Ransom Riggs
Red Light Camera Controversy
by Ransom Riggs - October 27, 2008 - 11:17 AM

Red-light-camera.jpgIt’s been said that a picture is worth 1,000 words, but in the case of red light camera photos, it’s not so simple. As they become ever more popular with city governments throughout the country, and their tell-tale flashes more common at intersections, the furor over their use grows louder. Some claim they don’t always work, saddling citizens with difficult-to-contest tickets they don’t deserve. Conflicting studies seem to indicate that they reduce side collisions while increasing rear-end collisions. Traffic safety advocates vigorously defend their use. So who’s right?

First, let’s look at the studies. In a perfect world, these cameras would be installed only as safety measures — rather than revenue-generators — so whether or not they make drivers safer should be the main criteria by which they’re judged. Not all studies agree that they do: a 2005 New York Times survey found that rear-end crashes rose 15% upon introduction of the lights, thanks to twitchy drivers slamming on their brakes at the first sign of a yellow light. (Injuries associated with such crashes rose 24%.) But an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study found that side-impact crashes were reduced 24%, with injuries resulting from such crashes falling 16%. I think most of us can agree that being t-boned at high speed is generally worse than being rear-ended at a moderate speed — so I would count these stats as an argument, albeit a mild one, in favor of the cameras.

Unfortunately, there are other factors besides safety to consider; the cameras are considered revenue-generators — and indeed, costing between $50,00 and $100,000 per intersection, they have to be — and so the temptation to misuse them does exist. One of several such cases happened in Tennessee, where the duration of a yellow light was illegally shortened, resulting in hundreds of undeserved camera tickets being issued, which were eventually refunded.

In some cases, revenue-sharing agreements between cities and the companies that maintain the camera systems have been forged, leading to cameras being placed in spots where they’ll rack up more tickets rather than just keep people safer. But whether or not revenue sometimes trumps safety, some groups (like the National Motorists’ Association, a drivers’ advocacy group) argue that the cameras violate due process — because drivers are guilty until proven innocent.

It’ll surely be a controversy for years to come, but it seems to me that most of these problems stem from the removal of human judgment from the enforcement of the law. You can reason with a police officer — sometimes — but you can’t argue with Robocop.

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (29)

  1. I don’t have an opinion on these cameras really but this morning on the news they were talking about this. There is a group here in Missouri called Missourians Against Red Light Cameras, the members are from all political parties and are pushing for the removal of these cameras.

    posted by Sarah on 10-27-2008 at 11:44 am

  2. Same argument in the UK over the continued use of speed (sorry… “safety”) cameras. Regardless of whether they reduce accidents, cause them or are used purely as a way of generating income you’re left with the “guilty untilpproven innocent” problem.

    In addition, you not only have to prove you weren’t driving – you have to get someone else to admit that they were. This often results in one person or another unfairly (or unwittingly) being saddled with a fine and points on their license.

    I don’t know about the US, but we have a points system here. Rack up too many (12) and you lose your license for a period of time. A speeding fine is usually 3 points, but can be as much as six. Losing a license can often mean losing a job, which is obviously far more costly than the intended fine.

    The health and safety muppets just cry “well, don’t speed”. Thing is, as pointed out, you might not even have been in the car. But if it’s registered to you and you can’t get the person who *was* driving to admit it, then you’re the one saddled.

    Want it more insane? Steal a vehicle and mow down a small child, killing them outright. Ditch the vehicle and run. The police catch you and the friend you stole the car with. You both blame each other for driving. Both of your fingerprints are on the steering wheel.

    Common sense says that both were involved in the death of the child, so both will share the sentence.

    Nope. In every case of its type in the UK, both thieves have walked free with no punishment for causing the death of an innocent.

    And I’ve ranted. I apologise. Just to let you know the US isn’t the only country with insane laws!

    posted by Mosh on 10-27-2008 at 11:49 am

  3. I’ve gotten the blinding flash of light a couple of times in the state that I live in after getting caught in the intersection after the light turns red (usually due to unusually slow traffic). Luckily, since the state my car is registered in doesn’t require you to have a license plate on the front of your car…I’ve said too much! :-)

    posted by Kevin on 10-27-2008 at 12:09 pm

  4. I love the red light cameras, we have them here in AZ and I agree with having them. The idiots who live in this state need to slow down and if the lights help some then I am all for them. AZ has the worst drivers and I’ve driven in other countries so I can at least put my 2 cents in.

    posted by Melissa Duarte on 10-27-2008 at 12:16 pm

  5. The statistics really don’t mean that much. (Not trying to do hard math) If there were 100 side impact collisions reduced by 24% and 200 rear ends increased 15% before the cameras are installed then there would be a net GAIN of 6 accidents.

