Interesting discussion this week in Shreveport, LA, regarding red light photo enforcement. As this has also been a hot topic in Columbia of late, I thought I'd share some snippets of the article and (of course) my comments. Full news story: http://tr.im/iTgA
The chairman of the Shreveport City Council today promises a vigorous fight against proposed red light cameras in Shreveport, calling them "Orwellian" and a case of government snooping into people's lives.
They are neither. If you obey the law, you will not be photographed, videoed, or otherwise bothered by the Orwellian government.
There is no proof the cameras cut down on accidents at intersections -- and they could do the opposite, Councilman Ron Webb said.
Untrue. Numerous studies have shown significant decreases in red light running and severe crashes at signals (predominantly T-bone / angle / sideswipe collisions).
He noted an incident in Dallas when a driver slammed on her brakes to avoid possibly getting a ticket because of the red light camera. His son was one of three drivers involved in a resulting three-vehicle chain reaction wreck.
"He could have easily been killed. Thanks for nothing, Big Brother!" Webb said.
Um...no. It is extremely rare that rear-end crashes at signals are ever serious. At the very least, red light cameras swap out crash types. Rear-end minor crashes may go up, but angle crashes (which often result in injury) will go down.
Red light cameras, or automated traffic ticketing systems, take a picture of the license plate of a vehicle whose driver commits a traffic violation at an intersection. A ticket is then mailed to the address of the registered owner.
Webb said researchers have studied red light cameras and found they don't work at best, and could actually cause more crashes as drivers abruptly stop when lights turn yellow.
"This is a Pandora’s Box we best never open, lest we lose what few freedoms we still have left," Webb said. "We need to ask ourselves this question: In a free society, when is enough 'government protection' enough?"
This is a case of a public official not wanting something to happen, so he stands behind Freedom to protect law-breakers. The truth is that red light cameras do improve safety, and a little "invasion of privacy" of drivers who choose to blow through red lights is a small price to pay to save lives on our roads.
Bottom Line: Don't run red lights, and you'll have nothing to worry about.
15 comments:
There is no "right to privacy" articulated in the US Constitution. A Supreme Court found that right "in between the lines" of the Bill of Rights. For better or worse it's established itself, by now, in American law and society as some sort of right.
We do have the specific right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. One of the pivotal concerns in considering violations of that right is "expectation of privacy." I think that fits well in this red-light camera discussion, whether the concern is your right to privacy or your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
When driving down a public road in a windowed vehicle, my expectation of privacy is pretty low. It seems reasonable to me that someone, Google Earth or the government, might take my picture. I have no qualms about red-light cameras or cameras on the corner downtown for that matter.
Well said. I think privacy is virtually non-existent at this point. With cell phone cameras/video and Twitter, everything is fair game.
I was videoed without my knowledge at a business conference reception this spring (holding an adult beverage), and a clip showed up on the news touting "government waste." I felt a little violated.
I hesitate to share my thoughts on the legality of this scenario because I don't really know much about the law. That being said - the right to privacy expressed in this interview is remeniscent of the feelings behind the right to privacy in your own personal home or property. I think a common mistake is to transfer that emotional claim to what occurs in a vehicle. Although a person may own a car, they do not own the road they are driving on. How is this any different than Wal-mart putting up parking lot cameras - they are capturing video of me in my car in order to be able to identify persons who commit crimes on their lot. I know Wal-mart is privately owned and traffic cameras are installed by the city - but doesn't it all boil down to the same choice - if you really want that much privacy - than don't go there. One question to throw out there - if while being photographed for running a red light another crime is caught on camera in the same picture, can the traffic video be used to arrest someone on that crime?
Exactly. You're cute. Wanna get coffee sometime?
I digress.
Typically the video is not recorded, so other crimes committed are not archived for future use. However, there was a situation where a guy filled his truck with stolen electronics, ran a red light, and the video was used to help prove his guilt.
It gets very complicated very quickly on the legal side, which at least makes the conversation interesting.
Thanks, Brian, I'd love to get coffee sometime!
I didn't mean to get strictly into the legality of these lights, the councilperson you quote doesn't really say it's illegal, it's "Orwellian" (ironic that the name of someone famous for being anti-totalitarian is now synonymous with totalitarianism). I was trying to use the legal standard of expectation of privacy as a jumping off point.
Like in your story, it seems you did have an expectation of privacy. But like T42D said, anyone with expectations of privacy in their car on the road is not being realistic.
I think I'm just adding to the chorus of agreement here. Also, is there any thought on what is being photographed? I know some of these are set up to only take photos of license plates.
I am intrigued by certain aspects of these cameras though:
(1) when does it start taking the photo?
