A DIFFERING VIEW: A yellow light on red-light cameras
A DIFFERING VIEW
The Rocky Mountain News’ praise for red-light cameras (“Red light crackdown,” Aug. 6) fails to take into account the probability of abuse by government.
Humans beings are fallen creatures. Economic incentives are powerful forces that are hard to resist, especially when tied to the power and immunity of government. These cameras pose the threat of being used more for revenue than for safety.
In other cities, such as Washington, D.C., and San Diego, the officials who make policy decisions have been accused of tampering with the timing of the yellow cycle in order to increase the number of citations. The shorter the yellow cycle, the more cars passing through will be unable to stop before the light goes to red and the more citations will be issued.
Do you think our politicians and bureaucrats are so pure they won’t be tempted? There is a way to remove the temptation, and that is too have all the revenue generated go the state’s general fund and not allow any municipality to have any part of it that exceeds the actual cost of acquiring and operating the cameras.
If that were the case, you wouldn’t see these cameras anywhere and we would know for sure that the desire for the revenue to be had is the real motivation, and that safety is simply a red herring.
A better and more honest way to reduce collisions at problem intersections is to simply increase the yellow cycle. But there is no revenue to be had, so that’s not even considered.
Ken Willis is a resident of Denver.
In the name of safety Ken. Instead of putting your foot into it as the yellow light comes on and trying to race through the intersection. How about doing what the yellow light was created for. Thats slowing down and prepareing to stop.
Posted by on August 9, 2007 05:34 AMThis is the same sort of argument against traffic (speed) cameras.
If you don't put yourself in the position (IE gunning it when you see yellow) you wont get your picture taken....
Posted by Brian on August 9, 2007 05:48 AM"A better and more honest way to reduce collisions at problem intersections is to simply increase the yellow cycle"
So even more drivers can run the yellow light!
Posted by on August 9, 2007 06:08 AMThe above three comments not only miss the point, they ignore Newtonian physics. Stopping distance is not zero.
Suppose there was no yellow cycle. The light just went from green to red. If that were the case only cars a certain distance from the intersection would be able to stop in time. The yellow cycle exists to allow for stopping distance, and it is engineered to a certain number of seconds depending upon the average speed of traffic at that location.
At those rare locations where there is a light-signal controlled intersection on a road with a high speed limit you may have noticed that a relatively long yellow cycle exists. Well, until red-light cameras are installed. Then we will likely see a second or two loped off the yellow cycle.
Posted by Ken Willis on August 9, 2007 08:18 AMAs you know, letter writers don't make the headlines for their letters. Whoever wrote the one for my letter is pretty clever. Wish I'd thought of it.
Posted by Ken Willis on August 9, 2007 08:31 AMSo Ken,
If the local government makes $100,000 per year on their red light cameras and saves 5 lives in the process, you'd be against it because the government makes money, even though this money would be used to pay for more safety officers, road repair/improvements, etc.
Sending the money to the state's general fund is really a waste (we've seen the crap our politicians spend meony on)
Posted by on August 9, 2007 08:41 AMWith the increase in privatization of government, I'm not sure the point is valid and who really profits. Most yellow lights last at least 4 seconds. Yellow lights mean: prepare to stop, not stomp on it.
Posted by on August 9, 2007 08:57 AMRunning red lights seems to be a growing pastime in Denver. I can only shake my head when I watch how many cars cruise through on red - I have cars go by me & through the intersection even after I've come to a stop at a red light sometimes.
Cameras are way overdue - bring them on!
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 09:24 AMI have a question that is not usually addressed.
How are traffic cameras legal? Where is not only the due process, but our right to confront our witnesses (in essence, how can a picture testify, and in the case of Boulder, the fine is the same, because of court costs that are mandated to the accused, that there is no benefit to going to court)? Why is it that the burden of proof now rests with the accused to prove it was either not their vehicle, or not them driving, when the burden in criminal court is ALWAYS on the prosecution?
This is just another erosion of our rights in the name of safety.
