# Traffic cameras too effective, the law never mattered. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364 "2009-04-26T00:03:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/21 "2009-04-26T19:11:48Z")
Wow, I didn’t realize there were companies cashing in trying to turn law enforcement into a profit scheme. Only in America? > [@](#): > > 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. > > They increase the number of traffic accidents. Yes, that makes sense. This reflects to my earlier post about how modern laws are flawed and lack any sort of nuance and flexibility. In some circumstances you should run the red light instead of slamming on the breaks. Do people see what I was talking about? A more complex formula might take into account how long the light has been red, whether the traffic is dense, etc., when not just deciding ‘guilt’, but when calculating the fine. Moreover, such a proposal is _feasible_ with tech like cameras and computers. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/22 "2009-04-26T19:13:32Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > 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. In most states, however, the state’s name on the license plate isn’t at the very top - meaning that just about any license plate frame or cover wouldn’t obscure at all the state’s name. In Arizona, for some reason, the state’s name on the license plate is much closer to the very top of the plate. This means that all but the thinnest (or no) license plate frames cover some part of the word “Arizona.” If the State legislature is so concerned about this issue for public safety reasons, then they should slightly modify the plate so that the word “Arizona” is lower and thus not obscured by most license plate frames. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/23 "2009-04-26T19:20:11Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > modern laws are flawed and lack any sort of nuance and flexibility. I misspoke. They certainly have some nuance and flexibility. But much of it isn’t formal or enshrined in our philosophy of law. In practice, a judge or cop does subjective, weighed reasoning. But all that’s lost when you put up an autocamera. And we are not aware that something big is missing. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/24 "2009-04-26T19:24:22Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > In most states, however, the state’s name on the license plate isn’t at the very top - meaning that just about any license plate frame or cover wouldn’t obscure at all the state’s name. Having the state’s name at the bottom also causes it to be obscured by most frames. > [@](#): > > If the State legislature is so concerned about this issue for public safety reasons, then they should slightly modify the plate so that the word “Arizona” is lower and thus not obscured by most license plate frames. People don’t need frames. If they must have one for whatever reason they may have, they can buy one that doesn’t cover up any of the number, state, or expiration date. Or go with a window decal or bumper sticker. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/25 "2009-04-26T19:43:25Z")
In a related theme. Detroit turned privatized parking tickets a few years ago. The company got a percentage. Soon they were sending parking tickets to upstate drivers. The drivers wrote to the court saying they were not in Detroit at that time. The were told go to court and prove it. So many people just sent the money in to avoid a day off work and a fun day in court. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/26 "2009-04-26T21:46:11Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Having the state’s name at the bottom also causes it to be obscured by most frames. > > People don’t need frames. If they must have one for whatever reason they may have, they can buy one that doesn’t cover up any of the number, state, or expiration date. Or go with a window decal or bumper sticker. Whatever. Most states don’t feature the state name at the very top or very bottom of the plate. Instead, it’s usually somewhere in the top half, like California or Louisiana, where just about any license plate frame could not obscure any part of the name or the plate number. No, people don’t need license plate frames, but the state of Arizona is the entity that designed the latest plates, knowing at least afterward that most frames covered up part of the state name. Years later, with no particular evidence that this is that much of a problem for law enforcement, the state legislature passed a law making any frame covering up any part of the name illegal. In addition, the fine for doing this is roughly double that of a typical 5-10+ mph speeding ticket and also gives police authority to make a traffic stop for this basis alone. Rather than fixing a non-issue that Arizona itself could have and should have foreseen when they commissioned the latest plate, the state legislature would just rather adopt another de facto vehicle tax. And plate frames aren’t just a matter of expression. The average plate frame on a vehicle bought from any given car dealer would likely violate the Arizona law. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/27 "2009-04-26T22:40:55Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > Most states don’t feature the state name at the very top or very bottom of the plate. Instead, it’s usually somewhere in the top half, like California or Louisiana, where just about any license plate frame could not obscure any part of the name or the plate number. [Colorado.](http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1177024843150&pagename=Revenue-MV%2FRMVLayout) [Missouri.](http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/motorv/licplate.htm#viewplate) [New York.](http://www.nysdmv.com/cplates.htm) [Georgia.](http://motor.etax.