Which encourages them to write as many tickets as possible. Some even shorten the yellow to catch more.
This article cites a study which suggests otherwise. I’m sure we can find plenty more on both sides.
Admittedly, the data can be inconclusive, and many cameras haven’t been in place long enough to collect a statistically relevant sample size. But the OP asked for our own experiences, and in my experience I have definitely not observed any camera intersections becoming more hazardous than before.
Sometimes I go through the yellow, if I’m too close to the intersection to make a safe stop. That’s legal (even in Illinois!), and it always has been. I have not witnessed a preponderance of drivers standing on their brakes at the first flicker of yellow. But IMO, if you’re unable to stop before the light turns red, you’re probably not driving safely in the first place.
In the infamous Schaumburg case, it’s true that the camera turned into more of a cash machine than a safety device. As I recall (I looked in vain for a cite, sorry), the village decided to lower the fine for right-turn-on-red violations by half – but the third-party company that operated the camera refused to let them do so! I remember this because I was flabbergasted that a private firm had the power to set the fine amounts against the wishes of the actual authorities, but apparently they did, and Schaumburg eventually responded (rightly) by removing the cameras altogether.
So, yes, there’s definitely a case to be made that the cameras are there to boost revenue, and I agree that rolling a right-on-red is not a serious violation. And I’m not entirely comfortable with the can of worms that results from private, third-party companies running law enforcement efforts.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that running a red light is about the most dangerous thing a driver can ever do, and probably 99 times out of 100 it’s completely unnecessary. It infuriates me to see people doing it, and I wish a hefty fine or worse on every one of them.
I’d really like to agree with you, but the reason I can’t is that I really can’t recall seeing many people run red lights. On the few occasions I have seen it, it seems like 2 main streets are crossing, someone is approaching a light that changes at speed, and either rightly or wrongly decides that it is safer (or maybe just more convenient) to continue through than to stop. In just about every one of those cases, if the people on the cross street or oncoming traffic waiting to turn left are paying attention, they see the car and there is no danger. The biggest danger in those situations is people who feel the green light lets them stomp on the gas without checking.
What do you think about left turns? I don’t even know whether it is legal to pull into the intersection and wait to turn left. Should you not enter the intersection until it is clear for you to exit it? If I’m the first car waiting to turn left and the light turns yellow and then red before I can turn, do you believe that constitutes running the red? Should it merit a ticket? (I do not know whether it would with cameras.) How about the second car, which is also at least partially in the intersection? Once we get to the 3d or 4th car turning left as the light changes, I certaily agree that they are rude. And I guess I would agree that they are technically running a red. But I don’t think I would agree that what they are doing is dangerous.
The majority of the red light runners I see are like the 3d-4th car turning left. They are proceeding through the intersection at the flow of traffic. What they are doing is rude and illegal, but I do not see it as all that dangerous.
I certainly agree that if the light has changed and traffic is flowing, it is heinous for someone to blow the red. But I feel cameras are a blunt instrument aimed at a fine target.
Right on red is another grey area. IME, the worst result is that cars often fail to yield to (or even look for) pedestrians. I walk a lot, and am pretty adamnt about peds getting the right of way (at least when crossing in a crosswalk and with the light). At intersections where pedestrians are uncommon or not present, I generally see no problem with rolling right on reds.
BTW and OT - did you know that you do not necessarily have an unrestricted right to progress through an intersection on a green light, and if an accident occurs while you are doing so, you might be liable? Just sorta consistent with my undersatdning that for safe driving green does not necessarily always mean GO and red does not necessarily always mean STOP.
And, as I suggested above, my dislike for them is related to my dislike for the increased privatization of public functions for profit, and increased electronic surveillance intruding upon privacy.
You are correct that it usually takes two mistakes to create an accident. Sometimes drivers do start into the intersection as soon as the light turns green, with the erroneous assumption that all the cross-traffic will stop. That’s foolish, but it doesn’t absolve the red-runner who hits the fool.
But I’ll admit that this probably happens quite rarely at very busy intersections. Drivers who piggyback through after the red are more rude and jerkish than dangerous.
In fact, I would put forth that, ironically, heavy traffic can actually make the intersection safer, due to lower speeds and a generally higher level of awareness. Which is why I have to disagree with you about turning off the cameras during “non-peak” times. The less traffic is around, the more likely both drivers will be approaching the intersection at full speed, and such a crash can be devastating.
