The day the red-light ticket machine got wrecked (camera, photo radar, etc.)

Car And Driver ^ | DECEMBER 2002 | Patrick Bedard

[newgeezer]

			Patrick Bedard The day the red-light ticket machine got wrecked. BY PATRICK BEDARD They've got the traffic-ticket machine cranked up now, and the cash flow has turned deliriously blurry. In Washington, D.C., the take from "camera enforcement" is $63,000 a day. Let's zoom in: That's $44 a minute, day and night, seven days a week. Since a modest start in August 1999 with two red-light cameras, D.C. has expanded to 39 camera intersections and five photo-radar teams. And the loot keeps piling up, over $25 million at last summer's start. So far, all camera-enforcement schemes in the U.S. require at least some involvement by the local police. Somebody has to put down his Krispy Kreme and rubber-stamp the citations already written up by a profit-making contractor. But if the most enthusiastic camera cheerleader, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, has its way, the first fingers to touch your next ticket will be yours. In a recent issue of its Status Report, it wistfully dreamed about "fully automated systems . . . that can recognize license plates, link to motor-vehicle registration databases, and issue tickets." "Judge, jury, and executioner, all in one convenient box," says Richard Diamond, staffer in Congressman Dick Armey's office. Cashier, too, let me add. Instamatic enforcement is unquestionably about revenues. Some folks think it's about safety, too, but the pile of evidence to the contrary grows as fast as the revenues. Here's my favorite example, this from San Diego's red-light camera program: On ABC's Nightline, police chief David Bejarano said that "it's true in a few intersections we found a few more accidents than prior to the red-light photo enforcement. At some intersections we saw no change at all, and at several intersections we actually saw an increase in traffic accidents." An analyst with San Diego's Police Department traffic division, Elizabeth Yard, told the same story in an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune: "I would have to say that the cameras themselves have not reduced the number of [injury] collisions that have happened at these intersections." Here's another thing the cameras aren't about: justice. The argument for them starts out with one foot on a banana peel and the other on a fast freight. On the one foot, it maintains, speeding and red-light infractions are so serious they need 24/7 enforcement with an unblinking eye. On the other, they're so insignificant that we needn't bother with the usual constitutional niceties such as right to a trial and innocent until proven guilty and the right to be confronted by your accuser. Just send in your check, and don't bother us with your sniveling "yes, buts." I could make intellectual arguments. Common sense says if the offense is grievous enough to need surveillance by electronic means, then it's also threatening enough that the perp ought to be stopped immediately. That's what an officer does when he hands a ticket in through your lowered window. But sending out a notice in bulk mail, to be opened a few weeks later, has too much in common with credit-card billing to be confused with law enforcement. Moreover, if these traffic transgressions are truly dire, then authorities are obligated to grab the right guy. The officer at your window performs that service, too. But Instamatic justice doesn't even try. The car owner gets the ticket, no matter who is driving. And if the owner didn't do it, and can prove same by showing his face is not the one in the photo, most jurisdictions still make him pay. They let him off only if he rats out the actual driver. But why make principled arguments against camera enforcement when it indicts itself with its own fumbling? "We don't need no stinkin' trials," camera enthusiasts say, "because the meter is always right." The everyday stories of Washington, D.C., say otherwise. There, about 45 percent of red-light and 41 percent of photo-radar infractions get tossed before they get mailed. That's because of "irregularities." Regular screw-ups, on the other hand, go through the system like water in a hose. About two years ago the camera at H and North Capitol NE was removed after police decided it had been wrongly positioned, according to the Washington Post. But some 13,000 innocents had already paid up. Tough. There are no plans for refunds. The paper went on to detail just how faulty the system really is. In another example, about 330 innocents received photo-radar tickets because, it was later discovered, the camera had been improperly calibrated. "'Officers occasionally do enter an incorrect speed limit,' [Lt. Pat Burke] said, 'and some erroneously issued tickets slip through the review process.'" "'Fairly often,' according to one examiner at the DMV's Bureau of Traffic Adjudication, 'motorists bring in separate speeding tickets showing their vehicles were cited at two different places in the city—at the same time. "'Those ones we don't even delve into,' she said. 'We just dismiss.'" The examiner went on to say that many motorists, preparing their own defense, ask to see the camera's maintenance records. "'It's a request that is denied,' she said, and when it is, 'most people are upset.'" Typical of the photo cities, Washington, D.C., throws plenty of boulders in the path of anyone attempting to exercise his constitutional right to defense. "Regina Williams, a DMV spokeswoman, said those who appeal their tickets also have to pay a $10 appeal fee and $10 for each page of any hearing transcript, both nonrefundable. In addition, motorists must pay the fine until the appeal is resolved, which usually takes two months." One Gotcha! piles on another. "William Roberts of Fort Washington got a speeding ticket in October. His citation said he was photographed in the 900 block of Southern Avenue SE going 44 mph in a 30-mph zone. He contested the ticket and was given an April 10 hearing. "'In the meantime, they wrote me a letter telling me that my fine had doubled while I was appealing it,' Roberts said." D.C. police defend their ticket machine by saying red-light running has dropped 64 percent since they cranked it up. Congressman Armey, a skeptic, observes that all those violations that were dismissed due to irregularities are back in the count to make "before" look worse that it was. If reducing violations were really the point, then D.C. would follow the example of nearby Fairfax County, Virginia, which chopped red-light running to less than 1/10th its former rate at the corner of U.S. 50 and Fair Ridge Drive. The miracle was accomplished by lengthening the yellow to 5.5 seconds from 4.0. No civil rights were trampled in the process. But there was a casualty. With citations dropping to less than one a day, the ticket machine is a total wreck.

