Posted in Misc | Posted on 05-22-2009 | 3,139 views
A few weeks ago I noticed a few utility trucks working at an intersection I drive through quite often. I thought maybe it was related to the fiber optic push the city is making (way cool, super high speed acces, more info at LUSFiber.org), or perhaps red light cameras...
Click to enlarge:
As time went on though, and work continued, I realized it was definitely red light camera related. What surprised me, and soon shocked me, was how intensive the camera setup became. It got to a point where I couldn't count the total number of cameras at this one intersection.
Now, let me be clear on something. I'm pro-red light cameras. I'm pro-speed vans. Frankly the argument that they invade your privacy is bunk. Outside, on a public road, in a multi-ton car? No, that's not private. I do know there are concerns that private companies are running them, but in my mind, if it lets the cops focus more on violent criminals, and slows people down, I'm all for it.
But I have to say - when I drive through this intersection now I feel like I'm in a prison, or in the middle of 1984. It's just... awe-inspiring the amount of camera "stalks" that are now set up. Check it out (and click to enlarge):
The street in question does suffer from speeder, but more so about 2 blocks down. This area is relatively stable as far as I know. In all my time on the road I've yet to see one accident. So what do folks think? Have you ever seen an intersection like this in your town? Is it overkill?
They also have facial recognition camera systems on trial in several cities that - in theory - can recognize and track 'people of interest' around the city...
Privacy in public places is an illusion.
BTW, next time you're in the Bay Area riding public transit, look for the cameras which keep an eye on all the passengers.
Probably an example of government adopting a technology before it's elegantly solved, but that's typically the method in American Capitalism: Government funds technical innovation until private firms start buying and streamlining the processes
The camera mounted with the stop light, the 'this is what you normally expect to see I think' image, is for counting the number of vehicles lined up. Lower maintenance than the old school inductive loop method and low res images as well. These cams aren't useful for speeding/red light runner identification.
I agree with Adam Ness about this likely stemming from integration issues.
Some lights are set up on timers, and some use underground sensors that are triggered when your car rolls over them. But lately I've noticed a trend of more and more traffic lights being converted over to the top mounted sensor. I even see these up at intersections that don't have speed cameras.
These don't have anything to do with the camera taking the picture of you speeding through a stop light. The big bulky ones on the poles beside the street are the ones that do that.
Most likely, as @Adam said, it's two separate projects and the govn't just got one contractor to install them both at once.
I'm 100% for personal responsibility but there will come a time in my lifetime where just being human will be a finable offense.
They are being used solely as ways to generate income and have almost nothing to do with safety.
"I'm pro-red light cameras. I'm pro-speed vans. Frankly the argument that they invade your privacy is bunk."
and
"But I have to say - when I drive through this intersection now I feel like I'm in a prison, or in the middle of 1984. "
What Sean said about England is correct, HOWEVER, it should be noted that more surveillance hasn't dropped the crime rate - Britain still has one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.
Not once did all of the surveillance stop, for example, the IRA from committing their crimes in Britain / Northern Ireland all through the 80's and 90's.
So, in the "sacrificing security vs. freedom" debate, when all of the "Big Brother" technology doesn't make you safer, what's left to sacrifice?
Singapore has one of the most extensive systems I've seen, where there are distance-based fees on driving:
http://www.lta.gov.sg/motoring_matters/index_motor...
jd
Now, getting to your analogy, if the end result "get drunk" then 10 beers would probably be the requirement, regardless of whether you liked, or wanted 10 beers! (suck it up dude!)
MY point is, that if you've subscribed to the notion that camera's ARE the way to stop speeding/red light running, then don't complain about the number of camera's erected. Leave it to the authorities to put up as many camera's as necessary in order to achieve the objective. If you think there are too many camera's, or you are living in a prison/1984, then let's come up with other solutions to solve the problem.
Maybe your sentiment would be better expressed as, "I'm okay with being watched as long as it's not obvious!"
:oD
Of course, Red-Light camera's and Speeding Camera's, etc., are great income generators for cities. :-)
1) Grandstanding politicians present the cameras with an emotional appeal to save lives and injury, and a financial argument that it will bring in money without raising taxes. The Public eats it up, the red light cameras come in.
2) A few months (or years) go by and politicians point out that side impact accidents have gone down dramatically. What the conveniently leave out is that rear end accidents have gone way, way up. For example: I Maryland, a 40% increase in rear-end accidents, in Georigia, 21%
Source: http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/05/maryland-county...
But, the red lights DO bring in some money...
3) So millions of dollars are flowing in to a cash strapped state. But its never enough, so creative legislators decide to shorten yellow light times.
(source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080410/01125780...)
The idea here is you'll catch more people, and this works for a while, until people adapt and get jumpy and start slamming on the breaks, which causes even more rear end accidents.
