Mississippi Passes Law To Ban Traffic Light Cameras 629
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."
Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Inconceivable!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You assume you can see and or know that traffic ahead won't clear enough for you to clear the intersection. Yes, sometimes you can tell... sometimes you can't though, and you end up stuck.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't see and/or know, you don't enter. It really is as simple as that.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
So this is what you'd be advocating; the light is green, but you must stop and wait at the line before the car preceeding you completely clears. Even if you're the 5th car in the line.
Isn't that called a stop sign?
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do not have to stop unless you can't make it through the intersection. It's not advocating, its pointing out how it is to you.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
TFA of the linked slashdot article indicates that the cities were shortening the length of the yellow lights. It could still be green, and it may not be obvious that the car(s) in front of you is/are about to stop. It seems that this was where the "unfair" part is coming from.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lived in several places where this was an exceedingly common problem, but the intersection of 9th & Mercer in Seattle is by far the worst I've seen (map [google.com]) It can take 10 minutes to get from Broad & 9th to make the left hand turn on Mercer during rush hour because of that. I ended up rerouting the way I get to that intersection so I could avoid that turn and shave at least 10 minutes off the time it takes me to get to work during rush hour when I drive.
This unfortunately means the only way traffic EVER moves on that street during rush hour is if people move into the intersection while they have a green light. Thanks to how the lights are timed shortly before the left turn light turns red the light ahead on mercer will turn green and they'll get to move out of the intersection. Better traffic management could solve this problem, but if the city instead decides to place traffic cameras there to hand out tickets they would be incentivized to leave it broken.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Removing cameras isn't going to stop the "one cop town speed trap" mentality. If they're willing to rig yellow lights (and kill people) just for $$$, they'll just find another way to collect money from you.
So using that as an excuse to remove the cams is silly and doesn't deal with the real problem.
I'm fine with removing traffic light cams as long as there's a much better reason.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that they gave you a ticket for running a red light, not blocking traffic, which is an entirely different offense with a different penalty, usually lower.
People who block intersections are in violation of the law and stupid, but not as stupid as the people who knowingly run red lights. Both those action place you in the intersection when the other direction has a green, but running a red light results in you *appearing* there creating a large risk you and someone else will collide, whereas blocking an intersection from the start isn't very risky until people start deciding to go around you and ending up in the wrong lanes. (Which isn't your fault.)
Anyway, you can block an intersection and it not be your fault. Perhaps someone decided to leap in front of you via turning-right-on-red. A cop wouldn't give you a ticket for getting stranded in the intersection for that (Not that they normally give tickets for blocking intersections anyway.), they'd give the other guy a ticket for failing to yield.
Or perhaps something serious happened in your lane ahead so you had to change lanes in the intersection (Which is also illegal, but, again, not running a red light), and the other lane was full.
Entering an intersection without a reasonable expectation that you can clear the other side of it is a violation of the law. But people can't predict there future, and there are plenty of 'reasonable expectation' that are wrong. And even if you broke that law, it doesn't mean you should get a ticket for breaking an entirely unrelated law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Running a red is a moving violation.
In most places that use them, these cameras issue non-moving citations. That's how they get around proving who was driving.
So it's not realistic to say you get the penalty for running a red. Really they've created an entirely separate offense.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why red-light cameras set up by anyone who's not a totally incompetent moron take two or more consecutive pictures. Duh.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Huh... well that's not how 'our' traffic light cameras work. They basically trigger on the conditions that..
1. the light -is- red
and
2. somebody is actually crossing something like 2 meters past the hold line -while- that light is red.
You could still argue the case that you crossed it because an 18 wheeler was coming up behind you and didn't seem to be slowing down at all, or that you were getting out of the way of an ambulance.. the latter would have records, the former not so much. But it's not quite as
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about US road law but if you're stuck in the middle of an intersection I'd guess you're infringing anyway. You certainly shouldn't cross an intersection unless you can make it all the way across before the lights change.
Re: (Score:2)
ok in that situation it's unfair.
how most red light cameras in europe work is they have sensors just behind the white line where you're supposed to stop.. :)
if it's red and a car passes the pictures get taken
(and only if the car passes fast enough - I've heard that if you drive very slow it doesn't goes off but haven't tried it myself
once the car is on the intersection it doesn't matter anymore if it'll stop or not
and 2 pictures are taken and speed is also measured and recorded (most intersection cameras al
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
In our town, the camera takes a picture of you BEHIND the line at the red light and quickly takes another one of you PAST the line at the red light. QED.