(2) what if I'm not driving?
(3) if I'm not driving, but I still get the ticket b/c it's my car, what happens to my insurance?
(4) what if I run a red light for a good reason (to avoid a wreck, to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, to go to coffee with Brian)?
(5) what if it is me driving but I want to claim it's someone else, how does the City prove it was me?
It seems to me that the lights are more of a deterrent by their presence than by whether the work or not. Much like the black bulbs at W*M that may or may not have cameras in them.
1) when does it start taking the photo?
The camera takes a photo if a vehicle is detected past the "stop bar" a certain time (usually 0.5 - 1.0 seconds) after the red light comes on.
(2) what if I'm not driving?
Some cities treat the ticket as a city-only offense (like a parking ticket). No points are assessed, so the driver of the vehicle doesn't matter.
(3) if I'm not driving, but I still get the ticket b/c it's my car, what happens to my insurance?
In the city ordinance scenario, doesn't matter. In other situations a photo is taken of the driver (to ID and assess points with an official moving violation citation). If it's not you, you can "rat out" the driver to the authorities.
(4) what if I run a red light for a good reason (to avoid a wreck, to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, to go to coffee with Brian)?
Most systems include a segment of video a few seconds before and after the violation. The reviewers will check this and throw the ticket out for odd situations.
In at least one city this video can be watched by the violator (they get a web link with their ticket in the mail to watch themselves run the light).
(5) what if it is me driving but I want to claim it's someone else, how does the City prove it was me?
The photo and video evidence is used the same way photo and video is used in any other legal situation. And you can always rat out the actual driver of the vehicle, if applicable.
Even if it is a city only offense, I don't want to be paying money that is not the result of me running the red light. I don't care if it is only $5.
If there is a photo of the driver as well, I guess this eliminates this issue.
I don't have issues with the cameras on the "privacy" front. I do have issues with them on the application front. But those things can be overcome.
It's just like you letting someone borrow your car and "they" get a parking ticket. It's your car, so you're car gets the ticket -- even though you did not park illegally.
Solution 1: Don't run red lights.
Solution 2: Don't lend your car to people who run red lights.
Solution 3--get rid of cars.
We have had red light cameras around here in St. Louis for a couple of years now. It has definitely changed my driving habits. I am much more cautious with yellow lights now regardless of whether or not the intersection has a camera.
It's funny that I happened to find this post tonight. I just drove home after softball around 10 pm on a Sunday evening. The roads were fairly empty. As I approached one of my local camera enforced stop lights, I watched two different cars drive through with a green light. For each car, the strobe lights went off 2 or 3 times. Obviously, the system was broken at this intersection, but I found the blinding flashes of light at night incredibly distracting and a bit dangerous. I haven't seen much discussion of this particular point. What are the safety implications of having bright strobe lights going off directly in the field of vision of drivers at busy intersections?
Since I never comment on your blog, I'm not sure if you could identify me from my comment. To be clear, I am Stew from FFL.
Greg - I'm more familiar with your dog's writings.
The strobe flash is an issue at night, especially in a malfunction situation. (that's the first I've heard of a camera taking pictures of drivers during green. It's typically inactive during that time.)
Traffic Safety measures often have some sort of negative side effect, so we're constantly debating the pros and cons of various treatments. Red-light cameras tend to increase rear-end crashes, so we have to be OK with knowing we might cause a crash that otherwise wouldn't have happened. It's justified in my mind b/c I'm convinced we prevent angle-type crashes that have a higher chance of being severe. But it is a numbers game, and we are "playing the percentages."
I had an engineer tell me once that "Traffic Safety is a series of social experiments. Some work. Some don't."
I'd say red light cameras are still in this experimental stage.
What are your thoughts on variable speed limits? We now have dynamic speed limit signs along 270 here in St. Louis. The speed limit can be updated in 5 mph increments from 60 down to 40 mph. They are supposed to help with traffic flow by reducing speed limits as the highway becomes more congested. I haven't seen it actually work though. Anytime I see the speed limit at anything less than 60 mph, I know that I will soon be in bumper to bumper traffic. I suppose it helps with safety by giving advanced warning of slow traffic ahead, but I have yet to see it successfully keep traffic flowing.
I think the theory is sound, but it's tricky to get just right.
My personal opinion (may not reflect the official view of my previous or current employer) is that the Variable Speed Limit signing on 270 would be more effective if the upper limit was higher. The free-flow speed on that route is higher than 60, so when we don't recognize that, it's tough to convince the public that we're trying to cooperate with them.
If we ask for something (please drive 45 even though it doesn't seem like we need to), we should give something in return (like posting it 65-70 when there is no good reason to post it lower).
Post a Comment