Cities View Red Light Cameras As Profit Centers 740
Houston 2600 writes "Chicago could rake in 'at least $200 million' a year — and wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009 — by using its vast network of redlight and surveillance cameras to hunt down uninsured motorists, aldermen were told today. The system pitched to the City Council's Transportation Committee by Michigan-based InsureNet would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists. That's already happening daily in 13 states, but not here."
Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution: Create more laws for people to break.
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't even think Rand, in even her most paranoid fantasies, ever imagined that the government would last long enough to achieve the level of corruption required to add ambiguity to laws against running red lights.
And yet, here we are.
Did you stop before the line and make a right turn on the red light?
Did you stop after the line and make a right turn on the red light?
Did you not come to a complete stop and make a right turn on the red light?
Funny, the pictures don't seem to tell the difference. Here's one of your car before the line. Here's one of your car partway over the line. Here's one of your car over the line.
Sure, we could build a camera that captured video instead of stills, which would unambiguously (or at least, to within one frame of animation) answer the question of whether (and where) you stopped, but that might exonerate you. Sorry, but all we can "afford" is this still-camera system that takes pictures once every second.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The cameras can tell if you're turning right or not.
If you are past the right lane, and most of the way through the intersection and you're still heading straight through the intersection, you weren't turning right.
Seriously, did you think that in all the places that have deployed these things, nobody ever stopped and thought "hey, what about right turns" before?
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Informative)
2007 Virginia Study shows that red-light cameras increase rear-end (and total number) of accidents at intersections. [thenewspaper.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
2007 Virginia Study shows that red-light cameras increase rear-end (and total number) of accidents at intersections. [thenewspaper.com]
An immediate question: but were there fewer injuries, since more rear ending, but fewer injuries overall, would still be a positive result.
Answer: No, there were more injuries.
Next question: how severe were the injuries?
Answer: They were worse, after the cameras were installed (page xiii of the report).
This seems crazy to me. Perhaps the speed limit of the road should be reduced, or the amber light lengthened, or a safety campaign started to try and convince drivers that it isn't worth risking running a red
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with much of what she said, but this has a certain ring of truth to it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Insurance on your car or on the destruction you might cause to others?
In Switzerland, the latter is mandatory, the former not and I think that system is very good. After all, if you hit someone and total their car and send them to hospital, they won't have the luxury to wait for you saving up the money to pay for it all...
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with the insurance companies in this case.
Imagine: you get hit by an uninsured motorist, and wind up in the hospital with serious injuries, miss work, maybe lose your job, have a totaled car, and are unable to climb out physically and financially.
Maybe no one was at fault. Maybe they were. As motorists lacking insurance statistically also lack assets, responsibility for one's actions are shirked.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Your actions bear responsibilities, no matter the boorishness of insurance companies and accident litigators.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your quotation is specious. You do have the right to walk, and travel freely. You don't have the right to drive a motorized vehicle.
That's funny, your LOGIC is specious. If the government is permitted to prevent you from one mode of travel then it logically follows that it has the right to prevent you from using any mode of travel and therefore there is no such thing as the right to travel freely.
Furthermore, if you engage in an activity that has the potential to cause you serious bodily harm, then it is up to you to prepare for that possibility. Driving should be no different in that regard - no amount of enforcement will ever preven
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You have a right to walk upon public highways but not drive? Curious...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like so many different 'rights', the right to drive is one that's seemingly presumed. The right to free association and travel are guaranteed. The method of travel, however, is not. You did not have the right to fly, either. That's why the TSA can bounce you for non-cooperation at an airport.
So far as I know, in all 50 states, driving is a privilege. When you meet the tests of a driver's license, now required in all 50 states, you can 'legally' drive subject to your behavior and insurance (although insuranc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am all for EVERYONE having auto insurance. I don't want you rear ending me and destroying my car and possibly hurting me and my family and then have to pay for everything myself because you are a jobless bum.
What makes you think mandatory insurance accomplishes this? Here in New York the mandatory minimum amount of insurance is $50,000. Poor people have zero incentive to buy more insurance because A) They can't afford it, B) They don't have any assets to lose if they exhaust it and can just file bankruptcy.