If you enter on yellow or green, you don't get nailed.
Also, while creating gridlock is a ticket-able offense (personally I think you should get the rack), it's also conducive to alleviating rush hour traffic when turning LEFT to enter the intersection on green even if you can't completely go through because of oncoming traffic; when they stop because of a red light, you have plenty of time to continue before the cross street gets green...
One extra car through the light each cycle means that much less traffic to back up. Where I live some lights only allow five or six cars to get through on the green turn signal. That means if you don't make the turn, then after five cycles you've got a whole extra cycle of backup. If the cycle is three minutes, you get two extra cycles of backup every half hour until rush hour ends.
Of course, you need to know that you'll be able to complete the left turn... if the left turn is backed up, you simply shouldn't enter.
Some places encourage and teach this (some places don't).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the UK the camera takes a picture just before you cross the line & after. Also they don't go 'live' until the lights have been red for 1.5 seconds, so you don't have the 'I was unable to stop in time' defence (unless like me you'd only passed your test the day before and had shitty reactions). They also record the speed you're travelling, so if you crept over at 5mph for example they'd assume you were in the process of stopping and probably let it pass. If you're doing 40... you're hosed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes hard to do.
The other day I was in a traffic jam, at a green light. Since there was no room to clear the intersection I waited at the stop line. Soon there was enough room for a single car, so I proceeded into the intersection, but before I was across a guy in the crossing road turned right and took up the empty space, leaving me stuck in the intersection when the light turned red.
The guy who turned right broke the law, but I was the one who got snapped by the camera.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We had the same problem in the UK - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2307983.stm [bbc.co.uk]
This prompted a change in the law - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul/03/NHS.politics [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
2/ unfairly ticketed ? if there's a picture as proof I'd say it's fair you get a ticket..
The unfair ticketing comes in when cities start tweaking the yellow light timing to generate more revenue. I think it would be more productive to outlaw this practice than to outlaw red light cameras. I would personally also outlaw the practice of sharing the revenue with the vendor -- buy it outright like any other system. Traffic laws shouldn't be written/enforced with an eye towards making money -- they should be enforced with an eye towards deterring behavior that places everybody at risk.
Personally I'd use the revenue to fund traffic safety courses and make everybody who violates the traffic law sit in them. I think the prospect of spending eight hours of your time being lectured would be a bigger deterrent than a sub $100 fine.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's definitely the best idea I've heard. Regulate the timings on traffic lights, specifically the minimum time a light stays yellow based on the maximum speed of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not going to happen. Just because those backwoods Europeans have been doing just the same for decades, and everyone knows that they can't get anything right.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal law already does that. It also dictates how speed limits must be set, and how often they must be re-evaluated. Then VT has a law that says if the speed limit hasn't been challenged within three years, you can't challege it... even if the Federal re-evaluation period has elasped or a study has NEVER been done.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
This is more about running reds, I believe, than speeding.
And on that note, I drive a motorcycle, and quite often a motorcycle does not generate enough of an EM field to be noticed by the sensors. Pull up to an intersection that is slow in your direction and you can wait all day if you like and never get a green. The common solution here is to simply wait for traffic to slow, and then run the red when there's a break. This particular problem happens even more often when waiting for left-turn arrows.
Do you suggest I should just wait half an hour for a car to coincidentally be going my way, or just accept my ticket for running the red light, simply because a camera saw me do it? I would say that would be a pretty fair ticket. The "picture as proof" fails to consider context. The above is simply one example where context makes a world of difference. There are other situations as well.
Furthermore, I should not have to spend a day in court because an automated system is incapable of properly considering the entire situation, so don't tell me "well then you can just get it thrown out of court." That still costs me time (and therefore money.)
Additionally, on the topic of context and your (2): suppose someone took a picture of me shooting someone in the chest with a gun. Wow! You've got proof I committed murder! Maybe I should go to jail? Nevermind the fact that a similar picture from just a few seconds before would depict the other person coming at me with a knife, intent on killing me for the few dollars in my wallet. We don't have that picture, so clearly it is irrelevant.
Wtf? A picture of a moment in time is not the entire story; don't treat it as if it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that would be a pretty fair ticket.