Posted by on August 9, 2007 09:31 AMAanother erosion of our rights? What rubbish! How about not breaking the law? If one does not run red lights one does not have to worry about a ticket from a red light camera.
having lived in San Diego the cameras are not that bad. Drivers are warned what intersections they are at and it does deter people from running red lights.
Why have longer yellow cycles? So impatient selfish people can continue doing what they want to. The yellow was only intended to be run by those that had already started entering an intersection not those that have plent of time to stop for a red.
And how about due process. The prosecution's burden of proof has been met. They have a picture of the car, plate and driver. If it is not you goto the courthouse and prove it no big deal.
But as for an erosion of rights, when did breaking the law and not getting caught doing so become a right. How about taking some time to thinking before saying ones rights are being taken away over every little thing. You have the choice not to run red lights and red light cameras ensure that you make the correct choice. If one is so worried about the cameras you also have another choice.......WALK
Posted by Marinecorpsat on August 9, 2007 09:52 AMAanother erosion of our rights? What rubbish! How about not breaking the law? If one does not run red lights one does not have to worry about a ticket from a red light camera.
having lived in San Diego the cameras are not that bad. Drivers are warned what intersections they are at and it does deter people from running red lights.
Why have longer yellow cycles? So impatient selfish people can continue doing what they want to. The yellow was only intended to be run by those that had already started entering an intersection not those that have plent of time to stop for a red.
And how about due process. The prosecution's burden of proof has been met. They have a picture of the car, plate and driver. If it is not you goto the courthouse and prove it no big deal.
But as for an erosion of rights, when did breaking the law and not getting caught doing so become a right. How about taking some time to thinking before saying ones rights are being taken away over every little thing. You have the choice not to run red lights and red light cameras ensure that you make the correct choice. If one is so worried about the cameras you also have another choice.......WALK
Posted by Marinecorpsat on August 9, 2007 09:53 AMI hope those who don't bother to post are reading a little more carefully than some of you who do post. Nobody is advocating running red lights, OK?
But if the cameras are rigged to give tickets to people who really didn't run the light but got caught because the yellow cycle was shortened, wouldn't you be offended? Wouldn't you think an injustice had occurred? And wouldn't that make the intersection less safe?
Try reading what the letter says, and then react.
As to the last post on whether these cameras are legal, they are as far as I know. Most traffic infractions have been de-criminalized so it is a civil matter and the burden of proof remains on the government. Even though it is a civil matter the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases, not a preponderance of the evidence as in civil cases. The photo, once authenticated, makes the government's prima facie case and it is then up to the defendant to go forward with evidence to refute it. The ultimate burden of proof is on the government.
Don't run any red lights, it is not only illegal it is dangerous to your health. But if they shorten the yellow cycle to entrap you, you might consider wearing a halloween mask whenever you drive. Or not driving at all because a shorter yellow cycle not only makes the cameras work overtime, it will also result in more intersection collisions.
Posted by Ken Willis on August 9, 2007 10:02 AMDon't anyone tell drew, but I agree with him.
Anon:
"How are traffic cameras legal? Where is not only the due process, but our right to confront our witnesses"
You still have the right to a trial and to question the equipment used to verify the infraction, same as a breathalizer used for DUI.
You can question the people programming and operating the equipment, check calibration records, etc... and have your day in court.
Most people though realize they were in the wrong and just pay the fine. Hopefully they also learn something in the process and drive more carefully as a result.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 10:04 AMWow, KW, an auspicious day indeed!
Posted by drew on August 9, 2007 10:41 AMThanks for answering, but I was not limiting my question to just red light cameras, but also speed cameras as well.
And red light cameras only take a picture of the car and the license plate, not the driver. So the burden is of proof should still be on the prosecution. I see by decriminalizing this, they get away with not having to following Constitutionally protected criminal court proceedings. Interesting.
Thanks for checking in on this. I have not gotten a ticket in Colorado, but always wondered how these things pass constitutional muster. Now I know!
Posted by on August 9, 2007 10:46 AMThe truth of the matter is this is another
ABUSE by local goverment, in collusion
with the courts and without due process
for citizens in the People Republic of Colorado.
The people who talk about lives being saved
are fooling themselves, nobody else.