Better off people will buy it because they do have assets to protect but if your main concern is "jobless bums" you should know that mandatory insurance isn't really protecting you from them. Unless you t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
statistically, most drivers would be better off skipping any extra insurance and using some of the money to keep an emergency fund from which to pay for unforeseen repairs.
Repairing bodywork on your car in one thing; getting bodywork done on your flesh-and-blood rig is significantly more expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if we're putting words in each others mouths, then I suppose you prefer a "I should get whatever makes my life easier, no matter how it affects people around me" approach.
Now actually I'm not saying one way is right for everyone. (You're the one who's claiming only one way will work, which is provably false.) I am saying that just because you haven't gone to the trouble of figuring out how to live your life without a car, doesn't create for you a right to drive that trumps the safety of others.
I hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Insurance is just part of owning a vehicle. If you dont want to insure it, dont drive.
Do you also believe that you shouldn't have to pay for gas?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's mandatory here. I pay about $1000 (one thousand) a year for my insurance. That includes an optional $2M coverage against under-insured motorists. That also includes a "new car replacement" policy so I get enough money to buy a new car of the same brand if it gets totaled.
Down here, "uninsured/underinsured" coverage is almost as mandatory as liability coverage. Every agent will tell you you need UIM. Everyone with half a brain will tell you the same.
Why? Because 1/3 of the cars on our roads are uninsure
Side effect (Score:5, Funny)
But boy is it safe to drive in Denver now. That's the problem with cities getting greedy, they don't see the positive side of their efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Because when you stop for the light, some idiot rear-ends you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Worse yet:
- You try to stop for the light.
- You don't make it.
- Some asshat rear-ends you, pushing you into the intersection
- Some OTHER asshat floors the pedal and t-bones your already rear-ended car.
Now the intersection's REALLY clogged.
I watched this happen a couple years back. Shortened yellow light, guy with bad brakes... so he tries to stop, and he's halfway into the intersection. Next thing he knows, one of the two drag racing motherfuckers coming through the intersection from the other side slams in
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Melbourne, peak hour, cars backed up at intersection, cars waiting to turn right (from center
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. ITE shortened the yellow light timing in their 1985 updated standard. [thenewspaper.com] It was further reduced in 1989. This coincided with the time that New York City started testing red-light camera systems.
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Houston, TX installed "red light cameras."
Then the greedy-ass city council wanted more revenue, so they shortened the yellow-light timing. They now have yellow-light times that are around 2 seconds on most of the camera-watched intersections. Other cities have done the same thing [motorists.org].
The problem is, the shorter a yellow-light timing, the more accidents. Study after study has shown this. Shortening the yellow light timing (to trap motorists "still in the intersection") to get more ticket revenue also makes for more accidents.
It's literally blood money, coming at the expense of people injured or killed in those accidents, but the city councils don't care because it's "their" blood money.
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a simple way to fix it...
Sue the city that shortens the light, showing accident rates, long waits at the lights causing wasted fuel, out of sync lights, causing wasted fuel.
Make it too expensive to operate the lights in question, and they will disappear.
Better yet, take your own video of the intersection, then send it to the local news to show how the lights are *too short* but only at the camera intersections. Site safety issues and government corruption... They won't stay in office for long.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Simpler solution: use a high powered rifle to drive up the repair costs so that it's no longer profitable.
Note that this is probably much MUCH more illegal, exept maybe in Texas.
Re:Side effect (Score:4, Informative)
Do you have anything to back that up?
This report [click2houston.com] suggests that rumour isn't true, and the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices defines 3 to 6 seconds for the yellow light. ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trf/final_report_rlc_1008.pdf [state.tx.us] (last page).
Re:Side effect (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because state law tells a municipality they can't do something, doesn't mean they won't do it anyway. Laws are for us little people, not those in power.
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing wrong with that, even if it is a profit center for the city.