According to this website (I’m not certain of the veracity of the source, but it seems legit for the sake of this argument), it’s legal to move into the intersection on green while waiting to turn in Illinois, but not everywhere:
My understanding of the cameras in my area is that they won’t nail you if you enter the intersection on green, regardless of what happens after. So my feeling is, once you’re already in the intersection and the light changes, you want to complete your turn and get out of there as quickly as possible. Any non-turning oncoming traffic that runs the red can keep you from doing this, which creates a dangerous situation. And, as with non-turning cars, anyone who follows the legal turner through after the red is lit is a jerk.
Fair enough – you’re entitled to that opinion, but I don’t agree. Depending on the circumstances, running a red light is jerkish at best and highly dangerous at worst, but always illegal and should always earn a ticket.
This is where human intervention would be most beneficial. You have to yield to pedestrians and cross-traffic, of course. But if the intersection is clear this is no worse than rolling a stop sign, and I’d hope for the cops to be lenient – which was not the case in Schaumburg.
I’m with you up until your last comma, but I have no expectations of privacy while in public, and therefore I don’t object to the cameras on principle. when they start pointing them in my bedroom window, then we’ll talk.
I’ve noticed (myself included) people are more inclined to bully through a yellow if you’ve already waited a couple cycles.
you’re in a line of cars. Green light - 8 cars get through, red light, Green Again 8 cars go through and you are the ninth. If there’s even a sliver of yellow left I’ll probably go for it. Waiting through another cycle of red/green is agony.
I think this refers to the situation where traffic on the cross street is such that there is no room for you to clear the intersection when the light turns red. It is common practice to enter intersections for left turns on green in California.
As for Dinsdale I saw many, many cars run red lights at the intersection near my house before the camera was installed. At another crowded intersection where a lot of people were lined up to get on a road which fed into 880, 2 -3 cars on the average turned left on red after their signal changed - and starting from behind the line when it turned red, not in the intersection already. This also improved after the camera.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
Would you have any objection to speeding tickets being given based on tracking of drivers’ toll-pass transponder? How about requiring that such transponders be installed in all cars? Or maybe if cellphones could be tracked that precisely?
And if you have no expectation of privacy while in public, do you favor zero restrictions on police authority to stop and search your person/vehicle when outside of your house?
Knoxville, TN has them, and they’re not a big deal. I have some professor-friends here who get the tickets pretty regularly. It’s hard to argue that you ran a red light when they send you a hyperlink to a video of yourself running the light.
I haven’t gotten any tickets from them, so I assume that they give some good leeway for yellows and such. People around here can’t drive anyway, so anything that makes the road marginally safer is fine with me. ( I hear from my students that in TN you are only required to make 4 right turns in order to pass your driving test. Crazy.)
I would object to all of the above. Hopefully I can explain the apparent incongruity.
Imagine I left home for work one morning and noticed that there was a police officer standing on every single corner all the way, watching me as I drove by. Would they be within their rights to do this? I can’t think of a reason why not. And if one of those cops were to witness me breaking a law, they would similarly be within their rights to penalize me appropriately. I consider the red-light cameras to be something like this: an extention of the cops’ eyes, and the cops can act accordingly if any of their “eyes” actually witness me committing an infraction.
But, obtaining toll-pass records, cell phone logs, internet browsing history or Home Depot purchase records would all entail gathering information from civilian third parties, which requires a warrant, which requires probable cause. Same as searching my car requires probable cause. Cameras don’t change any of that. (Though, as I mentioned ealier, my one objection to the cameras is that they are often not directly run by police departments – I don’t know what percentage are handled by contractors, but maybe the Schaumburg fiasco has/will cut that down.)
Requiring tracking devices in cars seems unlikely from a constitutional standpoint, as it would be akin to forcing me to be a witness against myself. I don’t foresee it ever happening.
IANA lawyer, and I might be way off on all these points, but as an ordinary citizen I feel I’ve drawn a consistent line.
For whatever reason, it makes a difference to me whether a cop sees me commit a violation, or not.
Aren’t most redlight cameras installed and monitored by private companies which take a cut of the fines collected? I’m not sure I see that as significantly different from checking your toll-pass transponder to see if you get from one toll plaza to the next quicker than the speed limit would allow.
You refer to probable cause for searches, but don’t you consider that an aspect of your rights to personal privacy?
For me the issue isn’t one of direct rights or privacy infingement. The problem I have with automatic ticketing and monitoring is that the prime motivation for these systems is revenue collection, not protection or safety. Furthermore, they are often implemented at a municipality level but affect anyone, not just residents, that pass through that municipality and those persons have no vote or recourse into whether a system is fair, ethical, etc. Locals can adjust to the new rules and surveillance, but for everyone else it is a “gotchya” tax with little or no correlation to public safety.