Of course, I meant to say unfair. Whoops.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In SC they recently passed a law for motorcycles. You can treat red lights like stop signs in certain situations. I don't remember all the details (I don't have a motorcycle), but it was written to address the situation you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have said:
1) Municipalities started tweaking yellow light timers WAY down to increase red light camera revenue. This wound up reducing T-bone accidents (intended) but significantly increased rearend accidents (not intended) due to people slamming on their brakes to make sure they not only didn't catch the red due to a short yellow, but to make sure they weren't unfairly ticketed because their vehicle was stationary 6 inches over the line.
2) Yes, an additional problem was that the cameras would
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1/ don't speed and there's no picture taken so no invasion of your privacy
These cameras have nothing to do with speeding. They are red light cameras, taking pictures when the yellow light time was shorted below state and or federal times.
2/ unfairly ticketed ? if there's a picture as proof I'd say it's fair you get a ticket..
Right, because no city would ever illegally shorten yellow light time to raise funds. Even though it's been, you know, documented that they have.
Finally, I'd like to add this; if an o
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
unfairly ticketed ? if there's a picture as proof I'd say it's fair you get a ticket..
Read the summary. The camera's were rigged to give out bogus tickets. A common trick was to set the yellow-light time so short that it is physically impossible to safely stop in time.
Assuming a driver slams the breaks and the car decelerates at 3/4 G, it takes a car traveling at 35MPH a full 4.2 seconds to stop and that doesn't even count driver reaction time. There have been many cases where cities would set their yellow-light times as low as 3 seconds. (IIRC the legal minimum is 5 seconds.)
Any way you cut it, traffic cameras were being used by cities to abuse their citizens. Some sort of reform was needed. (Though perhaps regulation would have been better than completely banning them.)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree for the most part, but with cities starting to regard the cameras as profit centers, there have been some really sketchy things going on with light timers and other traffic control parameters.
Perhaps the law should have been regulations to prevent the abuse of the cameras, especially provisions to ensure that yellow light timing is not decreased to unsafe intervals in order to generate revenue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are approaching an intersection with a green light.
The light flickers yellow for a half second and turns red.
A half second is less than normal human reaction time.
---
You are on a section of road going 40mph with a 40mph speed limit.
As you round a bend, the speed limit drops to 30mph, you are ticketed.
---
You are on a section of road with a 30mph speed limit. Like everyone else, you are driving 35mph. All of you are surveilled.
---
As a lot of politicians, preachers, and others discovered, privacy is the
Democracy works?!? Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
So despite the company and local municipalities profiting from this, constituents actually made their voices heard and their representatives acted accordingly?
I am deeply confused. This is not the democracy I am used to. I'm going to have to find something else to be cynical about today.
Re:Democracy works?!? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the real reason is that legislators were photographed with their mistresses in their cars, and the pictures sent home to their wives. They would shut that s$#t down real quick...
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that an episode of Monk?
Holy cow... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mississippi a leader in something. Amazing.
That's rather crude to assume they never were the leaders of something. The Mississippi Legislature removed fractions and decimal points [snopes.com] from the curriculum in their public schools. Clearly they're a leader in the degradation of the American educational system..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why yes, we do have traffic lights, but they're really not needed cause they don't do much except scare the horses.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And we read Slashdot, too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not fair...Mississippi has been the leader in poverty and underachieving in education for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, we've been tops in teen pregnancy for a while...
WE'RE #1! WE'RE #1!
now mississippi can be like my hometown..... (Score:5, Insightful)
.... we don't have them around here and people run lights all the time. And I don't mean they squeak in under a yellow that turns red when they are in the middle of the intersection -- the light is red for a full second or two before they even hit the stop line.
I hate the concept of red light cameras but I'm hating the concept of being t-boned even more. If we can't have red light cameras can we at least have some fucking human enforcement of the traffic laws? There's a difference between hitting the gas to beat a yellow light and just plain ignoring the red because your selfish attitude thinks waiting 30 seconds is a worse outcome than placing other drivers at risk.
I agree; also, why invoke privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know what you mean. I commented on this the other day. [slashdot.org]
I know this goes against the general /. attitude, but I used to be against red light cameras on principle. That was before I moved to my current city and saw how people behaved. I don't think they're appropriate everywhere, but I do think that my city could certainly use them. It just depends on the location and people's behavior.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how privacy comes into play. When you are driving, you are doing it in a public place; why should there be any expectation of privacy?