Law enforcement should never be a profit center for anyone. That's begging for abuse. Collected fines should simply be destroyed, increasing the value of the money supply for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A bold idea. And just about as efficient in fighting inflation as boiling a few thousand gallon of water from the ocean would be at fighting high tide...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the problem with law enforcement in Houston. Police there only earn so much, and it's hard to pay the bills. Officers often take side jobs guarding private properties (stores, private parking lots, etc) and work those side jobs WHILE IN UNIFORM.
Once you've crossed that line as a cop taking money on the side to watch a store, you're a mercenary, not a soldier. I expect anyone in uniform to be serving the public good, impartially. Unfortunately, Houston has a culture that places off-duty cops on pr
Re:Side effect (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, don't accidents that take place with the front/back of one car meeting the front/back of another car tend to be far less dangerous than a T-bone? Mostly because of the extra crumple zone protection that is available. Before side airbags was common a number of injuries were caused by people banging their heads sideways against pillars and doors and windows. A lot of research has gone into making cars safer against the T-bone, but there's still less room for metal to give sideways...
Did you even read the summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
...in your mad dash to be first post?
Summary says: "...to hunt down uninsured motorists"
I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists.
Re:Did you even read the summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't either, but, I also don't want the cities photographing, id'ing and logging everyone as they drive about just to catch the few people out there that are driving w/o insurance. That is just WAY too large a dragnet.
Faster! Faster! Faster! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the Sun Times FA emphasized the revenue issue too. Though I do agree that cracking down on uninsured motorists is a worthy goal.
That's the problem: instead of generating revenue, the system will probably just improve compliance. So much for ending Chicago's deficit. But also so much for the usual "red light camera" outrage.
Which really, really irritates me. People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders
Re:Faster! Faster! Faster! (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last time you could cross-examine a camera?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you could cross-examine a camera, what would you ask it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the camera is providing the testimony for which you're being accused.
No it's not. It's providing evidence. Do you claim the right to cross-examine a fingerprint?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And it works brilliantly (nope, no sarcasm) - if the car is untaxed or uninsured, and you are stopped because of that, you are liable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Snellville, GA did the same thing and it really pisses me off. I wouldn't mind them taking the cameras down for legal or ethical issues but to take them down because they're working? That's almost as bad as the politicians complaining that tax revenue gained from tobacco sales is down because the increased taxes are actually getting people to stop or at least cut down on smoking (which was the stated purpose of such taxes in the first place).
Re:Denver uninstalled their cameras (Score:5, Informative)
The incidence of red-light-running didn't go down because of the cameras, it went down because a new state law went into effect this past January that lengthened the yellow light time. (Or rather, put it back to the safe value that the engineers intended, rather than the unsafe too-short value that the politicians changed it to in order to increase revenue from red-light cameras!)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In my old town, they talked about cameras. Seems the cities don't own or run the camera's. They ALWAYS pay a company to do it for them. In my little town, they were looking at spending something like $30k/year for one light, in one intersection. Now, the company takes 1/3 of the fine as a fee (since they own the camera, and process the tickets, no going to the courthouse to argue to a judge).. So basically, a 30k/year light takes something like $45k/year in fines to break even. So once the violations s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, the system worked so they are getting rid of it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
no. They returned the yellow light time to the correct interval, and offenses dropped. Shocking~.
The cameras can't pay for them selves without lowering the yellow light time to a time that isn't safe.
Cameras do very little to nothing for safety. People run red lights becasue they aren't paying attention. Only when something unusual happens do they pay attention. But only until it becomes normal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was easy [thenewspaper.com]. For your next trick, I suggest you demand proof that some chicago cops are corrupt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, but that is a link to a blog. I followed the link to his source and it said nothing about lengthening the yellow reducing red light running, but did say that in Aurora red light running went down while rear end collisions went up, apparently because people were stopping but the people behind them were paying more attention to the light than the vehicle in front of them. The number of those collisions went down when the yellow was extended.
Seems like your link supports the claim that the yellow light
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some suburbs of Atlanta are considering the same thing, since the state government passed a law lengthening yellow times for 1 second. It turns out that actually giving people enough time to react to the yellow decreases the number who end up running the red! Gee, who'da thunk it?!
Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are broke (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't get blood from a turnip. Much of that money will not appear as the uninsured motorists have no money. It may be great for enforcing the law and getting them off of the road but not a great source of income.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They may not have money, but they have a vehicle. Confiscate it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor. Oh wait, done and done.
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm under the poverty line, I still make sure my car insurance is kept up. Before I could afford a car, I rode the bus.
This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able. I have about as much sympathy for those folks as I do for the folks that took out mortgages they couldn't afford... or is that "discrimination against the middle class"?
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not always true, and I'd go so far as to speculate it probably isn't even usually true. A lot of them probably had cars when they could afford it, then fell on hard times, and still have the car.
I'm a decent example. When I left my parents' house at 19, I had an old 1986 Volvo, then a fourteen-year-old car -- a total beater, but it worked. The only place I could afford was on the ass-end of town with nowhere to work within walking distance and the busses were too infrequent to realistically use. So, since I had a car, I was able to get a really lame, low-paying job, but the place was far enough that driving there was the only option.
Being young and stupid and poor, I drove uninsured for much of the time. I felt I didn't have a choice -- I couldn't afford insurance (especially at the rates they charge young males), but I had to get to work somehow. Even looking back, the only "option" I can see was maybe quitting my job, getting an even lower-paying job at the Wendy's three miles away, and somehow scraping together enough money to get a bike. With the reduction in income there I'd never have been able to pull myself out.
The point is, having a car and being poor doesn't mean one purchased a car one couldn't afford; this isn't analogous to the idiots extending credit they don't have to buy houses they can't afford.
And in many ways, the current traffic laws are discriminatory against the poor: Even a simple, non-moving violation can run a few hundred dollars, which is disasterous for someone who can barely afford rent. Yet someone pulling in six figures gets charged the exact same amount for that same violation, and it's practically pocket change to them.
If the point is deterrence, then the fine should scale to the person's income. A $200 dollar ticket would ruin many low-income people, and be barely noticed by someone more wealthy. Of course, many higher-income types can afford a lawyer for an hour to get the ticket reduced or thrown out entirely before it ever goes to court -- an option poor people don't have, and there are no court-appointed attorneys during the pre-trial shenanigans in traffic court.
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.
How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
The point still stands - if you can afford a car, you can afford to insure it - simple as that. Liability insurance is all that's needed to keep legal, and when talking liability only, car insurance is pretty cheap. I've seen prices the neighborhood of $25-30 per month if you're a safe driver. If you "need the car for work" then you obviously have some source of income and that is part of your required bills. End of story. It's as much required as the gas you need to fuel that car. If you DON'T need it for work, then take the insurance off and park the car - you've got more important things to pay for anyways.
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:5, Insightful)
They actually tried doing that down here in New Orleans...back before Katrina. The measure got thrown out as that it was branded a 'racist' ordinance. That just blew me away. I don't care what color you are, if you can't afford to have lawful insurance on the car, you shouldn't be driving one. A car costs money (fuel, repair and insurnace)...if you can't afford one, don't drive one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, life is tough my friend. And in the US, equal opportunity, does NOT mean equal results [culture11.com]. Things (like owning and driving a car) cost money, and you have to work to earn it. Some have to work a little harder for do to luck of the draw at birth (genetics, parental skills of paren
Re:Driving as right vs. privilage (Score:4, Interesting)
While you're at it with your socialist rant, please add "everything I need to live well" to your wishlist, because in reality, that's what you're really requesting by that.
Cheating on taxes is unethical, but way more ethical than skimping on car insurance. Because you're hurting The State financially, but your the impact is so low that society as a whole can probably cope with if only some people doing this.
If you're skipping car insurance and hurt someone, you're against ONE single selected individual and you can bankrupt them for decades or the rest of their lives.
So choose if you're hurting our anonymous society a small bit or destroy one individual with name and face for the rest of their lives.
I would rather start a revolution than to ruin an innocent family, I tell you.
Re:Stupid Idea as many uninsured motorists are bro (Score:4, Interesting)
The city of Philadelphia does this.
