Posted on 12/05/2016 1:05:19 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In Rochester, New York, the mayor is making a controversial change to the city’s law enforcement strategy. Normally when we’re talking about crime here I’m dealing with murders, sexual assaults and all of the truly horrible things which unfortunately happen. This one, however, has to do with traffic violations. Wait! Don’t stop reading yet… there’s a point to be made here.
Mayor Lovely Warren is preparing to shut down the city’s system of automated red light cameras which record motorists running stop lights and are used to issue tickets. Her complaint isn’t that the cameras don’t work properly or are leading to tickets being incorrectly issued, but with the fact that the tickets are disproportionately issued to low income drivers. (Route Fifty)
One of the reasons to pull the plug that was cited by Mayor Lovely Warren isn’t often heard in the wide-ranging local government debate over automated traffic enforcement: Violations recorded by the red-light cameras can disproportionately impact areas with higher rates of poverty.
In Rochester, a study commissioned by the city found that there were more total red light violations in five ZIP codes that had the city’s highest rates of poverty.
“I am particularly concerned that too many of these tickets have been issued to people who can least afford to pay them, which is counterproductive to our efforts to reverse our city’s troubling rates of poverty,” Warren said in a statement. “I cannot, in good conscience, wage a fight against poverty while also imposing burdensome fines that that have a disproportionate impact on people living in poverty. That just doesn’t make sense.”
Let’s focus for a moment on the two reasons why this is crazy, no matter how well the headlines might play in social justice circles. The first one should be obvious… this is not a case of discrimination. While I generally disagree, you can at least somewhat sympathize with complaints about stop and frisk or “overly aggressive” policing which takes place in majority minority neighborhoods. There are human cops involved who have to make daily decisions about who to pursue and how to handle each encounter. If the numbers stack up too far on one demographic side of the scale you can justify asking if there is discrimination going on either by race, gender or economic status.
These are cameras. There are nearly fifty of them installed at busy intersections all over the city. They don’t have any magical software which checks to see how expensive the car is, how nice the driver’s clothes are, the color of their skin or any other indicators of economic status. If you run the red light it takes a picture and reports it. If there are more low income people getting tickets through this system it’s because there are more low income people blowing through traffic lights.
The second factor to consider is that these cameras actually work and produce results.
The Insurance Institute says flipping the switch on the program will likely cost lives. According to their studies, cities that ran with red-light cameras between 2010 and 2014 saw a 21 percent drop in the number of fatal red-light-running crashes, while those that turned their systems off saw a 30 percent increase.
David Goldenberg, a spokesman with the Traffic Safety Coalition, said there’s no question data shows red-light cameras make intersections safer.
“The data is absolutely conclusive that cameras made Rochester roads safer and data from around the country shows that red-light running crashes, injuries and even deaths per capita go up when the cameras get turned off,” he said.
What this story comes down to is yet another case of an elected official forgetting about the rule of law in the interest of some sort of social justice reform. I realize we’re just talking about traffic infractions here, but the fact is that the city (as with pretty much everywhere in the country) has those laws on the books for a reason. You either feel the law is valid and producing positive results for the citizens or you don’t. In this case the data makes it rather obvious. Reducing the number of people running through red lights saves lives. Poverty is a serious problem which needs to be addressed, but giving people a pass on breaking the law – at any level – isn’t solving the problem you’re going after.
By that logic the mayor should direct the police to stop prosecuting people for theft if they are poor because they needed it more. That’s not how this works, Madam Mayor. Your city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this system and it worked to reduce traffic fatalities. Now you’re pulling the plug on that investment to score some political points.
In Newark there was one comical episode that probably spelled the doom of the program. There were hundreds of motorists who received summonses for red-light infractions in a two-hour period after an NHL game at the Prudential Center. These motorists were all driving through a red light because they were being directed to do so by a police officer who was in the intersection directing traffic after the game.
The story probably wouldn't have made headlines, except that one of the victims was a state legislature or his/her spouse. LOL.
and have paid out about $700 when I really shouldn’t have had to due to one.
Are you saying you didn’t run the red lights?
Also people who have stopped and then made a legal right turn on red get tickets.