That’s a shame. Walking around downtown, it’s obvious that I’m most likely to get hit by someone making a right turn on red without stopping, and in fact I’ve had some close calls.
Considering that getting hit by a car would suck so much, I’m up for hugely increased fees for not stopping for a right turn. And they need to enforce those fees; if that means more traffic cameras, then I’m all for it.
It still won’t be cheap - something like $250 instead of $500, which I think is more in line with the general danger. Best I could tell from a quick search is that the fine for not stopping at a stop sign (including a right turn) is $150 (3 years ago) and right on red violations would seem roughly equivalent.
When I walk my dog, I just assume that people are not going to stop when turning right on red - not that they have their turn signal on anyway.
I worry most about a car coming up behind me (i.e., I would be crossing an intersection while on the right-hand side of the street, so that I couldn’t see the car turning) and turning without looking for pedestrians. I don’t have any statistics, but I would bet that situation accounts for the majority of car/pedestrian deaths, at least from the close calls I’ve had: Turning right on red may not lead to a lot of high-impact accidents, but what may cause a dent when hitting another car could easily kill a pedestrian.
I don’t see any cost to drivers from stopping at red before turning right, and I see a whole lot of benefit to pedestrians, so I’d like to at least see the police enforce the fines that are in place.
Actually, with the computing power we have available to us, what I’d really like to see is multipliers for fines; e.g., not stopping before turning right: $250 fine. Same thing while pedestrian in crosswalk: 10x multiplier on fine and an extra point. That should be possible with traffic cameras and some programming, and could probably pay for itself.
When I’ve travelled to Cal and Mass, it is surreal the way cars actually yield to pedestrians. Completely unbelievable to this lifetime Chicagoan. I’ve gotta imagine that even if they slash the fines, you still are living in a pedestrian’s paradise.
I am a great fan of these cameras. I’ve been photographed twice, and didn’t get a ticket in either case, as I was legal. The reason I’m a fan is that there is an intersection that I use twice each day, and historically it was extremely common for folks to speed up on yellow and most likely run the red rather than realize that yellow means stop if safe. With the cameras installed, I would estimate that the number of red-lights-ran has decreased to about 10% of the pre-camera violations.
No, they are not perfect, but they do save lives in my opinion.
The question is whether that means fewer accidents. People seem to forget that stopping people from running the light is not itself the goal.
Camera-enforcement at stoplights is done to generate revenue, with a superficial pretension that safety is the driver. They have a trivial effect on safety except where they prevent obvious abuse of actually running a red light.
That is not, however, how they are used. They are used to generate revenue, particularly by such schemes as rolling right turns on red. Such rolling turns are often safer than a full stop despite being “illegal.”
Consider the parallel with speed limits. One could argue that 38 MPH in a 35 zone is illegal and therefore worthy of a ticket. In practice, an absolute enforcement of speed limit would not improve safety even though in general speed limits markedly improve safety.
It’s easy to show that the driver for red light cameras is revenue. Municipalities want to strike a balance between keeping the revenue stream intact and not annoying the public to the point where the cameras are removed. So here in my area, for instance, one gets a fine in the mail that is easily handled, difficult to contest and does not even create a record of infraction (because the fine is tied to the car license and not the driver). It’s not an effort to improve safety. The entire transaction is completely handled by the company providing the stoplight enforcement system, predicated on the awareness that fighting the ticket is impractical in the face of video “proof.” Therefore no extra burden is put on law enforcement or court systems.
It’s win/win/lose for red light camera companies, municipalities and drivers.
I suspect over time enough people will get annoyed and this goose laying this golden egg will be killed.
I would like to agree, but I fear otherwise. I think this is just too easy of a revenue stream. I don’t see municipalities giving it up in these economic times.
You describe the process quite well. Seems odd to me that such an apparent moving violation is codified as something else - IMO solely to enable the ease of revenue collection. As a general rule I find such distortions distasteful - even if done for a laudable purpose.
The fact remains that the ticketed actions ARE violations of the law. That is always a strong haven for proponents of various law-and-order policies. As the practice evolves you have too many people making money off of it - and lobbying for its expansion. Their voices (and dollars) are received far more readily by policy-makers than a group of disgruntled drivers who admittedly broke the law.
Do municipalities require revenue to operate? Do you enjoy having police & fire protection, parks, etc.? Wouldn’t it be nice to pay less taxes and have the revenue instead come from traffic violators? Tickets written by cops are revenue as well… should there be no fines for traffic violations then? I just don’t see how it fails to reduce red light running and the resulting accidents.