[newgeezer]

One is tempted to say, "I don't run red lights, and I despise those who do." However, corruption is too easy. Follow the money!

[Kozak]

Or you can get an anti radar plate cover for your car like the "Protector" at Jammers store.com. Don't like red light jumpers, but hate Big Brother even more.

[lelio]

What's the goal of the enforcement here? To make money or to save lives? It looks like the former as the example of Fairfax county shows what happens when you increase the yellow time.
The article should mention the cut private businesses get from the lights.
Its all about the revenue stream. Here in WA state we have "Click it or Ticket" where you can get a $86 ticket for not wearing your seat belt, and that can be the only thing a cop pulls you over for.

[newgeezer]

Its all about the revenue stream. Here in WA state we have "Click it or Ticket" where you can get a $86 ticket for not wearing your seat belt, and that can be the only thing a cop pulls you over for.

Think that's bad? Here in Iowa, not only are we required to carry liability insurance, we're required to carry the little card to prove it. If you're pulled over, and can't produce the card on the spot, it's a $250 fine, whether or not you're insured!!!

[dalereed]

Don't let Grey davis read this article!

He will want to take over all signals in California and put a money making camera at every one of them programed to ticket everyone guilty or innocent.

Budget problems solved, all drivers now bankrupt!

[Alberta's Child]

Its all about the revenue stream.

That's a good point, but it has nothing to do with the red-light cameras. Even the police officer who hands you a ticket for running a red light is only there to generate revenue.

[lelio]

The police officer is more of a show of force, to deter other people from speeding. You have the flashing lights, the car pulled over, etc. A bill in the mail 3 weeks later isn't that much of an immediate deterent, as people around you have no knowledge of the event.

[D-fendr]

[Roscoe]

In a recent issue of its Status Report, it wistfully dreamed about "fully automated systems . . . that can recognize license plates, link to motor-vehicle registration databases, and issue tickets."

Predicted by Robert Heinlein in 1951 in his novel The Puppet Masters. In his scenario, your vehicle's onboard computer would would recieve immediate notification and it would transfer the funds to cover your fine.

[Alex Murphy]

Even the police officer who hands you a ticket for running a red light is only there to generate revenue.

True, but he(she?) made the driver stop before doing so - and probably by flashing his lights, which sends a very noticable deterrent to other drivers that hey, there's a cop watching this intersection and you could be pulled over next, so watch your driving..

The problem I've seen, in practice, with the auto-camera-ticket thingys is that, outside of the big honkin' boxes they're housed in, they're relatively benign looking. No significant deterrent threats there. The second is that in all the intersections where these gadgets are placed, the yellow light timing has been cranked back from 4+ seconds to only 2 seconds. Other, non-device intersections, are still timed at 4+ seconds. At one intersection in town, two seconds isn't enough time to get across the intersection in routine traffic. If the light changes to yellow just as you passed under it, it'll switch to red before you get safely across, triggering the photoshooter.

In other words, in this town don't even think about running the intersection on a yellow light. And maybe not on a stale green, either.

[FreedomPoster]

It is because of governmental idiocy like red-light cameras, at the time unimagined, that H. L. Mencken wrote:

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

Or plinking red light cameras.

I sat in on a public comment meeting on these things at our legislature a couple of years ago. The local jurisdictions were trying to get enabling legislation through the statehouse. So we had soccer-mom nannystate city council members and camera hardware lobbyists pushing hard for this system. Very few present to stand up for less Big Brother.

[Ancesthntr]

Damn, I thought that the story was going to be about someone taking an axe to one of the electronic demons....

[Cyber Liberty]

Paintballs work well.

[Ancesthntr]

I know that I'm not supposed to do this, but I HAVE to refer to another FR thread....

It seems that someone in England (of all places - I thought everyone was a sheople over there by now) has got the general idea....http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/787506/posts

[Ancesthntr]

See my last post (#14)

[Alberta's Child]

The second is that in all the intersections where these gadgets are placed, the yellow light timing has been cranked back from 4+ seconds to only 2 seconds. Other, non-device intersections, are still timed at 4+ seconds. At one intersection in town, two seconds isn't enough time to get across the intersection in routine traffic. If the light changes to yellow just as you passed under it, it'll switch to red before you get safely across, triggering the photoshooter.