If you are caught driving without insurance in the city of Philadelphia, your vehicle is confiscated ON THE SPOT, and you will walk home (or ride SEPTA, but walking may be faster/easier).
This is a Tax (Score:5, Interesting)
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
Re:This is a Tax (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw uninsured motorists, IMO. If you can't afford compulsory insurance, you can't afford to drive, period. Take the bus. I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects minorities, if they are the ones disproportionately breaking the law.
This is a good use for traffic cameras, much better than for catching red light running or speeding, because there's always room for subjective calls on what was safe under the particular circumstance of the infraction. If you are uninsured, that is just a fact and you should not be on the road in the first place. End of story.
I agree that this probably isn't much of a revenue stream, since if you can't afford insurance you probably can't afford the fine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree.
Also, whites shouldn't be business owners. The current economic crisis demonstrates that whites can't be responsible in their business dealings. I don't care if this particular move disproportionately affects whites, if they are the ones disproportionately wrecking the economy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree, that's easier said than done in some places. Take a look at the Gwinnett County, GA [gwinnettcounty.com] bus system. (Sorry, I looked for an overall map showing all routes at once but couldn't find one.) Now, imagine you live in Snellville. What bus would you take, pray tell?
And keep in mind that this is not a rural area. It's a suburb of Atlanta with a fairly large overall population, very he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Public transit in America is a joke. All the fees and costs that go along with having a car might make sense in a world where it was practical not to have one. But, my tax dollars go to create infrastructure and city planning that assumes everybody has a
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
For some, "take the bus" means losing 4 hours a day for what would be a 30-minute trip. That's 4 hours they can use to hold down a 2nd job or be their for their children.
For others who live in cities without mass transit, "take the bus" means moving.
Did you know there it at least one city in America with over 1/3 of a million residents but no public transit system?
What part of this justifies allowing uninsured drivers on the road?
None of it. You may not think this is an important issue right now, but once you or someone you car about has been injured or had their car destroyed by some uninsured idiot, you do.
If you want to rant about the lack of useful public transportation, fair enough, but the GP was correct in saying that uninsured motorists cannot afford the price of being road users, and they unfairly burden the majority of road users who do obey the law and co
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a tax, and this the use is not for traffic violations but for civil law violations, specifically insurance requirement for licensing a vehicle.
Please go take a reading comprehension course.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What could be smarter than a tax on broke people?
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK, just wait until the next "terrorist" action and the military will step in and take it all over...revenue angle solved.
Transporter_ii
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love revenue sources that depend on negative behavior. If people stopped smoking and drinking most state govs would really be broke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speed traps as profit centers are ridiculous, too. A speed trap almost always means your speed limit is too low.
Sorry, no sympathy from me. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Vehicle crashes in the US kill more people monthly than all of the September 11th attacks combined.
An automated system that extracts money from red light runners and speeders? I can't think of anything better unless it also gives back rubs.
Too bad Chicago is a bastion of integrity (Score:4, Informative)
Ahh, sorry, I have an update coming in. That should be "too bad for the motorists that Chicago is not a bastion of integrity".
You'd think more people would be worried when law enforcement is publicly billed as a revenue source.
It's why they'll never end the war on drugs or even legalize pot: the departments couldn't afford to lose all the free money they get from drug related forfeitures. And pot heads make very easy targets. Which do you think a cop would rather bust: a vegged out pot head or a well armed group of Mexicans with a meth lab in the middle of a corn field?
Re: (Score:2)
It'll probably only add up to a few bucks per per
Re:Too bad Chicago is a bastion of integrity (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember this: In Chicago, when Mayor Daley announces that city government will be downsizing, and therefore laying off or firing from various departments, there is one office that never downsizes: The Dept. of Revenue (notorious as the issuers and collectors of many forms of tickets/citations).
My recommendation if you're visiting Chi and are not familiar with the city: if in downtown, park in a garage, forget about parking on the street. Also, read every sign on the same side of the street within a block of where you park.
countdown (Score:2, Interesting)
I still argue that installing walk/don't walk signs with a countdown that turns yellow on zero does more to discourage red light running than the cameras do. Sometimes you just don't know how long the yellow will last or how long the hand is going to blink. Using the countdown I have a decent idea from about 50 ft away and can act accordingly. I feel safer as a result and I think most people would agree.
