Posted on 08/18/2019 10:57:14 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
Speed and red-light cameras are the bane of many motorists. A modern idea made possible by technology, they have been installed in at least 24 states. Although these cameras are a revenue boon for governments across the nation, their intrusion into daily life is disturbing, and their constitutionality is dubious.
Specifically, use of these cameras could violate the Sixth Amendment. The Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. Since it is a camera and not a person that witnessed the offense, such violations generally cannot be considered a criminal offense. The ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle, not to the person driving it, leaving a lack of certainty as to the identity of the offender.
Therefore, the “ticket” in most places is nothing more than a civil fine, making enforcement and collection difficult. To date, governments have avoided this problem by requiring payment of the fine before motorists can renew their driver’s license or auto registration. Although there generally are appeals procedures, they typically do not give drivers a day in court. In other words, what happened to being innocent until proven guilty?
There are several for-profit companies that install and operate the cameras, some of them foreign-owned. In a typical arrangement, a camera company will contract with a local government to pay the capital cost of installing the cameras in exchange for a share of the revenue generated via fines. In short, governments get a new revenue stream without any operating cost, and the camera companies make a tidy profit.
The companies and government officials argue that greater safety will result from fewer accidents and that the increased government revenue will benefit the local communities.
Studies to confirm those claims have yielded mixed results. Studies paid for by the camera companies or governments usually show fewer accidents. Independent studies and those financed by opponents usually show no gains and sometimes worse results.
There is more evidence that greater public safety actually depends on the timing of yellow and red lights. Longer yellow and all-way red times have been shown to significantly reduce accidents. Sometimes local governments actually decrease yellow-light timing to catch more red-light runners, a result of the perverse financial incentives that tempt government officials and camera companies. Studies also show motorists are more likely to hit the brakes hard at camera-enforced intersections, increasing rear-end collisions.
Unsurprisingly, these cameras are deeply unpopular. Since 1991, there have been 42 elections on adopting or prohibiting either speed or red-light cameras or both. In all but two of these, voters have opposed the cameras by an average margin of 63 percent.
However, polling on the issue can show different results. A recent Public Opinion Strategies poll of 800 likely voters nationwide found 69 percent of respondents either strongly or somewhat support red-light cameras, while 29 percent somewhat or strongly oppose. Interestingly, 47 percent of those same respondents thought most of their neighbors opposed the cameras.
A possible explanation is that, as a national poll, most respondents do not live in a locality with red-light cameras since less than half the states allow them and not all jurisdictions in those states have them. Therefore, many have never experienced them. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Most citations for speed and red-light cameras are simply civil fines. The offender essentially has no recourse in court. The financial incentive creates a conflict of interest for local elected officials and camera companies to game the system in their favor. These factors can undermine citizens’ faith in government and breed mistrust.
We are brought up to respect the legal system that was handed down to us through English common law. We expect the laws to be just and fairly applied. We expect to always have recourse in the courts. And most importantly, we always expect to be treated equally before the law. Speed and red-light cameras are contrary to those expectations. This is not good for the civil society, especially at a time when distrust in government is high.
Longer yellow and all-way red times have been shown to significantly reduce accidents.
Sometimes local governments actually decrease yellow-light timing to catch more red-light runners, a result of the perverse financial incentives that tempt government officials and camera companies.
Studies also show motorists are more likely to hit the brakes hard at camera-enforced intersections, increasing rear-end collisions.
These cameras are a revenue boon for governments across the nation, but their intrusion into daily life is disturbing, and their constitutionality is dubious.
If those camera’s save on life it is worth it.
In California, a red light means that
there is time for only three more cars
to make it through the intersection.
Don’t want a traffic ticket? Don’t break the law. I would hate to count the times my family and I have almost been killed by red light runners. And many innocent folks have paid the ultimate price.
Our local community removed red light cameras from a notorious intersection after an outcry by citizens. A week later a young mother and two children were killed in that same intersection. Yep, he ran a red light.
So does all public surveillance.