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/platesamples.aspx) [Michigan.](http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1585_1595_1607---,00.html) [Oregon.](http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/vehicle/plates.shtml#License_Plate_Display) I shan’t continue. Arizona’s plates are no different from most of these. Even your example of Louisiana has the name right between the holes at the top of the plate. (California’s is a bit lower.) Most? > [@](#): > > And plate frames aren’t just a matter of expression. The average plate frame on a vehicle bought from any given car dealer would likely violate the Arizona law. In that case, they’re advertising the dealer. If they violate the law in their state by covering up license plate information, yes, they should be removed. In case you can’t tell, I’m not wholly sympathetic to the idea that there is some sort of right to have a frame around your license plate. Nor do I especially care if Arizona passed the law solely to make it easier for photo radar. It’s a good law, even if this particular state may have passed it for a bad reason. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/28 "2009-04-27T01:08:24Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > 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. A more accurate comparison would be if you had 2 houses but one of them was in a bad neighborhood and was being broken into all the time. It would make more sense to have the security system in the house that’s having the frequent break-ins. > [@jtgain](#): > > 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? That fact wasn’t included in my analysis because neither I, nor the cities in question can know that’s the case. But even if it were true, The city could conceivably conceal their relocation of the camera from the people who have developed the habit of slowing down for that intersection. That way it would still make sense to move the camera to somewhere else where dangerous driving was a more serious problem. Btw, I don’t actually believe traffic cameras reduce side collisions, or any other accidents for that matter, and I highly doubt _anything_ the government does is ever really revenue neutral. 🙂 > [@Kevbo](#): > > 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. I would think the reason they took all the cameras down is that the company they were contracting with wasn’t interested in working for the city for free. Obviously if they can’t pay for it, the cameras would come down. > [@Kevbo](#): > > 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! I don’t think there’s any basis for that suspicion however. If they only decided to label the charges as administrative once their original payment scheme fell through it seems unlikely this was some attempt to indirectly squezze people for greater ammounts of money rather than just trying to salvage the work they had already put into the project. > [@theR](#): > > 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’s sort of a ballancing act isn’t it? You need to use resources where they are needed but your main method of knowing where they’re needed is when they fall short. If you have dozens of cops just hanging around doing nothing day after day, it makes sense a few of them should spend their time patroling somewhere where crime is more of a problem. > [@theR](#): > > tying profit to law enforcement and justifying a reduction in enforcement because it’s not making money isn’t very sensible. I agree, but I’m not sure it’s a safe assumption that they reduced enforcement just because it wasn’t making enough money. I think they use the number of tickets issued as a measurement of how much a particular area requires enforcement. If that number drops too low, they respond by using their resources elsewhere. Somewhere they think they are more needed. This makes even more sense if they think they can do this without affecting the behavior of the people in the previous camera location (which they can do if they can keep people from knowing they’ve moved the camera) > [@theR](#): > > The article I linked points out that at least a couple of the jurisdictions explicitly lowered yellow light times prior to installation of cameras It isn’t entirely clear wether many of the lights whoose time were lowered correspond to where the cameras were installed. I would suspect not. Even if they were creating a hazzard just to issue tickets, They are no more likely to do so with the cameras than when they handed out tickets in person. I think it’s a seperate issue, and resolving it would require information a little less biassed than that site. 🙂 I guess what I’m trying to say is that sometimes, even when people are doing something wrong, you have to give them the benifit of the doubt as to why they are doing it. When you demonize people, you are almost always incorrect, few people are really that bad. They’re just misguided. You can’t shame these people into doing the right thing if they truly believe they are looking out for your best interests. In order to resolve the problem you have to see why they are doing what they are doing. You can’t make a real argument against them if you always assume the worst about them. That only creates polarization and makes everyone involved less likely to look as the issues rationaly. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/29 "2009-04-27T01:20:43Z")
I really hate to even admit this, because I’m fundamentally against the cameras, but I sheepishly declare that I like them. Why? They’ve relieved congestion by unbelievable amounts. I drove the same route to work for nearly 3 years. Halfway through that, the cameras were installed. After a brief honeymoon period of everyone getting flashed, people sort of collectively decided to drive a similar speed. Before it was one guy going 5 under, one guy going the speed limit, one guy going 5 over, 10 over, 15 over, 20 over, etc, etc. Chaos. Severe speed differences cause erratic lane-changing and braking which cause congestion and traffic waves (meaning parking lot conditions.) Now everyone sort of moseys on down the highway within about 10mph of each other and traffic is a breeze almost all day. I do wish there was some other way to acheive this. I’ve heard that in England the police sometimes pace the traffic for the same effect. ---
