ticket, no real consequences at all. A few weeks later, she was out driving loaded again (with the kid again, no less) and totalled the car (thankfully no one was hurt), but she spent a week in jail because *that* time it was in another jurisdiction and the cop that responded was actually looking out for the public's safety, followed the law, and told her husband to kiss off when he tried to get him to drop the charges. Even though she's my friend, I personally think she should have gone to jail for the first offense, and gone for a time long enough for her to understand the seriousness of it - more than the piddling week she got for the second one. I also think every cop involved in the first offense (her husband included) should face sanctions for their actions - no regular citizen would have been afforded the courtesy of being let go, and it's clearly not in the public's best interest to be letting drunk drivers off without charging them.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:2, Interesting)
Dumb question (Score:4, Interesting)
I would be more comfortable if the photo showed a car actually running a red light, photoshoping notwithstanding.
Re:More Taxes... (Score:2, Interesting)
Recently there was a PD vs PD ticketfest after a local cop ticketed a speeding cop from a town over (who was off duty and in a personal vehicle), which is against the rules. You don't ticket fellow officers. Period. It was amusing to see cruisers pulling over cruisers on my daily commute, but it only lasted a week. Bad PR, I imagine.
As a city hall employee all I have to do is "accidentally" drop my govt ID while taking out license and registration and it's "Sorry to bother you" + wave off. My coworkers do the same.
I have never to this day witnessed a police cruiser signal, and I've seen hundreds of situations where they should have. Police regularly drive +5-10mph, yet ticket folks who are doing likewise.
On one occasion a black guy I know was pulled over twice in one block (same night, same cop, 20 seconds in between). First time cop couldn't come up with anything (DWB?) and let him go. Then he noticed a light that was hanging slightly out of its socket and pulled the car over a second time.
I forgot what I was driving at but yea. LEOs bend the rules regularly and do whatever the hell they want.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:4, Interesting)
Police and corrections officers are almost never charged (much less convicted and sentenced) with criminal offences for brutality and other illegal things they do while on duty.
It seems that if they have a decent job working for the state, a harshly-worded letter or a disciplinary hearing is enough for them, and they may actually face some sort of a penalty (usually suspension, demotion, or in severe cases, losing their job).
Meanwhile, your average Joe does the same thing and he loses his job AND goes to jail (after which he will be unable to get a decent job ever again).
- RG>
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not to say they should get a free pass to break traffic laws, however I wouldn't be too quick to judge. I'm more concerned with cops breaking traffic laws and getting away with it when off duty. Then they are just private citizens, and their friends are playing favourites. However when they are in a black and white, I'll give them some leeway, same with any other emergency vehicle.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was at a red light for about 4 minutes...a long line of cars formed behind me. After 6 minutes total waiting for the light to change and NO CARS had driven by - I cautiously ran the red light.
Of course, the last car in the line behind me was a cop. He acted pissed off at me. I explained to him that I had been sitting at the light for 6 minutes (I had listened to 2 songs on the radio!) - and he didn't give a shit.
I asked him how long I'm supposed to wait until I determine the light is not functioning as it should - and he said "If it's red you don't proceed."
What an asshole - just like a politician - completely avoids the subjectivity of reality.
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Interesting)
I broke my ankle in half before and thought it was just a hard sprain. Went to bed and woke up the next morning feeling fine until I stood up. The pain made me sick to my stomach and I limped to the bathroom thinking something was about to happen. Once my mom (a lifetime registered nurse) took a look at it, she said something to the effect of "wtf we're going to the ER RIGHT NOW!"
I also broke my elbow or some bones inside of it a few years after that. Never went to the hospital or got it casted, just kinda had my arm in a sling for a few weeks and waited for it to heal. I still have full mobility and of course it bitches when it rains but otherwise it healed fine. I feel your pain though...you never miss an arm until you can't use it. Bathing and bathroom trips are the worst.
The Royal Mail. (Score:3, Interesting)
For bullshit like red light cameras cops need a code of conduct that they themselves respect and regular defensive driving lessons, that's about it. Having said that people can and do get killed and maimed every day on the road. A few years back a couple of cops ran a red light near where I lived killing an entire family and causing a massive pile up. It happened right in front of a major suburban police station, the two cops had just come on night duty drunk and had fled the scene of the accident. Thier workmates quickly found them and locked them up for questioning by the internal affairs people, both "pigs" quite rightly ended up with stiff prison sentences for manslaughter and a slew of other charges.
Yeah we still have the "bush pig" problem and corruption varies from state to state and generation to generation. The one thing that is consistent is that the prohibition on drugs is the root cause of a great deal of police corruption and organised crime. The FBI during the US's prohibition on alcohol were overtly corrupt and the same thing been happening the world over with this stupid war on drugs we have had for the last half decade or so.
You want to pull the profit rug from underneath organised crime and corruption then get rid of the antiquated notion of prohibition and bring on "the pursuit of happiness". As for "the children", drug and alcohol problems are health problems, some people are born into shitty circumstances others go looking for it, many end up simply determined to spend all of their often short and miserable lives in an alternate state of reality or behind bars.