    Also a major problem with these camera’s are if you make a legal left hand turn during a red light, the camera will ‘Catch’ you crossing the white line and issue a ticket.

    posted by Bob on 10-27-2008 at 12:16 pm

  6. Interestingly enough there are a lot of areas in the country that USED to have these cameras and through various legal battles have ruled against them. In Washington D.C., they were either discontinued permanently or temporarily (I don’t know if they have been reinstated since I lived in the area) for similar reasons, with the addition of another– there is no “accuser” (think, human) which violates sixth amendment rights. That you can’t argue with a machine actually works against them, not for them. Makes sense– I’ve never had a traffic citation upheld in court without the officer there to testify, and I’ve seen cases in traffic court where tickets have been thrown out because the ticketing officer was not present. In Charlotte, NC, they were thrown out because they do not serve as a deterrent (if a police officer pulls you over, statistically, you will drive slower afterwards, which makes traffic cops more safety-conscious than cameras), and 5th amendment issues arose due to double jeopardy– Charlottonians were sometimes receiving two tickets for speeding through two different traps in a single speeding instance. Now, in Charlotte, instead of traffic cameras, a bunch of highway patrol cars line up on an on-ramp and another officer stands on the side of an overpass, clocking speeders with camera/radar gun and then directing the waiting patrol cars who to pull over.

    Interestingly enough, if you receive a ticket from a traffic camera, it is not a conviction, which disproves the guilty-until-proven-innocent claim. The photo of your traffic violation is evidence of a traffic violation, enough cause for the police to issue a court summons (which is what a ticket is), and court is where guilt and innocence are established. We (the US) do the same thing all the time with any other alledged crime– we gather evidence, file charges (which are effectively a court summons) and the prosecute the alledged offense in court.

    Personally, I believe that if traffic cameras were uniformly implemented, without regard to revenue generation, then it’s hard to argue against having them (here’s the “can’t argue with a machine” bit again from the other side). There would also need to be more conclusive statistical studies done to show that it decreases the amount of accidents or injury. I believe the claims to discriminatory prosecution are valid, but tend to overlook the offense for the prosecution. However, traffic cameras are still in dubious 5th and 6th amendment territory.

    This leads to an interesting debate. What about speed monitors EVERYWHERE in the US? Not necessarily cameras, but rather just sensors that detect if you’re ever speeding, and send you a ticket if you ever do.

    posted by Joel on 10-27-2008 at 12:26 pm

  7. We had these for a few moments in Minneapolis, MN. However, we ran into an interesting issue. We have a state law, the Minnesota Highway Traffic Regulation Act, which states that the ticket must be clearly proven to be given to the violator of the law. Unfortunately, our Red Light program just sent the ticket to the car’s registered owner. As a result, the ACLU jumped on the case, and had the Red Light program stopped, and most of the cameras were removed. The city is currently trying to find a way to still use the cameras, but in a way that makes it clear as to who was driving, so that person can be issued the ticket. No word on that one yet.

    posted by Matt on 10-27-2008 at 12:39 pm

  8. Joel,

    Good point on the “it’s not a crime till it goes through the motions” part. In the UK, your car goes through a trap and something flashes. Within 28 days, the registered keeper of the vehicle must receive notification of the intention to prosecute (if they don’t, then the prosecution can go no further).

    If the registered keeper wasn’t driving, then they return the form with the details of the person who was (or the person they believe was responsible). For instance, I used to have a company car so the notice would go to the lease company, who’d bounce it with my company’s address. They’d then bounce it *again*, returning my personal details were it me who was in charge of the car. I could then bounce it a third time if someone else was actually driving the vehicle.

    Thing is, the end person might be the owner or keeper but they don’t know if it was them who drove it at the time. Or knows it’s someone else, but as that other person isn’t the keeper of the vehicle and there’s no proof it was them they can just say “tough”.

    Thus this innocent person is left with a letter that says “cough up UK60 and send us your license otherwise we can take you to court. In which case you could face a fine of up to UK1000 and time in jail”. All very threatening.

