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.
From the article:
"The public doesn't support them, we're losing money, we don't have any proof of improved safety.
As I recall from driving in Vancouver BC green would start to blink just before the signal turned yellow. I think that's an excellent solution.
So I told Mom “Don’t worry, Ill take a taxi to the airport”
She said “no,no,no, it’s too expensive”
So she drives me (82 or something).
As we’re driving and chatting on a 4 lane highway, we reach
an intersection with another 4 lane highway.
She goes through a red light right in the middle of it.
No yellows, no nothing. Just pure luck. RIP Mom. She got home OK.
“If those camera’s save on life it is worth it. “
It’s really important to save on life.
Some 70+ percent in Los Angeles were for turning right on red which is legal. The city was also found to have shorten the yellow light time. This caused more accidents, injuries and death. More money to the gov’t for their pet projects and fat pensions.
So these crooks have the same “right on red” scam going on in L.A. as they do here in New York? Good to know.
#92 we have those lights here in the San Fernando valley. Great idea along with left turn green lights while stopping oncoming traffic.
Red light crashers have a habit of repeating the same. The guy who flew through crossing well after red light would get lots of tickets and that might alter his behavior eventually.
I watch that show “See no evil” where many crimes are solved due to camera’s observing street activity. Frankly we are all safer with more public camera’s. This is not big government trying to confiscate your guns or money. The revenue from traffic camera’s is minuscule compared to property taxes, income taxes, utility taxes, auto licensing taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Need the cameras for people playing with their cell phones while driving too. There should be a $500 fine for that.
Couldn’t agree more!!!!
3 years ago I am slowly pulling into a gas station and this car drives right into side of my car. Guess what the driver was texting!
It also has been shown that in many red light camera intersections the city reduces the yellow light times by several seconds than what they were, to deliberately fine people. In addition this practice leads to more accidents at these intersections because of deliberately shortened yellow lights.
Red light cameras are largely revenue collection schemes. Nothing you say changes the truth or my belief on this.
Absolutely agree. A blinking green light tells you to be extra cautious and slow down a little. You can see traffic light blinking from long distance away and that is a good heads up warning.
the ‘save one life’ statement is exactly what the left uses to demand disarming people.
if it saves one life let’s just ban cars altogether. Look how many tens of thousands of people die in car accidents each year.
most ridiculous view ever expressed here. its a damn libtard feelings-based argument.
Yup, I was rear-ended twice buy dumbass kids playing with their cell phones!
If I was in charge you would have to store your cell phone in the trunk while driving.
Now that is crooked action for sure to reduce yellow time span.
Like another poster said, best method is to start flashing green light for 3 seconds before turning yellow, and yellow should last 1 second for every 10 mph speed limit. So a 45 mph limit would give you 3 seconds of flashing green + 5 seconds of yellow. If some idiot driver crashes through red in that situation, he/she deserves a ticket.
in addition red light cameras have been deliberately placed at improper angles by municipalities to fine people who are stopped at a correct distance or are more than halfway across the intersection.
these are largely revenue enhancers and many cities large and small have abused them.
Which proves nothing.
Let’s face it - unless there’s a “mishap” that gets caught on camera, they have no purpose other than t fine folks for breaking a law vs. violating the intent of the law...I don’t dodge painted lines in an empty parking lot and if there isn’t another car in sight, I have been known to not wait for my light to become “all full completely green” before proceeding.....the electronic timers/sensors aren’t smarter than the driver of a car but go ahead and do a stop and go with a red light, at 2:30 AM, with not another car in sight that is moving, in front of a cop parked in a darkened donut shop parking lot...
In many cases, the law is, indeed, an ass...
;)
Nailed it!
I watch a lot of crash compilation videos, and what I notice with the red light accidents is that if people had just bothered to look both ways before going after they got a green light, there would have been no accident.
Those videos have taught me to do exactly that.
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.