Cities don't want this, however, because they don't like to think that something they've spent so much mo
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly my experience so far is that cities like to spend money on making driving even less in
$300-500 fine (Score:2)
Not so bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm generally opposed to this sort of stuff, but this particular application doesn't seem so bad. Uninsured motorists are a problem for everyone. If you're going to drive a car, you should have a license and your car should be registered, insured, and inspected according to state laws. Yes, this makes money for repair shops, insurance companies, state government, and the police. However, all of this is important for having safe roads and keeping down the cost of insurance.
Re:Don't stop now (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon the confusion, but you said:
Do I drive more carefully when I need to "stay beneath the radar?" Yes, I am always aware of my illegal status.
Makes sense, but then you said:
Licenses and insurance do not necessarily make for safer streets.
Not to play the part of Captain Obvious, but even if you DON'T have insurance, you know you SHOULD, and so drive with more care. The little piece of paper may not change your habits itself, but the thought of it does...
Personally, I like the German system {as I remember it circa '82}. State-sponsored driver's ed, around $700.... MANDATORY. You lose your license? You go back to driver's ed. Driving wasn't seen as a "right" as perceived in many places; it was seen as a privilege and responsibility. Man, I miss the Autobahn.
False positives? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the system would scan a license plate, see if it appears on the list of insured motorists and, if it doesn't, then fire off the ticket/fine? They would be basing this scheme on the absence of information?
For many reasons, that just doesn't seem right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Use false positives to get rid of the system.
Simply find out what car the Mayor or city council members drive, including their lisence plates. Rent the same car, or something that looks very similar. Print out real looking lisence plates, put them over the real ones and drive through as many red lights as possible.
Once they get the tickets in the mail, you better believe the law will change quickly.
Red light cameras CAUSE ACCIDENTS (Score:2, Insightful)
This means that:
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
2. Case B is RARE. In fact, it happens so rarely that it is never profitable. The cost to install and maintain the red light camera always ex
Re:Red light cameras CAUSE ACCIDENTS (Score:4, Insightful)
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
I wish I lived where you live.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.
It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).
It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).
Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the problem is you don't always SEE poor red light timing. It is not just the 4 second amber light. Another example of bad red light timing is whent he police do this:
Road A is a major road, heavily trafficked - You get 100 cars a minute. Road B is lightly trafficked - 10 cars a minute. Red light provides 1 minute for bo
Re:Red light cameras CAUSE ACCIDENTS (Score:4, Funny)
That's all great. Do you have any citations to back up your assertions?
Re:Red light cameras CAUSE ACCIDENTS (Score:5, Informative)
While I'd like what you're saying to be true, with some people it simply isn't. I stop for yellow lights, and I routinely get honked at by people behind me for stopping when they wanted to keep going -- even when it means they would have been running a red light. This is particularly egregious when it's a left turn lane that has a red "no left turn permitted" arrow. I often (as in daily) see fully five cars go through the intersection after the arrow has turned red, obstructing cars that are trying to go straight through the now-green light.
This is not a matter of poor timing, just a matter of people deciding that it's more important for them to get through the intersection than to obey the traffic rules. We have horrific crashes around here on a regular basis because someone comes through the green light and hits someone who was running the tail end of a previous green that is now red.
The Internet runs on... (Score:3, Funny)
Red stoplight cameras. Excuse me.
maryland too, do it for the children (Score:2)
Pimp your teacher (Score:3, Interesting)
Rare (Score:5, Insightful)
Rarely does a single article capture so much of what is wrong with a culture. We have:
- Broken window
- Excessive fines
- Government corruption/collusion with private businesses
- Legislated business models
- Original sin as defined by the One True Authority. And, of course, only they have the cure.
Disgusting if you think about it for more than 15 seconds.
Mr. Reality Check Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello. I am Mr. Reality Check. Let us examine this proposal in detail.