We have to be responsible and practical
measures to drive safely, or just hand
over our lives and family to government.
Ken has a good point when he mentions lengthening the yellow cycle.
100 feet before you reach an intersection, you are in what is called "the dilemma zone." Transportation experts call it that becuase, when the light goes yellow, it creates a dilemma for drivers.
Here's the dilemma:
The light is yellow. Do you have time to stop before before you reach the intersection? Would stopping require you to slam on your brakes, creating a hazard for traffic behind you?
In the dilemma zone, drivers have to use judgement, training and experience and consider their speed, the size of their vehicle, traffic behind them and the road and weather conditions.
What harm would it do to add a little more time to the yellow cycle?
Sure, some idiots would run the light -- but they do that already. The goal is supposed to be saving lives and preventing accidents -- not making the most money from honest drivers' mistakes.
Posted by Republican Guy on August 9, 2007 11:09 AMA good backgrounder on this issue is at the ABC News site. Do a web search for "Do Red-Light Traffic Cameras Help?"
See also my article about it at
www.freecolorado.com/2003/01/redlight.html
Brian
Posted by Brian Schwartz on August 9, 2007 11:19 AMDrew gives us another great example of the coward wing of the Democrat party.He is so fearful of being hurt that he would have the government put cameras at every stop light.Good job Drew.
Posted by An American on August 9, 2007 11:25 AM"Would stopping require you to slam on your brakes, creating a hazard for traffic behind you?"
As long as the drivers behind you are following at the required distance this doesn't become an issue.
But if they drive in violation of the law, as red light runners, speeders, etc... do, only then does it become a problem, for them.
Posted by KW on August 9, 2007 11:53 AMHERE'S A LITTLE TIDBIT FROM THE BOULDER CAMERA
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, PEOPLE!!!
Drivers who don't follow those basic rules will have more to worry
about in the city of Boulder next year. The city plans to expand its
photo-radar and red-light photo programs, both of which issue
"tickets" - see below - to drivers via automated devices.
The city now operates six red-light cameras, which snap photos of
vehicles and drivers that run red lights, and plans to add two more in
2007. The city also plans to double its fleet of photo-radar vans, from one to two.
Traffic planners say red-light photo devices have reduced violations
at relevant intersections by an impressive 57 percent (based on 2002
figures, the most recent available). But they also acknowledge that
they also tend to increase rear-end collisions.
We're all for anything that helps reduce dangerous driving (though
some strategies, such as traffic circles, are themselves rather
dangerous and poorly understood by most drivers).
But in the interest of full disclosure, here are a few things Boulder
drivers might want to know about what the Legislature calls "automated
vehicle identification devices."
The "ticket" you receive in the mail is anything but. It is merely a
request that you pay up. Suggestions you may receive by phone to pick
up an unspecified document at the police department are just that, requests.
To prosecute a photo violation, state and local law requires that you
actually be served - in person, by a "peace officer" - with a ticket
within 90 days. And even if requested to do so, you are not required
to pick it up.
If you are personally served with a ticket, you have the right to go
to court, just as with any other alleged offense. However, if you go
to court and are found guilty, a judge can add $60 to the maximum $75
fine allowed under state law.
Any offenses detected by automated devices cannot, by law, be reported
to the Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles. Violations - even if you
are found guilty in court - will not appear on your record; no "points."
And should your vehicle be detected by a device when you are not
driving, you do not have to snitch on who's behind the wheel. But you
can be required to demonstrate that the driver is not you.
Few drivers know the particulars of photo violations; most just send
in the fine. If more were aware, it might reduce revenue generated by
the program, while still causing alleged violators to think twice
before driving dangerously on city streets.
And that's OK. The goal, we presume, is increased safety, not "revenue
enhancement."
The city doesn't go out of its way to let citizens know about any of this.
But a squeamish Legislature put strict limits on automated devices
when it considered the issue back in 1999. We're glad they did.
"Little Brother is Watching You" strategies are becoming more common.
But as more of our lives are eyeballed by remote technological
devices, it's nice to know that we humans still have a say in all this.
Drive safely, and know your rights.
© 2006 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC.