    You wouldn’t believe how many people just bite the bullet and cough up even though the know they’re innocent. Thing is, if you genuinely and in all honesty don’t know who was driving at the time (by the time if bounces to you it could be 2-3 months ago on a stretch of road you travel frequently and in a car you share with your partner and a child, let’s say).

    But in court you can’t prove it *wasn’t* you. People have been through this in the UK and without fail they’ve been told “tough”. And had to pay. And been convicted of a crime for which there’s no evidence.

    Conversely, by the way, it’s also commonplace in offices for people to pay others to take their fine and points for them. If someone’s on 9 points and a speeding ticket comes through, an office junior will often accept a bribe in exchange for a blemish on their license so that the actual speeder doesn’t lose theirs. Again, there’s no proof one way or the other aside from an admission of guilt.

    posted by Mosh on 10-27-2008 at 12:48 pm

  9. In all the states I’m aware of that have red-light cameras, getting caught by the camera will get you fined. However, you will not be assessed points on your license. The reasons are precisely what is discussed above – it is difficult to prove who was driving the vehicle and a traffic camera cannot stand up in court and testify.

    Having been the recipient of one of these fines, it is clearly communicated how you have violated the law – you receive a picture of your vehicle entering and leaving the intersection, with the signal head in view so you can see the light is red.

    Though I’m sure some of these cameras are installed capriciously, most communities will look at the intersections with the highest frequency of crashes that could be reduced with this treatment and install them in that way.

    Also, these cameras only target one particular approach, so you will only be given a ticket if you’ve violated the approach they are reading. Left and right turns are typically not monitored as it would be difficult to capture a car entering and leaving the intersection with one camera angle.

    posted by allison on 10-27-2008 at 1:41 pm

  10. We have these in the Baton Rouge area, and when I moved here a few months ago, my father told me that it did reduce the t-bones but increased the rear-end accidents (as stated). It does seem to be just a way to make money, but I do drive a hell of a lot more cautiously than I did in Birmingham due to these cameras – I am not getting a fine, and am not going to deal with court systems for months on end. Been there, done that after crazy ex-husband stole my tag.

    I’m sure they generate revenue (but how is this revenue used?) and do incite some sense of safety, but again, less so than an actual cop sitting at the intersection.

    I always wondered if you did (for whatever reason) run a red light that has cameras while there was a cop somewhere in a line of the intersection, would you get two tickets? or would the cop not even bother to pull you over?

    side note- i like that my captcha is ‘of Adolph’. hehe.

    posted by Mamabug on 10-27-2008 at 2:00 pm

  11. I once worked in the accounting dept of a limousine company (US). I remember one day we received a fine along with photos of one of our cars taken by a red light camera.
    It only took a moment to see who had had that car number at the time in question by looking through the old charters. But it could be corroborated by simply looking at the photo – his face was completely recognizable in several shots.

    posted by Nerak on 10-27-2008 at 2:07 pm

  12. How about this? Stop at red lights and you won’t get a ticket.

    posted by DW on 10-27-2008 at 3:16 pm

  13. Whether the cameras “work” or not, Americans can and should be upset. The Constitution guarantees you the right to face your accuser in court. An object cannot be an accuser, and a person hired to sign off on the tickets can’t say for sure who is in the car. Therefore, these are unconstitutional. I would love to see these entirely removed from use. Traffic enforcement is enough of a cash cow anyway. They should at least make somebody work for it.

    posted by Dave on 10-27-2008 at 3:57 pm

  14. Further, if the municipality is sharing revenue with the installation company, that should be illegal as well. Since you could be put in jail for not paying, that means that the municipality has become the collector for private debt at risk of jail time. That is illegal and has no ambiguity about it. This could be circumvented by allowing the fined individuals to opt-out of paying the private portion of the fine. That would quickly make this not make money and the companies would lose interest.

    posted by Dave on 10-27-2008 at 4:05 pm

  15. @ Mosh

    Speaking of the UK and muppets… I just saw this on Gizmodo. A muppet on a red light camera.

    gizmodo.com/5069422/the-muppets-animal-caught-speeding-driving-police-crazy

    posted by Matt on 10-27-2008 at 4:23 pm

  16. When the first couple cars run the red light, or go late at a yellow, the cameras are good. They are helpful here, in NY, where it is illegal to block intersections. Just slow down and take your time. This is from a cyclist who stops at red lights and stop signs.