Re:I agree; also, why invoke privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I have a hard time understanding how privacy comes into play. When you are driving, you are doing it in a public place; why should there be any expectation of privacy?
What I don't understand is why a red-light camera that only fires when you run the red-light is an invasion of your privacy but a police officer pulling you over for the exact same thing isn't.
Either way, people are asshats. They'd rather run the light and place the other drivers at risk than wait 30 fucking seconds to get to where they are going. I don't like seeing traffic tickets used as a revenue source -- I think they should be set at the smallest amount possible to fund aggressive traffic safety classes. Make everybody who violates the traffic law twice sit in one of those classes or lose their license. Most people value 8 hours of their time more than they value a lousy $100. Let that and the subsequent increase in your insurance premiums serve as the deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, people are asshats. They'd rather run the light and place the other drivers at risk than wait 30 fucking seconds to get to where they are going. I don't like seeing traffic tickets used as a revenue source -- I think they should be set at the smallest amount possible to fund aggressive traffic safety classes.
I think a lot of opponents of red light cameras don't believe that there can be a culture of disrespect and douchebaggery, if you will. In the thread I linked to above, another poster suggested that the reason I see so many people run red lights in my city must be because of a technical problem with light timing, etc. From my experience, that's just not the case. People run red lights on residential streets where there are no timing or traffic flow problems.
Your idea of forcing people to take classes is goo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah... I don't see it as an invasion of privacy, but the other complaints are valid... the yellow light doesn't suddenly shorten because a cop happens to be waiting nearby, for example.
But the problem is that... well, maybe I'm just impatient, but there are plenty of lights I pass that are ridiculously short. Traffic is terrible around here. The faster the cycle goes, the less effective, overall, it is (more time spent stopped) and some of the cycles are just stupidly fast. I'm literally talking about f
Re:I agree; also, why invoke privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Murderers are asshats too. But I'm not quite as sure about accused murderers.
The problem isn't really about privacy and the people who complain about their privacy being invaded when they're in public are full of shit.
The problem is that the cop gives the alleged offender a criminal citation, and they have due process. The defendant can go to court and have a judge look at the situation, face their accuser, etc. Nobody's camera laws work like that.
If you uphold the "civil citation for normally criminal matters" system, then you're opening a huge door to injustice. The local governments might as well create a parallel civil law for every single type of criminal misconduct, and they would be able get around all the rights that we thought the constitution protected.
Seriously, what's the point of the 4th and 5th amendments, if you can just get around them with civil law? If you think those amendments were a bad idea and have made society too lenient on the bad guys, then stand up and advocate their repeal. Using civil law as a loophole, is a really lame thing for government to do, and we ought to have nipped this abuse in the bud right away.
Re: (Score:2)
Automation in police enforcement is a very scary idea for those of us concerned with the decay of our rights to privacy.
Hey, your preaching to the choir here. I consider myself at least a libertarian and occasionally a Libertarian. Despite that, I don't relish the thought of being t-boned by some asshat that thinks 30 seconds of his time are more valuable than my life and property. So what's the solution? Hire more cops at $40,000/yr to do nothing but enforce red-light laws? Transfer cops away from fighting violent crime to enforce red-light laws?
Re:I agree; also, why invoke privacy? (Score:5, Informative)
You appear to be under the misconception that red light cameras reduce accidents.
It simply isn't the case. http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/ [motorists.org]
For intersections with high rates of run through, the answer is to send an engineer out and rework the light timings to make sure they work in conjunction with surrounding lights and have a sufficient yellow time, to reduce the travel speed on the road close to the intersection, or to re-engineer the intersection to better control traffic.
They are a gimmick designed to turn a profit for the state and the private contractors who operate them. They have a vested interest in making intersections LESS safe by inducing more revenue generating red light tickets.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm kind of astonished by this. Over here in the UK, there are plenty of complaints about speed cameras being used as revenue generators, by being put in places where there isn't a safety issue. But I don't think I've ever once heard anyone complaining about a red light camera. There is no effing excuse for running a red light, and no safe way of doing it. If you live in the middle of nowhere and feel the traffic levels are low enough that a red light can be ignored, then you should campaign for those
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in the middle of nowhere and feel the traffic levels are low enough that a red light can be ignored, then you should campaign for those lights to be removed, not ignore them.