This is a common complaint about red-light cameras, and in every case I've come across it has turned out to be false. In previous FreeRepublic posts I've offered to examine, free of charge, any such intersection where this "adjustment" of the yellow interval is alleged to have taken place.

Politicians may have no qualms about screwing their constituents to generate more revenue, but any engineer who designs a traffic signal with a yellow phase that has been reduced in this fashion would be subject to discipline by his state board of professional engineers and would likely lose his license to practice. I would look forward to the opportunity to see any such bastard sued out of existence.

[B-Chan]

The purpose of traffic law enforcement is to make money for the jurisdiction.

I received a speeding ticket in Dallas a couple of months ago. Since I was travelling in midday traffic on a major thoroughfare, I had little choice but to exceed the posted limit; in Dallas, you drive the same speed as the rest of the drivers or you get run off the road. My speed was not excessive, in fact, I was passed by several drivers even as the cop hit his flashers. In other words, I was singled out at random to participate in the City of Dallas Revenue Enhancement Program.

I decided to fight.

Since the fine for the offense was $250. I decided that I would retain legal representation and (provided the costs of doing so were under $250) would have them contest the ticket in court. I went to a "ticket shop" recommended by a neighbor and found that a fee of $40 would cover the services required, so I gladly signed.

Then, at the bottom of the contract, I saw a line that gave me pause. It read "I did not commit this offense and wish to enter a plea of 'innocent'."

Well, what would you have done? I was speeding; I admit it. And now I was being asked to sign a legal document aying I didn't. In other words, I was going to lie in order to get off the hook for a crime that I committed.

I signed.

At confession the next Saturday, I brought up my lie to a priest at a local Catholic pasish. He seemed a bit taken aback by my guilt. He pointed out that since our system of justice is based upon the presumption of innocence, a person is permitted to maintain their legal innocence even if they think (or know ) that they are guilty of actually violating a law; in other words, since the law is a technical structure, one can be technically innocent of given offense even if one committed the overt act -- for example, if the apprehension was legally or constitutionally invalid. If the prosecution cannot prove one is guilty of a crime, then the person is not guilty of that crime, whatever the facts may be; it is the responsibility of the judge or jury -- not the accused -- to determine if a given violation of the law is actually a crime. Therefore, my assertion of innocence was not a lie. I wasn't claiming that I hadn't been speeding; I was merely demanding that the City of Dallas prove that, in so doing, I had committed a crime.

In any case, he told me, the speeding-ticket system wasn't true law enforcement; it was a revenue-raising racket run by cities, counties, and the state. Beating the City of Dallas out of a traffic fine was more along the lines of "robbing a robber" than committing a crime. (This priest is an eminently practical man.) Nevertheless, he cautioned me, a Christian should always respect and obey the law. I left with a clear conscience.

Two weeks ago, my court date came up. Long story short: the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence (i.e. the officer who stopped me didn't show up to testify against me.) Lesson learned: fight your traffic tickets.

Breaking the law isn't necessarily the same as committing a crime. Like mortal sin, it requires an act of will ("I choose to break this law") and grave matter (murder is; speeding isn't) plus a knowledge of what the law actually says. Unless you meet the above conditions, you are innocent of sin -- and of crime.

[FreedomPoster]

If I'm not mistaken, San Diego took a bunch of red light cameras out of service largely because the contractor was reducing yellow light timing to enhance revenue. The contractor was getting a cut of the take.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Or you can get an anti radar plate cover for your car like the "Protector" at Jammers store.com. Don't like red light jumpers, but hate Big Brother even more.

WOW. I bet the speed limit really burns you up!

[Alberta's Child]

I am specifically talking about a case involving a reduction of the yellow interval to an unsafe level. If, for example, the posted speed on a roadway and the sight lines at an intersection dictate a yellow interval of 3.2 seconds but the yellow light is timed at 4 seconds, then the yellow phase can be reduced to 3.2 seconds (even if the intent is to generate more revenue) without running afoul of any design or safety standards.

If I remember correctly, the issue in San Diego was not so much the length of the yellow phase but the placement of the loop detectors in the roadway pavement that triggered the red-light cameras. I believe they determined that some of the cars that were ticketed had actually entered the intersection while the light was yellow, but the camera identified them as red-light violations.

On another note, it should be mentioned that these jurisdictions pay the contractor a portion of the revenue mainly as a means of reducing the cost to the municipality. The contractor assumes the risk in the event they install the cameras and nobody is caught running the light.

I am an engineer who does a lot of work on transportation projects, and my feeling (for the most part) is that a large number of motor vehicle viiolations at a specific location is an indication of poor design or other circumstances, not a driving population hell-bent on breaking the law. There are exceptions, of course (particularly in urban areas), but a road should be designed to accommodate marginal drivers as well as careful ones. This flies in the face of the expectations of most good drivers, but when safety is paramount these considerations must be given.