So there’s a report on Fox News (sorry no link) about cities and private companies getting rid of traffic camera programs, because they’re too effective (people obeying laws due to the cameras presence).
All this tells me is that it was never about saving lives or getting citizens to obey the law, but more about padding their bottom line as usual. Thus, remove the cameras and people will start breaking the law again = more profits.
And I’m sure this will be a cyclic thing (place or remove cameras based on demand for money or expectations of law breaking).
Red light and speed cameras have been a hot point of debate in Arizona.
It is all about the money. When the state of Arizona made it illegal have a license plate frame on your car because it would block out “Arizona” on your license plate, I knew it was a scam.
Well…to play devils advocate, such a system takes resources to continue. The equipment needs to be maintained and monitored. So…if people have changed their habits and stopped running red lights then it would be a savings of money to the city if they could scale back or even discontinue the program (I bet they leave the camera housings up). Or maybe they are planning to simply shift the cameras to new locations.
I don’t think the cameras are just about the money, and I don’t think they’ve been dishonest about it. I didn’t notice any attempt to hide the fact that they hoped to make more money in addition to increacing safety. Taking the cameras out however… Encouraging dangerous behavior so they can catch you and write more tickets? That would be absolutely indefensible. I figured they’d just decreace speed limits, forcing everyone to drive over the limit.
Some cities have been caught shortening yellow lights to generate more revenue, which has been proven to also decrease safety. In those cases, it is certainly just about the money.
I believe some municipalities have even included language in camera laws that states the primary reason to allow cameras as safety, then have gone back and removed cameras when they didn’t generate enough revenue. I can’t locate the articles on that particular topic, but a diligent Internet searching may find them.
I know that. But to play bizzaro-devils advocate for a moment, we waste a lot of money on resources for lots of projects to continue. If it’s supposedly in the name of safety, wouldn’t we continue to throw money at it? I’m just pointing out the blatent hypocrisy and tactics used by local governments and private companies to swindle money out of motorists. And yes, people who break the laws should pay their fines (I’m not saying they shoudn’t), but there is manipluation with these systems that just isn’t right. It’s just been made even more obvious with them taking these programs away because, “people are following the law now, and we won’t make money, wah wah; let’s take it away to get our revenue back”.
I think it’s about the laws being wrong. The speed limits too low. And when everyone was forced to obey they realized what bullshit it was. What is really ironic and messed up, though, is that the governments aren’t structured to actually rewrite the laws appropriately. It’s a sick fact that they’d rather take down the cameras and let everyone speed than raise the limits. The latter would make them look soft on safety.
But also, laws should never be 100% enforced. It just ends up being unjust. Again, it’s the problem with the laws themselves. They’re simplistic, yes/no. (A lot like trying to make AI using if/else statements.) Sometimes there’s good reasons to do what is technically illegal, and 100% enforcement ends up being against the good. Again, it’s sad that we can’t be more responsible and enlightened when creating the laws in the first place.
Since a red-light running scumbag nearly killed my wife, I’m not impartial about this issue. The real problem is not profit, it is the lack of taxpayer support for things that make the streets safer. Red light cameras give feedback, since you see the flash when someone runs it, which makes everyone stopped at an intersection aware of it. It clearly works at making intersections safer; the ones near me have a lot fewer red light runners after the cameras went in. The problem is that since this is contracted out, the company doing it needs a revenue stream, which decreases because of the effectiveness of the cameras. The right thing to do would be to pay a minimum fee per camera even if ticket revenue doesn’t come in, and consider it a good thing. This is one more example of something where the good old capitalist profit motive doesn’t work.
I am sorry about your wife, but what this really shows is that we are not prepared to pay for the level of safety you want, which I suppose you mean by “consider it a good thing”. There are lots of laws where the cost of total compliance is either prohibitive in terms of the monetary cost or in terms of the loss or privacy or liberty.
To play, uh… non-bizarro devil’s advocate
Even if they remove the cameras which aren’t generating revenue, that doesn’t neccessarily prove that revenue is their priority. Cameras would obviously be most effective where the problem is the worst. Either because an intersection get’s a lot of traffic in general, or some other factor which leads to more dangerous driving there. If a camera isn’t catching anyone, that means the costs of maintaining that camera are being wasted (regardless of wether your focus is money or safety) so it’s entirely reasonable to remove or relocate it.
The short yellow light thing is a real kick in the teeth… I always try to stick to a policy of never assuming a conspiracy where it could just be incompetence, but even so it’s infuriating.
