Motorist Receives Same Red-Light Photo For Different Locations

Motorist Receives Same Red-Light Photo For Different Locations
By Lawrence Morahan
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 03, 2001

(CNSNews.com) - When Virginia motorist Ron Kronk was cited for a traffic violation recently, he was more than a little surprised. But when he found a second violation notice in the same mailing, also based on hidden camera pictures, he was sure there was something wrong.

The notifications he received bore the same photo, but cited different locations.

"The pictures are the same, everything else is different," said Kronk, who first told the story to Chris Core of WMAL radio in Washington, D.C.

The first violation notification claimed Kronk ran a red light at the corner of Wilson Boulevard and North Lynn in Arlington on Aug. 24. The second notice said he ran a light at the corner of Jefferson Davis Highway and 27th Street in northern Virginia on the same day - but showed the same photo.

"I'm going to court on this because I figure if the computer made one mistake, it can make two," said Kronk, a construction worker who will not receive financial compensation from his company when he takes time off to appear for a scheduled court appearance Dec. 7.

A spokesman for the Arlington Police Department said if Kronk supplies him with the data, the department would investigate the matter. "If a mistake has been made, it will be corrected," the spokesman said.

However, Kronk's case provides ammunition to a growing number of opponents of traffic cameras, who say the cameras impinge on people's freedom without enhancing safety.

"You're supposed to be able to face your accuser in court, but with these cameras, the accuser is a camera. There's no officer who can observe and testify as to what actually happened, just an automated device that may or may not be accurate," said James Plummer, a spokesman for the National Consumer Coalition's Privacy Group.

A San Diego judge threw out months of traffic tickets recently because the cameras weren't being operated accurately with regard to the placement of the sensors and the timing of the yellow light.

California Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn ruled Aug. 16 that the cameras do not violate privacy rights, but that they were "untrustworthy and unreliable." Vehicle owners received tickets even though the photo does not identify them. The system suffered from a "total lack of oversight," he said.

Styn ordered city officials to appear in court to make their case for installing cameras. The hearing, originally scheduled for Aug. 31, was postponed to Sept. 4.

Cameras are becoming more popular with state and local governments as a means to generate revenue. In the 10 days following installation of a camera system in the District of Columbia, cameras generated 15,000 tickets. District officials said they expect the cameras to generate $10 million in additional revenue annually.

Responding to criticism, District officials are seeking to set up a fixed-fee deal with a private operator of the cameras, instead of the current arrangement in which the contractor, Lockheed Martin, receives a cut of every fine paid.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) and the American Civil Liberties Union say cameras violate constitutional privacy and due process rights.

"There is only one answer to the so-called red-light running crisis," Armey testified before a House Transportation Subcommittee on July 31. "It's called sound engineering. It's called putting cops on the beat in the midst of our community to do their job."

Judge Styn said cameras enhance safety on the streets. "There is no question that there is a legitimate governmental purpose in installing red light cameras to promote safety on highways," he said.

Tucker from the National Consumer Coalition said a safety argument can be made, "But you know what Ben Franklin said about those who are willing to give up liberty for safety - eventually [they're] going to have neither. I think that's something very important to look at."

"And as far as safety goes, there are always unintended consequences where people who are so afraid of getting snapped by one of these red light cameras will stop short on a yellow light and the car behind them might not. That creates a different safety problem. So there are definitely downsides to it, even just looking at the safety side," Tucker said.

Not only do I question the accuracy of such devices. There is talk of hooking these cameras into computers in the hopes of recognizing felons. This type of technology is already here. All we need to do is change "felons" to "undesireables" and we're all set for another holocaust. How long do you think Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin would have lasted had the Brits had such technology?

OK, where are all of you big government fans? You know who you are: the ones who are always saying, "If you don't do anything wrong you won't have anything to fear".

"And as far as safety goes, there are always unintended consequences where people who are so afraid of getting snapped by one of these red light cameras will stop short on a yellow light and the car behind them might not. That creates a different safety problem. So there are definitely downsides to it, even just looking at the safety side," Tucker said.

Calgary Transit bus drivers are generally not cited for red-light violations (except in blatant cases) for this very reason. The last thing the city wants is to have a driver with a bus full of people standing on the brakes every time he appraches a yellow light.

Responding to criticism, District officials are seeking to set up a fixed-fee deal with a private operator of the cameras, instead of the current arrangement in which the contractor, Lockheed Martin, receives a cut of every fine paid.

Follow the money folks .... follow the money.

Cameras are becoming more popular with state and local governments as a means to generate revenue.

Say it isn't so. This is about saftey isn't it?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown, by gender and race, of all tickets issued compared to the gender/race breakdown of registered cars. Cameras can't very well be accused of racial/gender profiling.

They will simple claim that the cameras are placed in locations to target minorities.

I say that if more of these cameras were destroyed, the cities would start getting the message.

Cameras are becoming more popular with state and local governments as a means to generate revenue.

Too right, in Arizona they discovered that extending the yellow light for one second dramatically reduced intersection collisions but the camera companies have it written into their contracts that this cannot be done.

So we are now in a situation where corporate profits are being maximized at the expense of public safety

Do it anyway. When the camera company complains, set it back -- with a clear record establishing the connection to the camera company and a back-room warning that this record will be made available to all future plaintiffs injured at that intersection. Let the camera company choose between giving up its bribes and having its lungs ripped out through its nose by any competent liability lawyer.

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.