We the people did not vote to be surveiled.
I am opposed to the cameras. That being stated: I am not an attorney and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but if someone’s home camera sees a crime they can be prosecuted. Facing their accuser which is the homeowner. For lights - its the government. Could easily be missing something though.
These cameras often have some level of public support when first installed, due to people thinking that they really will improve public safety.
But then, when they start sending out ‘tickets’ like candy in a day care center, the public ALWAYS shifts to wanting them out.
If they don’t go out, it means ONE THING, and one thing only, the people preventing their removal are simply on the take (usually local governments), and they should be investigated as such. In fact, approving them in the first, given what is now known, should also be investigated.
Using lights to meter intersection traffic is outdated and leads to the accident you mentioned.
Traffic circles or roundabouts are far safer and more efficient in terms of average flow speed for all but the busiest intersections. Those should have lagging left turn lights with turn bays anyway; this was proven 40 years ago in Arizona.
The town of Billings, Montana has implemented traffic circles on virtually all of their new development areas and it’s a joy to drive there. People learn to use them after just a few trips through. Accidents go down and red light tickets are a thing of the past.
Traffic metering through lighting is now seen as a revenue generator by most cities which are losing money as the bricks and mortar retail stores close. It really is only peripherally about safety.
Speed cameras are even worse and many states have those too.
I will agree running a red light is dangerous and wrong. The reason I don't support these cameras are in Pennsylvania we paid a company as stated in the article. The company found they made more money sending tickets out willy nilly wheter you run a red light or not. The public backlash was huge. The company really hated out of state plate.
Funny, but progressives (leftists, socialists, communists, democrats) LOVE the idea of “red flag laws” which fundamentally violate our 2d, 4th, 6th, 10th (and even 14th?) amendments.
Red flag laws in most locales allow ANONYMOUS reporting, SWAT search and seizures of property without due process, no process to return that property in due course, no provision to face one’s accuser and so on.
Progressives. If it weren’t for dual standards they’d have no standards at all.
Pay your freaking traffic tickets, drive right.
I’ve heard that as well.
So is it a good trade off, to have fewer red light runners but an increase in rear end collisions instead?
Anyone who drives a car, know that when the light turns yellow, you may have a split second to decide whether you can make it through or not. It depends on how far away you are from the intersection, how fast you are going, and also whether or not some idiot is tailgating you. You have a fraction of a second to decide what you are going to do.
In my opinion it is wrong to get punished for making the “wrong” decision in that split second.
“I would hate to count the times my family and I have almost been killed by red light runners.”
Red light running is one thing but it gets beyond chicken shit when you are ticketed for not coming to an absolute dead stop before turning right on red when there is no oncoming traffic.
‘Traffic circles or roundabouts are far safer and more efficient in terms of average flow speed for all but the busiest intersections.’
anything more than a moderately busy turn circle is a death trap...
I don't know the details of the story you posted, but I suspect the removal of the camera had nothing to do with someone running a red light and killing three people. Most of the motorists who are caught by these cameras are trying to beat the light at the very end of the yellow phase, so the traffic signal is almost always in an "all-red" phase when the violations occur. The occasional motorist who just drives through a red light in the middle of the red phase when cross traffic has a green light is rare, and is often an egregious violator (like someone fleeing a crime scene) who isn't going to be deterred by a red light camera anyway.
New Jersey had a bunch of towns test red light cameras under a two-year pilot program a few years ago. I don't know how successful the program was at reducing traffic injuries and fatalities, but the program was shut down after one pathetic incident where hundreds of people received red light violation notices in the mail stemming from one evening in downtown Newark when police officers were directing traffic through red lights along a major road as a traffic control measure after a major event at the Prudential Center. The program might have survived that debacle except for the fact that one of the people bagged by the camera was the spouse of a state legislator.
Oh right we have so much law anyway;
Here law there law everywhere a rule
Of law for me but not for thee
But its not somalia yet so rejoice
Do you honestly think a camera would have prevented that? Just asking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.