Chicago, the shining star of all good and right [wikipedia.org], wants to install a sophisticated network of cameras to (a) track every motor vehicle in operation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, (b) record the license plate tag, location, and time of motor vehicle operation, and (c) cross reference the license plate tag information with a comprehensive insurance coverage database in in order to (d) send out $500 citations via mail to potential offenders.
Unfortunately, this system is not realistic and poses some massive privacy concerns. While it may be feasible to create the network of cameras described in (a), it is substantially difficult with current technology to implement the optical character recognition required to implement part (b). Furthermore, the privacy implications of tracking every motor vehicle in the Chicago Metropolitan Area are enormous. This network would take public surveillance to United Kingdom levels.
Assuming that (a) and (b) were implemented successfully, there are major jurisdictional and scale issues with (c). In order to assure a minimum of false positives, the State of Illinois would have to implement a comprehensive insurance-to-registration tag database that would be automatically updated by the insurance companies within seconds of issuing or changing a policy. The cost of this type of project are enormous. The coordination of all involved stakeholders is extremely difficult given the various processing cycles, business policies, cross jurisdictional politics, and potential for error. There is also problems with the handling out of state registration tags. The system must be able to effectively deal with the tags of every state in the United States. If this system only processes Illinois residents, there may be some serious constitutional repercussions under Amendment 14 (equal protection of the law).
Finally, after gathering the data in (a), processing the information in (b) and (c), we get to the collections portion of the process, (d). Now, assuming for the moment that this system works and is accurate, we can now send citations to every uninsured vehicle driving on the road way. However, since most citations carry the weight of a parking ticket, most people tend to ignore them [ocregister.com]. Since these uninsured motorists usually (i) can not afford the cost of insurance or (ii) do not want to pay for insurance, it is logical to conclude that they will not pay for their automated traffic violations. While the "more than $200 million" figure is impressive, I would be even more impressed if they managed to collect 10% of that number.
In conclusion, this system will not work. It is technologically, politically, fiscally, and logistically unfeasible given today's technology and political climate.
This is Mr. Reality Check and I am signing out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with you--Chicago is corrupt. But Blagojevich was the State governor, not the City's. For that, you'd have to turn to Daley [wikipedia.org] and his corrupt cronies [chicagotribune.com] (convictions pending). If you're going to point out the corruption [despair.com] present [wikipedia.org] in my great [wikipedia.org] state [wikipedia.org], please at least point at the right people.
Second, you're right about the assumption that people who aren't willing to pay for insurance aren't likely to pay a citation mailed to them. However, in Chicago, it is now possible for your
Paintballs (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point will people wake up and start attacking these devices?
There is a light bulb within 50' of the ground.
There is a camera within 20' of the ground.
If they are going to have a policeman sitting there 24/7 to protect the device it takes away the profit and purpose of the devices.
I'm for stopping red light running- and it has been *repeatedly* shown that raising the yellow light duration by 1 seconds stops 99% of red light running. In cities with cameras they have been *repeatedly* caught lowering the yellow light duration to force more violations.
Can we ticket cars that stop on the crosswalk? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can we? Can we PLEASE?
I'm a lifelong pedestrian. Running red lights, gunning it on yellow, and the Pittsburgh left [wikipedia.org] don't bother me. What bugs me is the endless supply of $%$#%@! who stop at a red light ON THE CROSSWALK, instead of at the line well behind it. This behavior forces those of us who are on foot to either walk behind the offender, or worse (when the offender realizes their mistake, tries to back up, and the car behind them just Does Not Care), walk out into traffic.
Find a way to ticket THESE idiots for being a public nuisance. You'll make the pedestrians happy and you'll be rolling in dough. :P
Minor problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to start smashing cameras? (Score:3, Insightful)
At some point, people are going to need to just start smashing security cameras simply as a statement against monitoring.
Here is what I read in the summary... (Score:3, Funny)
"Insurance Lobby figures out how to use local governments as a vehicle to sell more insurance, as well increase the premiums for existing policies....and pass on the cost of the program to the aforementioned local governments and their citizens."
Yay for us! Da economicy is saved!