    posted by gus on 10-27-2008 at 4:52 pm

  17. Cameras don’t address the real problem of people speeding and running red lights. Being pulled over certainly makes you drive slower, but getting a ticket in the mail 3 weeks later isn’t going to change driving habits in time to be effective. The best way to prevent accidents is to increase the length of the yellow light. In CA in many places there is a countdown to the light changing, which is incredibly helpful.

    posted by Manda on 10-27-2008 at 5:25 pm

  18. ^^^^^
    Agreed. The countdown crosswalks make it a lot easier to safely determine whether you can make it through an intersection or not. They also help alert drivers going the opposite direction that their light will be going green in a few seconds, and they need to quit fiddling with their bag or bluetooth headset and get ready to move.

    posted by Troy on 10-27-2008 at 6:56 pm

  19. The cameras are both a deterrent and revenue generator for the local government – so they are here to stay.

    I agree with the other posts that say you should just slow down and not run the lights. The problem is these are popping up in so many places that I can’t at all keep track of them and sometimes I get snagged when turning right on red and not slowing down long enough.

    I am probably going to get a GPS detector to remind me of the locations of the cameras.

    See http://www.redlightcameradetectors.com

    posted by Wendy on 10-28-2008 at 12:09 am

  20. My sister got ticketed by one of the cameras that mails a photo along with the ticket to prove who was driving. To add insult to injury, in the photo she was shoveling a handful of Funyans into her mouth.

    posted by Karen on 10-28-2008 at 8:04 am

  21. So funny. Don’t break the law and you won’t get in trouble. I have no problem with red light cameras or with speed traps (finally learned to control the speed). And if you do run the light don’t be doing something embarassing like shoving funyans in your mouth. LOL :0 That is so funny.

    posted by Kev in GA on 10-28-2008 at 9:23 am

  22. I agree with the above comments:
    - traffic lights should ALL have the little counters. They are great for calculating time left for crossing, etc.
    - longer yellow lights would NOT work here in Peru because the custom here is to just speed up so you have time to cross on yellow!

    I totally agree with these cameras. In fact, I think they shouldnt even be advertised. You shouldnt necessarily know where the speed trap is, you should ALWAYS respect speed limits and stop at red lights, no matter if there is a camera or not.

    posted by GTT on 10-28-2008 at 10:01 am

  23. We started to have these pop up in the DFW area a few years ago, and now it seems like they are everywhere. I hate them, especially since now the city council is trying to utilize them for other things, i.e putting microphones on them, to “be able to hear gunshots,” yeah right. But what’s interesting is that in Dallas and some surrounding cities, they are having to take some of them down, because they aren’t generating enough revenue. Seems there are some websites you can go to that will tell you where the cameras are, and Dallas PD is finding those intersections used less, and less, so less tickets are issued, and less money paid to the city. Guess greed came back to bite them in the arse!

    posted by LeeLee on 10-28-2008 at 10:04 am

  24. Here in OC California, red light cameras are owned by the municipality but managed by a contracted third party vendor. The municipalities don’t even have the resources to send out the tickets in the first place, which is why it’s outsourced. The have been taken to task recently by the newspaper for not following up on the actual tickets. It was reported that a ticket not paid within a certain time frame (I don’t remember what it was) would just be dismissed. Also, a citizen went into court and argued that since the tickets are not mailed certified, there is no proof that a violator even received the ticket in the first place. I don’t know how that all turned out, but it’s true. They can’t even prove you’ve received a jury duty summons.

    posted by Martha on 10-28-2008 at 1:30 pm

  25. Yeah..don’t speed and don’t run red lights and you won’t have to worry about tickets!

    You may even try walking or taking public transportation. MUCH cheaper!

    posted by Dawn on 10-28-2008 at 4:13 pm

  26. At least in Alberta a ticket from a traffic camera does not result in any points being assessed. An if you weren’t driving the car at the time and if you can get the real driver to fess up the ticket will be transfered to him/her.

    posted by The_curious_one on 10-29-2008 at 4:36 pm

  27. does anyone know if the reflective license plate covers work and their legality?

    posted by db on 11-8-2008 at 6:13 pm

  28. I read about this in engadget a few days ago.

    http://www.gpsangel.com

    posted by Cindy Lynch on 12-18-2008 at 10:42 am

  29. Can a camera get two cars in one photo.

    I went through a yellow and half way through the limit line the light turn red..

    I was making a left hand turn and the car to the right of me went as well. He was slightly behind me, making a left as well.

    Did the camera get him or me or both of us.

    I saw two flashes

    posted by Kyle D on 2-9-2010 at 11:53 am

Comment

commenting policy