**Author:** ![Fir\_na\_tine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Fir\_na\_tine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fir_na_tine)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/30 "2009-04-27T15:26:31Z")
At some point last year there was an article in the Washington Post about the red light cameras in the DC and MD area. The consensus of the writers was that they were very effective in reducing the number of T bone accidents at the intersections that were so equipped. The article had numerous statistical charts and graphs accompanying it that supported the story. The article emphasized that the yellow light time interval had to be standardized for all the lights and that there was an introductory period with no penalty for people to get used to the idea. The fine amount was the same as the previous fine for a hand written summons. Revenue increased only because the cameras don’t need a salary, don’t need food or water breaks and are effectively on duty 24/7. FWIW, there was no reported increase in rear end collisions. No link as I don’t even remember which month the article ran. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/31 "2009-04-27T16:47:52Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > A more accurate comparison would be if you had 2 houses but one of them was in a bad neighborhood and was being broken into all the time. It would make more sense to have the security system in the house that’s having the frequent break-ins. A better example would be a junkyard dog in the yard of the house. I don’t think you can expect the house to be as safe with the dog removed, even if the breakin rate had gone to zero with him. > [@](#): > > That fact wasn’t included in my analysis because neither I, nor the cities in question can know that’s the case. But even if it were true, The city could conceivably conceal their relocation of the camera from the people who have developed the habit of slowing down for that intersection. That way it would still make sense to move the camera to somewhere else where dangerous driving was a more serious problem. The cameras near me emit a bright flash as they take a picture of a red light runner, so I think it would be difficult to conceal. In any case, if the purpose of them is public safety, concealing the cameras would be pointless. A better alternative would be to have fake cameras, but I suspect the identify of the fake ones would soon be known. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/32 "2009-04-27T19:23:59Z")
Ah, but they only trigger the flash if they run the light… If nobody is running that light, how can anybody notice the absence of the flash? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/33 "2009-04-28T12:56:16Z")
> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#): > > 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. Well, we’re not talking about **total** compliance. But this might not be a “prohibitive” cost, but an example of a _shifted_ cost – instead of paying $x, now, for public safety, the state pays $y in future lost tax revenue from killed or disabled residents, and other parts of the financial cost are shifted onto those unlucky souls who get hit by whatever red-light-runners would have been deterred by a camera. But those costs are hidden, or harder to think about, so officials can put off the visible, up-front cost more easily. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/34 "2009-04-28T16:51:41Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > Ah, but they only trigger the flash if they run the light… If nobody is running that light, how can anybody notice the absence of the flash? Ours do random flashes for some reason, even when no one is running the light. No matter, someone will run the light once in a while, and everyone at the intersection will see it. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/35 "2009-04-29T02:40:04Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > 1. 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. Im not sure if this is the “due process issues” that you were alluding to but ill throw it out there anyways. I think it would be difficult to justify the revocation of someones driving privileges if you can’t prove that they were behind the wheel when the picture was taken. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364/36 "2009-04-29T23:27:29Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > Just another fleecing of the public. Years ago Car and Driver ripped apart a study that purported the intersection cameras had improved safety. The authors claimed that collisions had decreased after the cameras’ installation, but Patrick Bedard pointed out that they had eliminated the crashes _outside the intersection itself_. The crashes as people laid rubber coming to a stop had increased markedly. It’s all about the money. Here’s the column: [http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c\_d\_staff/patrick\_bedard/rear\_end\_crashes\_go\_up\_after\_red\_light\_cameras\_go\_in\_column](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/patrick_bedard/rear_end_crashes_go_up_after_red_light_cameras_go_in_column) [QUOTE=Patrick Bedard] Looking at the data, Kadison could reduce rear-enders down to a single-digit share only by narrowing the definition of intersection to “between crosswalks.” Narrowing that way chops off the entire approach to the intersection, exactly where rear impacts happen. It looks like IIHS purposely designed its study to avoid seeing rear-enders. [/quote] Here’s another great point from another column: [QUOTE=Patrick Bedard] Common sense says if the offense is grievous enough to need surveillance by electronic means, then it’s also threatening enough that the perp ought to be stopped immediately. That’s what an officer does when he hands a ticket in through your lowered window. But sending out a notice in bulk mail, to be opened a few weeks later, has too much in common with credit-card billing to be confused with law enforcement. Moreover, if these traffic transgressions are truly dire, then authorities are obligated to grab the right guy. The officer at your window performs that service, too. But Instamatic justice doesn’t even try. The car owner gets the ticket, no matter who is driving. And if the owner didn’t do it, and can prove same by showing his face is not the one in the photo, most jurisdictions still make him pay. They let him off only if he rats out the actual driver. [/quote] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-cameras-too-effective-the-law-never-mattered/494364.md?page=1)