Here in the States a situation like that would usually have a flashing light. It flashes yellow on one roadway (the busier one) to serve as a warning and flashes red on the other to require people to stop. The flashing red is treated in the same manner as a stop sign -- you stop, look and if it is safe to proceed you do so. Is there an equivalent to that in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
Not with lights but most main roads have priority over minor roads which cross over them so on the minor roads there is a give way sign and a line across the road which you need to stop at to check there is no traffic on the main road before you turn onto it or go across a junction. Obviously peoples definitions of "stop" varies quite a lot and some rural roads are quite dangerous when people take no notice of the signs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Red light cameras distort traffic flow. They encourage people to make
SUDDEN manuevers that they wouldn't otherwise. Dunno about where you
are from but where I am from, they think that accidents are caused by
SUDDEN manuevers. IOW, you cause accidents by surprising other drivers.
This can be by violating expectations/law or by suddenly stopping cold to
avoid some stupid redlight camera.
Plus, they have have been tweaking these cameras to increase revenue even
when it was obvious they were creating a safety conditi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This can be by violating expectations/law or by suddenly stopping cold to avoid some stupid redlight camera.
If the yellow light timing hasn't been tampered with why do you need to 'suddenly stop cold' to avoid the camera? If you treat the yellow light as you are supposed to treat it (i.e: stop if you can safely do so) there is zero excuse for running a red light.
Re:now mississippi can be like my hometown..... (Score:5, Interesting)
In most cases, the timings HAVE been dinked with.
I've seen all too many short yellow lights, especially with the cameras in place. If you're in that intersection and it goes yellow, and you see that it's a camera monitored intersection, you'd better either be 1/2 or more the way through the intersection or you'll get the ticket period, even though a human would not have considered it a violation at that point in most cases.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Speed cameras don't have that problem. The existence of speed cameras don't encourage cities to screw around with well established civil engineering practices just to make a buck."
Sure they do. Anything with a profit potential creates the potential for abuse. We just got speed cameras where I live and the speed limits change arbitrarily in the sections of road where they are placed. My real beef with them is that the speed is not posted at or even near the camera.
Anyway, they only catch out of towners n
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't think I've ever once heard anyone complaining about a red light camera.
Yeah, but is your municipality shortening the yellow in order to generate more red light runners, thus increasing revenue? Because, believe it or not, some US cities have been accused of doing just that...
There *IS* an effing excuse for running a light (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly you're not a motorcyclist that has fallen victim to sensor-driven traffic lights. You can wait all day at a red light for a car to come trip the sensor for you, or you can wait a couple of minutes, wait for a clearing, and run the light.
Re:now mississippi can be like my hometown..... (Score:4, Informative)
AIUI, in the US they've been shortening the amber phase to the point where it's taking an emergency stop to avoid crossing the line on red.
I'm not aware of this happening in the UK. Almost every red light camera is on a 30mph road. I've never seen one on a road faster than 40mph. Amber phases are usually three seconds and almost never even as short as two seconds.
This all adds up to the only people who are ever caught by red light cameras in the UK are those who are blatantly ignoring the amber phase.
I can't find the original press release now but this RAC survey:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm [bbc.co.uk]
counted motorists as "scrambling through on amber" if the light had been _red_ for less than three seconds. Unfortunately, AFAIAA, the data for motorists going through on red has never been released. One hypothesis for why the raw data was suppressed is that this was really a study intending to show how bad cyclists were relative to other road users but the results didn't really support that claim.
Tim.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe your state could actually hire some cops to stay at the traffic lights for a few days and take the drivers' license of the people doing that for something like a week, or 15 days.
After a few weeks of this, people will probably learn to wait at the red light.
The benefits of having red light cameras are far lower than the problems they cause (like people stopping suddenly at the light because they don't want to get tickets and causing crashes, the companies lowering the yellow light time to get more tic
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
can we at least have some fucking human enforcement of the traffic laws?
Heh. Cops enjoy running red lights as much, if not moreso, than we do. My state recently made it illegal to talk on the phone while driving but everybody(including the police) still do it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something wrong with the yellow light timing. Perhaps you should petition to increase yellow light time.