Like a large chunk of the adult population I have done all the dumb things, I still like the odd trip to an "alternate reality" and put the foot down every now and then (on a "safe streach of road" naturally). However dumb things can become dead things, particularly if you are young, "bulletproof", and you have never been touched by a "dead thing" (or old and can't see a thing). In my mind, cops should be focused on minimising harm as in preventing "dumb things" turning into "dead things". If they could manage that then who gives a flying fuck if they use a siren to get their doughnuts.
Disclaimer: I have friends and relations in the force. From my experience "cops" outnumber the "pigs" over here by at least 5:1, 10:1 if you put an empty kiddie seat in the back and stand up for your rights without being pedantically confrontational or uncooperative. This doesn't mean you won't get a ticket but it can often mean you won't get a court date (and/or hospitialized for resisting arrest on a "drug offense").
Sensor for two (Score:1, Interesting)
I've instructed law enforcement... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ambulance drivers aren't given "Go Fast" training in any part of the country that I am aware of. As a rule of thumb they aren't allowed to pass ANY moving traffic on the right. They will only pass on the left. I have never heard of one speeding or even progressing quickly into an intersection on a red light. If you watch they tend to slow to less then 10 miles an hour and carefully inspect an intersection before sticking their nose out.
Police officers tend to be much more aggressive. It is never publicized but their vehicle attrition rate is amazing. (If you know someone working at a body shop with a police contract ask them!) If any group of people had the accident rate of police officers on duty they would never be able to get insurance. Police are just as likely to get distracted and sloppy about their driving as any other person but they are put in situations where they are encouraged to drive much more aggressively then the average driver. Driving training doesn't do anything magical for them either. Most people don't have any gift for driving. That goes for the police too. They do have some misconceptions trained out of them and they have actually practiced car control but it doesn't really do anything to make them 'special drivers'.
The biggest problem I see with police and driving is that they aren't subject to the traffic laws that the rest of us are even when they are off duty. Ask one of them about it. They will give you a story about "how they are always on call to backup any other law enforcement officer at any time and if they were to give each other tickets that would reduce their trust and reliance on one another".
What a load of horse dookey.
So their reason for letting each other get away with ignoring the laws that they enforce on us is that they are so childish that they wouldn't help an officer in need if they had received a ticket from them? My god, just spouting that kind of stupidity should be grounds for immediate termination.
Unless they are willing to follow the laws they have no business enforcing them.
BTW - The law does say that if they are running lights/siren/etc in the line of duty they can enter intersections against a red light and ignore other traffic laws. That is how it should be but if they collide with someone who has a green light it IS the officer's fault.
Amen. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Texas law - must reduce speed thru intersection (Score:3, Interesting)
My complaint wasn't so much the short blipped yellow. My complaint was no yellow... as in triggered by either the neighboring firestation, or emergency vehicels in route. I say it was triggered as the lights went 4 way red.
Even at 40mph, thinking distance of 40 feet is not unreasonable. A braking distance of 80feet is not unresonable. The fact that I was at 45, I had one car length of thinking time, and stopped between 50 and 70feet (the length of the intersection), I did well. It actually sugests that I was probally going 40mph by the time I hit the intersection.
This is why we need a human to evaluate whether or not the driver was at fault and should get a ticket, or not. In the case I pointed out, the fault was the light, and who ever designed that blasted thing. A human at any highway speed needs adquate warning to a light change to take into account thinking time. While I agree the firestation should have control over the intersection, in this field of work every second counts. However, their control should not trigger a light to go from green to red, but rather give some yellow. But even so, i'm sure it was the design to switch in the event of an emergency, and anyone who's not technicaly able to stop is already clear of firetrucks so it's not an issue.
Whether it be Texas or where I live, the laws of physics remain the same. You can quote matters of law, but if law is absolute, there is no justice.
Fix the street signs first (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The police ought to follow the law. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard of similar favors, but usually something a hair more subtle than that. When someone sufficiently close to a cop gets a ticket, the officer who wrote the ticket may somehow fail to make the court date; if the driver makes the court date and the officer doesn't, charges are usually dropped. Most officers are only willing to do it for minor offenses (low grade speeding and the like), and even then it's considered a major favor to the officer who asks. Most officers have multiple cases for any given court date, so missing it gives all that day's violators the get-out-of-jail-free card (unless there's an accident and the DA has other witnesses to call), and results in the senior DA and the chief each spending some quality time gnawing the cop's ass. Plus, if it happens too often, IA may get called in, and in that case both cops get handled as with any other kind of suspected internal corruption.
I learned about this trick when I got my first speeding ticket. My sister mentioned the ticket to a close friend that had married a cop, and told she later that the wife had mentioned this option and asked if it should be checked on. (Mind you, this sort of favor does NOT normally stretch as far as Brother-of-wife's-friend for most cops, but she said she could ask.) The answer was (a) no, baby brother deserves at least a slap on the wrist for being such an ignoramus, and (b) the ticket was in a different state anyway. Instead, some (good) general advice on court appearances from a cops perspective was passed my way.