How about we just finish the process now and require everyone to wear a personal minicam on their body. This would record all of the wearer's actions all day long. At midnight, the camera would send it's images, along with the wearer's Social Security number, to the State's central database. Each video would be reviewed on a daily basis for any illegal activity the wearer may have committed. Tickets for crimes such as murder, rape, theft, home invasion, dog fighting, public drunkenness, and jay-walking would be mailed directly to the wearer's residence.
This process would save lives. And it's no big deal because if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
Posted by John II on August 9, 2007 12:49 PMOr we could just do away with all laws, and then everyone would be happy. We could disband the police, judges, and all of those lawyers, think of all of the freedom we would have.
I have an idea. Why doesn't every one stop driving through red lights? Ill bet there's at least a full second between when a light turns red and the other turns green not to mention the time it takes to accelerate on the green light. So if you run a red light you are either not paying attention or you're doing it deliberately. Either way you shouldn't be on the street.
By the way, driving is not a right, it's a priviledge and if you abuse it, you should be penalized. Or better yet, stay off the streets so you won't have to worry about having your picture taken.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 9, 2007 01:30 PMJohnII, been reading “1984” ? ;)
It’s ironic that government will do things that undermine peoples trust in their motives which then leads to real differences in morbidity and mortality.
In this case people suspect that government would manipulate the yellow cycle not to increase safety, but to increase revenue from fines.
I remember an initiative to build “black box” recorders into cars which would not only give manufacturers insight into how their products were being used, but allow accident and normal-use data to better inform how intersections, lights, and roads are designed, and how signs should be placed. The net savings in lives could be in the order of 10,000 per year.
However, that data would undoubtedly also be used in court against some drivers, and potentially by government to level fines and penalties for speeding, etc.
So, a saving in lives cannot be achieved simply because of a lack of trust in government.
Same holds in discussions of healthcare.
Mr. Skank,
I almost entirely agree with your point. A certain level of distrust exists everywhere that potentially hurts people.
Your "black box" analogy is similar to the software world. Many software products, particularly from Microsoft, have features that allow the software to record usage data and send it back to the company. I always check "No, thanks." to this option even though there's a good chance that better software will result from the data collected.
There's a simple solution to the government's distrust problem: don't collect money from us. I understand there is a need for traffic law enforcement. I have no problem with that. A problem arises when the same people who make and enforce the laws also profit when others break those laws.
Look at the technology that is employed to enforce traffic laws: radar guns, laser guns, and video cameras. These technologies are used to enforce laws that are punishable by the imposition of fines. In other words, there is a monetary return on investment for the purchase of a laser gun.
What technologies are employed to prevent murders? Or robberies? Or rapes?
I grew up in the New York City area. I remember reading newspaper articles about female joggers who have been beaten, raped and killed while jogging during the evening hours in Central Park. Most people asked why these women were jogging after sundown. What I want to know is why there wasn't a fleet of cops armed with night-vision goggles to patrol the park at night.
I just read about a report regarding murders and blacks. Blacks comprise roughly half of America's muder victims as well as half of our murderers. This should not surprise anyone who has lived near a major city. Most of these murders happen in urban areas. What technologies are currently employed to protect blacks? Cameras? Laser guns? Radar? Night-vision goggles? No.
So, we are a perfectly justified in questioning the government's practice of monitoring and fining us.
Posted by John II on August 9, 2007 06:21 PMI totally agree with the last paragraph of Ken Willis that says "A better and more honest way to reduce collisions at problem intersections is to simply increase the yellow cycle." It's slightly longer in Southern California. This allows more time to stop from higher speeds without having to slam on the brakes. A no-brainer!
Posted by Jim on August 9, 2007 07:00 PMI totally agree with the last paragraph of Ken Willis that says "A better and more honest way to reduce collisions at problem intersections is to simply increase the yellow cycle." It's slightly longer in Southern California. This allows more time to stop from higher speeds without having to slam on the brakes. A no-brainer!
Posted by Jim on August 9, 2007 07:00 PMExcellent questions JohnII, and in my view perfectly right about the profit motive part too.
Posted by Bango Skank on August 9, 2007 07:16 PM