Also I’ve seen statistics that show rear-ending accidents skyrocket at red light camera intersections due to people just slamming on their brakes so as not to take a chance of the camera.
That’s happened on Staten Island too!!
I told the cop, “I’m not going through the red light”.
She was pi##ed. I didn’t care.
####ing cameras.
“Maybe low income drivers should acquaint themselves with traffic laws and then follow said laws.”
That is the first thing I thought, but then I remembered that they are seldom held responsible for anything.
So drive defensively.
“Are you saying you didn’t run the red lights? “
No. According to the ticket itself I was. . . 1/10th of one second into the red.
Going with the flow of traffic on a heavily, heavily traveled urban section of 101 (Park Presidio, San Francisco).
Had I suddenly stopped, I could have been rear ended. The guy behind me, in the photo, clearly was entering the intersection as well.
Also, it is well known that most municipalities shorten the yellow light cycle to get more money.
To top that off. . . $700 dollars. For one ticket that endangered no one.
I don’t think a cop would have issued it.
“Then, why did you PAY? It is only a civil fine, not a criminal one.”
If I don’t, I can’t renew my registration. I can’t get my driver’s license re-issued. And the fines and “interest” are very high.
$700???? In Texas, the red light camera tickets are $75.
Exactly... 5 zip codes with the highest total what....Is that total tickets issued? Or address of offenders?.... And total is meaningless if it is not adjusted to population or car registrations.....
The argument is bunk as cameras are unconstitutional
Come drive in Memphis sometime. It’s insane.
Come drive in Memphis sometime. It’s insane. In a city 83% people of color.
Of course. It’s because low income drivers can’t afford brake pedals. Solution: raise taxes on those still fortunate to have jobs after 8 years of the Democratic War on Employment. then just increase the welfare payments to any low income driver who runs red lights. Problem solved!
The sole purpose of Red Light Cameras is to generate Income. The Mansfield, Texas people set the camera at a major intersection and the freeway at a point so that when you stopped, then pulled forward to turn right, the camera would trip and issue a ticket for failure to stop. Generated millions in fines.
Let’s get serious. The tech exists, and is in use abroad, to display, in seconds, the time until the light is going to turn red (or green).If you are serious about wanting to facilitate the safe flow of traffic you will make a serious study of what effect such a digital display of “time ’til red/time til green” has on the safe flow of traffic. With or without cameras. IMHO the digital display would moot the benefit of the camera.
” These motorists were all driving through a red light because they were being directed to do so by a police officer who was in the intersection directing traffic after the game.”
Yes, I was first in an intersection (in my taxi, with a passenger) when the cops pulled up behind me sirens blaring.
I had a red light.
I did not enter the intersection.
The cops blew, beeped, finally used their megaphone: “TAXI!! GET OUT OF THE WAY”
But I was scared to enter the intersection on a red.
I was afraid there was a camera. Then it’s ON ME to prove the negative. I have to give up a day of work, show up, and hope I get some justice. Which in my case has been usually denied.
Also I was afraid I’d get hit by a car coming through their green light.
And I had a passenger.
I finally inched into the intersection to let the cop go and he yelled at me something fierce, big red face.
I am really cooperative with cops. What do they expect? When they do these things to people?
No ticket appeared in my mail, thankfully.
“a$700???? In Texas, the red light camera tickets are $75.”
Welcome to San Francisco. It’s more like $900 now.
It’s almost $1000. Seriously. How are the poor supposed to pay for this? Of course, they should never run a red. But sometimes you make a “small” mistake, sometimes it’s in the best interest of safety, and sometimes the yellow is shortened.
A red light camera is an electronic piece of equipment. It has NO political agenda.
It does NOT know the economic strength or weakness of the person who runs the light.
This kind of pass being given to a poor driver will cause more accidents. Red light runners are as dangerous than drunk drivers-—and drunks who run red lights are the worst.
It also is not a witness, and someone charged with running a red light has the right to confront the witness who is testifying against them. Absent a human who is able to serve that role, a red light camera is absolute horseshit, IMHO.
That's why challenging red light camera evidence in court has been highly successful, in general. They're just a bad idea which negate a critical feature of American Justice...
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.