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/regulating-red-light-cameras/ [motorists.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something wrong with the yellow light timing. Perhaps you should petition to increase yellow light time.
There's nothing wrong with the yellow light timing around here. The ones I've bothered to time in town are all 4 seconds or longer. Are you telling me that a four second yellow in a 30 mph zone isn't sufficient warning to stop? Is it so hard to accept the fact that people are selfish asshats who will run the light if they know they can get away with it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yup, it is. Either you're exaggating the problem, or you never actually timed the lights. You also don't know if 30MPH is actually the appropriate speed limit for the road. Given that 85% of ALL roads in the US have limits lower than enginneing standards would dictate (by 8 - 12 MPH, on average), I'd say the speed limit for your road is likely too low, and as what always happens when engineering principals aren't followed, people are going more than 30MPH, and so the light timing is set too low because t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need cameras for that. You just need a cop giving out tickets. Hell, even a "scarecrow" decoy of a fake cop car will slow them down.
So, instead of ... (Score:4, Informative)
... laying down sensible rules for using these things (minimum yellow light duration, camera is only armed 1 second after red light comes on, _no sharing revenues with the manufacturer/contractor_, etc), they're banned outright?
I smell a bit of luddism here.
Luddites? (Score:2)
... laying down sensible rules for using these things (minimum yellow light duration, camera is only armed 1 second after red light comes on, _no sharing revenues with the manufacturer/contractor_, etc), they're banned outright?
I smell a bit of luddism here.
WTF is it with you people? First, we pretty much decide here that traffic cameras are evil, Big Brother instruments dedicated to profits and intrusive government more than public safety.
But when a state actually listens to its citizens and bans the things... they're luddites?
What the hell does it take to make you people happy?
Not to mention that they might be dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
When you reward a company with money per traffic violation, obviously it will be in their interest for there to be more traffic violations. And the traffic laws are there to protect lives. Basically, governments are rewarding companies for killing people.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/602.asp [thenewspaper.com]
How about giving the companies a bonus relative to the decrease in the number of traffic accidents in an intersection? Now that seems smarter.
Re:Not to mention that they might be dangerous (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if a light changes to yellow, it doesn't mean "stop at all costs," Yea, you could theoretically stop your car in the space provided, but laying rubber to do so and sitting stopped at a yellow light is also just as bad as gunning it to beat the red.
Re:Not to mention that they might be dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
.
Fixed that for you. Allowing the government to profit from law enforcement is just as big of a conflict of interest. People need to be punished, so there need to be fines, but the fines should simply be destroyed. That would avoid any conflict of interest, and make the people (infinitesimally) richer as a consequence of constricting the money supply. This rule belongs in the Constitution.
NH considering passing a law to enable cameras (Score:5, Informative)
This is a timely article. The state of NH is currently considering passing a law allowing cities to put up these cameras. As usual, we're a bit behind the times.
SB 113:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/SB0113.html [state.nh.us]
1 second green, 1 second yellow (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Fort Lauderdale. The stoplight at the exit from my neighborhood has been adjusted, just a couple weeks ago. They recently installed cameras on this intersection. The new cycle appears to be: 1 second of green, 1 second of yellow, 28 seconds of red. The main street is getting 27 seconds of green, and 1 second of yellow, and 2 seconds of red. There appears to be no overlap of the red.
The state law says the yellow must be 4 seconds, if I recall correctly. But even if the camera-tickets can be successfully challenged in court, and even if a judge eventually orders the city to change the timing, it is still tying up the traffic. And, there have been more collisions at that intersection in the last two weeks than there were in the previous 20 years.
Caught red handed... (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember being sent in the mail a photo of me running a red light from one of these traffic cameras along with a ticket. The front of my car hadn't even entered the intersection before the light was red and you could clearly see my license plate, me, and the red light in the photo. I just laughed and paid the ticket.
Its to reflate house prices dummy! (Score:2)
Different approach... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen outrageous examples of red-light runners, and they do occasionally kill people, so I support the idea of the cameras, when done properly. Why don't they just pass a law that says that any government entity that is caught with a red light camera on a light where the yellow is shorter than the standards say it should be, must reimburse triple damages to all recipients of tickets, and further may be sued by those recipients for triple any increase in insurance because of the ticket? That ought make these cities proceed cautiously and correctly ;-)
A naive approach. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not worth it (Score:2)
Here in my area they were considering installing speeding cameras but the city councils all balked once they discovered that they'd only be getting 5 cents on every dollar of ticket revenue. The rest went to the camera company. If proponents are really only worried about safety, what really works is to park an unmanned police car on the highway.