Now, onto some specifics. In Delaware, where I did manage to get access to the report delDOT produced, out of about $7 Million brought in by fines, about $5 Million went to the company operating the cameras. In connecticut. Thats $5 Million bucks shipped right out of the state economy. Its leaving and probably not coming back.
On top of that, because of the pesky constitution, you have the right to challenge your accuser. Delaware conveniently got around this by passing a law that said "well not for this, we're calling it a civil offense, so it doesn't count". Other states weren't accepting this. So anyone from out of state who ran a red light camera in Delaware did so with impunity, they did not have to pay the ticket, and Delaware had no way to enforce this. Delaware DID have to pay the company managing this anyway, so the net effect was a loss.
Overall, the state lost money, shipped wealth right into a private company in connecticut, and was only able to show a decrease in accidents at SOME of the intersections by THROWING OUT the first 3 MONTHS of data after the cameras were installed. They justified this by saying it was an adjustment period, so it didn't count.
Well for the people fined, and injured as a result, it does count.
I wonder how the 'you have to face your accuser' factors in in other cases. For example, if there is video evidence that you murdered someone, isn't that evidence even though you can't cross examine the camera?
Red light cameras throw this equation about of balance. Previously, people had to worry about whether or not they were safe, but now have to ALSO worry about whether or not they will get a ticket.
So you have situations where 2 people approach a red light, and it turns yellow. The 2nd person thinks, I can make this, and speeds up. And He may be right. But the first person thinks - I'm not getting another damned red light camera ticket, and breaks...on a yellow they could have made. Person #2 slams into the the rear.
Sure we could argue for safer driving practices, but if the goal is to reduce accidents, there is only one solution, and its free: Increase the yellow light time. Its the only scientifically proven method for reducing accidents. http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/10000-t...
For you're 2nd point, I'm not a lawyer, but in your example, the accuser would be whomever examined the tape. Then you could question them and try to prove it wasn't you, or the tape was a forgery, or whatever your defense was.
In the specific case of red light cameras in delaware, a policeman still had to review and "sign off" on them, but for one reason or another (unfortunately I cannot completely remember), the other states wouldn't accept this as good enough, or they didn't meet the burden of proof required.
The question is what are we going to do about the other jerks? The red light cameras provide some means of deterrance, but its passive. It cannot prevent someone from plowing into you.
I believe that extending the yellow light times works so well because it doesn't fight against human nature, it adapts to it. The bad drivers who were previously running red lights are now running yellows. They have been, in a sense, decriminalized.
perhaps a gps/dashcam in each car is what "we need" integrate it with the so called "black box" and if we get cited, our car can show the colr of the light, the time, and our speed and acceleration/deceleration rate.
My biggest beef with Red Light Camera's is that they (in NC at least) require you to pay before you can appeal. WTF?
1) The presumption of guilt. While there are definitely those who do run red lights, and commit other crimes, the camera implies that we all do.
2) No improvement to driving safety. As mentioned, cameras alter driving behavior in so much as to make it unpredictable. An unpredictable driver is the most dangerous. Additionally, if someone runs a red light because s/he is absent minded, if only temporarily, how will the camera, also to be unnoticed improve safety? If you want safer roads, we need roadways that are designed to accommodate human behavior, not repress it.
3) Cameras make crime pay. When a crime is committed, no one should profit from it: not the criminal, not the state, not 3rd party contractors. When revenue can be attached to a behavior, humans will find a way to increase it without a thoughtful regard to the consequences. Look to the confiscations related to enforcement of drug laws for the most egregious instances of excess.
I think it is possible my mindset might change once I have kids, but for now I think that the pursuit of safety often comes at too high a price.
to be fair though, most times the people who run those lights here are doing it deliberately. The only lights with red light cameras on them are on our main inter-state highway. Most of those intersections have warning lights on them that start flashing about 5 seconds before the traffic light ahead turns yellow (this is because we have a lot of road trains on these roads (trucks hauling up to 5 trailers) and they obviously need a lot of warning to stop). I think these warning lights, more than anything, have reduced accidents here - it amazes me how many people slow down on the warning even though the light is still green (you can make it through if you're just pulling level with the warning lights generally =))
Red light cameras ONLY work when proper engineering principles are NOT followed. There are formulas that are supposed to be followed to set the YELLOW LIGHT timing at a given intersection. When the yellow light timing is proper, red light cameras don't produce enough tickets to be profitable, and in most cases end up being removed.
ONLY in the cases where the yellow light timing is set too short do the cameras generate more tickets. This has been proven time and time again. And these cameras, just like speed cameras, have NOTHING to do with traffic safety and everything to do with revenue generation.
If anybody wants to know more, go to http://www.motorists.org of which I have been a proud member since 1992.
[Add Comment] [Subscribe to Comments]