Chances are, the intersections with short yellows, were that way long before the cameras were installed, and those who knew there were a lot of accidents and running reds there, never bothered to ask why. Those intersections would then be singled out as prime candidates for a camera. All without anyone realizing it was the lights which were the problem, not the drivers. Even still, I get the feeling, in a situation like that, somebody must have at least suspected what the real issue was, but didn’t want to bring it up when there was money to be made.
Anyway, I’m sure before they had the cameras they often had officers at those intersections to hand out tickets. Since short yellow lights are just as much of a problem with or without the cameras, I don’t think it has much bearing on the issue.
I think there are two types of traffic cameras being discussed by different people here. ParentalAdvisory seems to be talking about the speed cameras that snap a picture if someone is going 5-10+ miles over the posted speed limit while you seem to be referring to red light cameras that snap a picture 2-5 seconds after a traffic light turns red.
I haven’t seen too many people opposed to red light cameras. A decent percentage of people seem to be hostile to speed cameras.
Under that theory, since I have a home alarm system, and my house has never been broken into, it would make sense to remove the system and save money.
Doesn’t your analysis ignore the idea that the reason that there aren’t many red light runners at that intersection BECAUSE of the presence of the camera?
I’m with the OP in that this confirms what we’ve known all along: Traffic law enforcement is solely about revenue for the local governments. When you bring this up, many defenders, even on this board, point out how enforcement is revenue neutral, it’s for the children, etc., but any proposal to lessen/defer the financial penalties associated with the laws are met with stiff resistance. I think we are seeing a perfect example of that…
I am opposed to red light cameras. This is because that even though they decrease the number of side collisions, they increase the number of rear-end collisions.
In Albuquerque, NM the problem is that the cameras are a cash cow for a private contractor. The city allows the company to install the cameras, which also does all the enforcement, and the city gets a cut of the revenue. We were assured that this was all about safety, and profit never entered into it.
Couple problems with that:
In New Mexico, all traffic fines are supposed to be payed to the state, and the municipality gets a cut of those that happened in thier juristiction. So the state legislature put a stop to Albuquerque’s traffic camera profit scheme…and the Mayor promptly announced that the cameras would come down. No large profit, no point in having them…even though the deterrance effect would be exactly the same.
Due to issues with due process, and to try to circomvent state law mentioned above, the fines were labled “administrative”. This meant that while the fines increased dramatically for subsequent offences, no “points” were accumulated towards loss of driving privlege. If the goal is safety, wouldn’t you want to take the frequent offender’s license away? It was wideley suspected that the “no points” tactic was used to encourage people to just pay the fine rather than hassle with fighting it…more profit! In an attempt to address the due process issues, a special appeals process was set up which operated outside the normal traffic court system. Few could see a reason for a seperate process, unless special large marsupial rules were to apply.
In order to provide sufficient profit for the private company, fines were several times what the same offense would net were it enforced by a police officer. Besides fairness issues (same act, wildly different punishment) many of us have basic issues with privitization of public safety functions, including for-profit prisons.
Beyond this, I don’t think the cameras have nearly the deterrant effect of live enforcement. Saving time is the goal of running the light, and sitting at the side of the road while the officer spends 10-30 minutes issuing a ticket pretty well negates that. Beyond the fine, the time cost and humiliation of getting the ticket provide a much stronger disincentive than getting a bill in the mail a few weeks later.
So if police aren’t catching people, does that mean we should reduce the number of police? Or is it, in part, the police presence reducing crime (or traffic violations if you want to confine it to that). It seems to me that tying profit to law enforcement and justifying a reduction in enforcement because it’s not making money isn’t very sensible. Police departments aren’t intended as profit centers for government, are they?
The article I linked points out that at least a couple of the jurisdictions explicitly lowered yellow light times prior to installation of cameras. Another jurisdiction apparently did it surreptitiously and was caught by a local TV station. There is no conspiracy, but the only sensible assumption is that they did it to raise money, not increase safety, particularly coupled with research that suggests increasing yellow light times is an effective way to reduce accidents.
What is a prohibitive cost is a matter of opinion. I suspect the cost of running this at critical intersections is a tiny fraction of road construction. Privacy? Hardly - there is no expectation of privacy when in public, and the camera is triggered by a probable cause situation - when someone enters an intersection when the light has gone red. I also don’t see any loss of liberty, or any more than the loss when a drunk is pulled over.
I’m surprised that this law didn’t already exist. It should have. Anything that prevents a license plate from being easily identifiable and readable should be illegal.