Arizona has anti-camera bills going too, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
...the bills (primarily HB2106) have been meeting stiff resistance from lobbyists and a strong PR campaign from the Department of Public Service (i.e. Highway Patrol), Redflex (the company that put up our beloved freeway speed cameras) and ATS (American Traffic Solutions), which is based in Scottsdale and is growing. Certain members of the AZ state legislature recently tried to slip in an amendment that would have legalized the unexpected and unauthorized video feeds from the cameras (the 24/7 video feeds that are archived for 90 days) and it would have allowed police to use them in all criminal investigations (that amendment has since been removed).
It doesn't help that our biggest publication is also in the pro-camera lobby's pocket either, which continually publishes pro-camera fluff pieces, and it constantly trumps up a flawed poll that says that Arizonans are in favor of the cameras. (The creator of the poll: ATS. The publication has also replaced the actual questions to the poll - which were totally leading, and now only publishes an obnoxious, Powerpoint-exported, Clipart filled, document full of splashy, bright red, ominous-looking percentages).
I'm holding out hope that the bill can make it through with a GOP-controlled legislature and GOP governor (the cameras were Janet Napolitano's idea - yes, our beloved HD Secretary - you were all duped if you think she was a good choice for that role. We couldn't get her out of this state fast enough.).
No offense, Mississippi, but the fact that they can be that far ahead of my home state on such a simple-minded issue is embarrassing. Come on, Arizona - do the right thing! Don't make camerafraud.com do the heavy lifting for you!
How to do tickets right (Score:3, Insightful)
1) No profit-sharing. The city should assume all costs and all responsibilities.
2) Arrest the car. If the car is caught running a red light, boot or impound the car for 24 hours at the city's expense. No fines. No costs to the car owner. Since the citizens of the city want to encourage people not to run red lights, let them absorb the costs of law enforcement.
3) Include several seconds before and after the infraction, and include a wide-angle view so extenuating circumstances are visible.
4) Destroy all videos 24 hours after they are no longer needed.
5) No gaming with the yellow lights. Yellow light timing should be based on safety not pumping up red-light run counts.
6) Right to trial by jury, even if it is just an "administrative" penalty.
OK, #2 is not going to happen, but the rest are necessary for any automated enforcement.
Also, any intersection with a high offense rate should automatically become subject to a traffic engineering study and enhanced live-cop enforcement during times of peak red-light running. The engineering study is to make sure the intersection does not "invite" red-light running, say, by poorly timed lights, poor visibility, excessive congestion, etc., and the cops are there to further deter red-light-running.
I hope this is a trend to other states (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are some reports of places with red-light-cameras having an increase in minor rear-end collisions due to people being more conservative with their entry into yellow lights, so that too needs to be balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every study done has shown that red-light cameras increase rear-end accidents at intersections. (And every time somebody brings this up, people start complaining about who's fault it is. It doesn't matter who's fault it is.)
These things don't save lives, they make self-important people who think they're better drivers than everybody else on the road feel good. We should expect personal responsibility. We should make it more difficult to obtain a license. However, "trust, but verify" is just a diploma
Re: (Score:2)
and the thousands of lives they save will be lost due to under educated government leaders in a bigot southern state
I, for one, always embrace the illusion of security over the loss of freedoms.
I'm not sure where governments being concerned about the freedoms of the citizens makes them either uneducated or bigots, but then their job is to (in theory) represent the people who vote for them. If the people overwhelmingly don't want cameras, then they should probably not be using cameras.
The problem with sta
Re: (Score:2)
Haley Barbour never expressed anything but mild opposition to the bill. It was passed by overwhelming majorities, so even if he had had the will to veto something that apparently a lot of people support (which he has in the past -- we have the highest grocery tax in the nation, and i
Re: (Score:2)
You got any stats you can cite to support that? Maybe you only notice the party affiliation when it makes Republicans look evil or Democrats look good.
You might not like either party, but you may have biases that lead you to see a pattern where there isn't one, or where it's not as significant as you think it is.
Re: (Score:2)