10 Reasons To Oppose Red-Light Cameras
1) Ticket cameras do not improve safety.
Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.
2) These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights.
Once red-light cameras start making money for local governments, they are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. Engineering improvements that lessen the income brought in by the cameras include traffic-light synchronization, the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.
3) There are better alternatives to cameras.
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed, and operated, there will be very few red-light violations. From the motorists’ perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.
4) Ticket recipients are not notified quickly.
People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.
5) Ticket recipients are not adequately notified.
Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understand it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.
6) There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no “accuser” for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
7) Taking dangerous drivers’ pictures doesn’t stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
8) Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents.
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. Even the most flagrant of red-light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.
9) The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual driver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
10) Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists.
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.
Download a copy of this list (PDF)
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Since localities can “tune” their revenue from
RLCs by shortening the yellow light time, and some have done so, we must insist that yellow duration be long enough for a safe stop under most road conditions, and there should be a marker installed upstream of the intersection that shows you the distance that you would travel at posted speed under the yellow. If you get yellow before this marker, you have to stop; if you are beyond the marker you won’t get caught in the trap by the red.
Asking legislators for common-sense fairness might seem a futile exercise in many states, but if enough of us make some noise, things might change.
Tracy, you are wrong about the timing(see # 2) at the 4 intersections I frequent, one of them had the timing of the yellow shortened by half. at this same intersection a friend of mine received a ticket for reckless driving for slamming on her brakes trying to stop as the lights changed on her so fast. no accidents are down at this intersection, but the pd for that city now all have brand new cars,and new landscaping around the jail. Lets get real about what these cameras are really for.
I am sure the pro camera people (I even wonder if it isn’t people from the campaing) will blast me again. But hey, I know in my heart RLC are scam. So I will say what I am going to say
If cameras are so succeessfull why did 2007 V-Dot show more accidents http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp ? Why did the 2004 Burkey-Obeng call them a safety detriment? http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/crash-risk-reduction-resulting-from-red-light-cameras/ That one was 57 months of data, almost 5 years? Hmm. I didn’t make this up, neither did the NMA.
Believing a camera vendor or a city is no different than taking financial advice from a bookie.
Coming from a law enforcement backgroud, let me respond to this.
1-Yes, they do improve safety at intersections. Mainly for the people that drive in the area every day. It is posted that the camera is there. Those that know are more observant and pay attention because they know they may get ticketed. The ones that are not from the area need to pay attention to the signs, and the traffic lights, and then there won’t be a problem. Where we have them in the city I worked at, accidents drastically decreased once they were installed.
2-The devices had absoultely no impact on how the lights are synchronized. That is at the traffic departments discretion based on the flow of traffic.
3-Yes, there are better alternatives. But until each citizen is willing to pay higher taxes to pay additional officers salaries, to the point of having an officers presence at every single red light 24/7, then it isn’t going to happen.
4-Our department goes through the tickets weekly and immediately mail out tickets. An officer manually writes out a ticket after reviewing the tape and determining if a citation needs to be issued or not.
5-Not only are they notified promptly, they are notified accurately. The ticket goes to the address on your regstration. If your address is wrong on your registration, then that in itself is against the law. So if you don’t receive the citation because of that, it is your own fault and not the police departments.
6-See #4. An officer reviews it before the citation is mailed out.
7-This is true. However, having an officer at the intersection 24/7 isn’t going to stop them either. It is a personal decision each person makes when they get behind the wheel and nothing will change their driving habits if they are just a reckless person. The red lights are more to raise awareness to those that just simply aren’t paying attention when they should be. I can pretty much say that if you have received a red light citation then you probably pay more attention when you go through lights now.
8-I can say that in my city, accidents at intersections that have the red light cameras have decreased since the program has been implemented. That speaks for itself.
9-There is no way they can tell for sure whether the owner is driving or not. This is a chance you take when you let someone drive your car.
10-Designed to inconvenience the motorists? Have you lost your mind? If you simply pay attention when you are driving and obey the laws, then you won’t have a problem. When you aren’t paying attention and you run a red light, you are not only putting other people in jeopardy, but you are also placing yourself in jeopardy. They aren’t there to be an inconvenience. They are there to raise awareness. Besides, I would rather be inconvenienced, as you put it, than be dead due to someone not paying attention.
Tracy, you are dead WRONG on point #5. If all that is really true, then please explain to me how my ticket was mailed to an address that I have never even reported to the DMV or lived at, ever. I only received it (needless to say not timely at all either) because my mom lives there (she only recently moved in). I later confirmed with my local DMV office that they indeed never had that incorrect address (that the ticket was mailed to) listed as mine, ever.
I don’t know whether or not red-light cameras help, hurt, etc… But, I did live in San Francisco for several years (1999-2003). During that time I saw _the most egregious_ running of red lights I have seen anywhere. Twice I was nearly blindsided by drivers who simply ran red lights and on another occasion I had to slam on my breaks fully at a green light to avoid a collision. Talk about nerve-wracking! This only took place in the city of San Francisco. I never saw this problem outside the city itself.
During my time in SF the city installed red-light cameras very aggressively. Since that time I have not seen anyone running a red light like I saw in the past.
This is purely anecdotal data, but from my point of view they did solve one problem.
Cheers
I have 10 comments in regard to the article’s points as follows:
1. The claim is made with no proof or logic to verify the claim. It’s like saying: Studies show….
2. Synchronization requires a set driving speed in order to work. This requires more foresight and patience than many drivers have and may not even be realized by tourists or others not familiar with the pattern. The red light runners at the back of a platoon can still do their thing.
3. Agreed, a RLR camera can cause rear end crashes. There is a learning curve to be climbed here just as there was during the early days of clogged urban freeways during rush hour when rear end crashes were an almost daily occurance where I lived. They are rare now.
4. Whining!
5. Whining!
6. Whining! What better witness than a photo?
7. Whining!
8. Obfuscation
9. Whining!
10. Whining!
My favorite part about everyone’s comments is about how we are supposed to respect other people’s opinions and express our own. Yet, some people feel the need to call others “stupid” and “lazy.” Jarvis – your point would have been well-made and just fine if you had refrained from accusing everyone of being stupid. Beartoe – I don’t know why it’s necessary to accuse cops – people who choose to put their lives on the line – for being stupid and lazy. Police officers, have little to do with RLCs because an enforcement tool like this is decided to be used by administration, council members, and government offices, not the men and women working the street. I’m sure some police officers are stupid and lazy. I’ve met some. But a generalization like that is untrue, just as most generalization of a group of people are.
I liked the article, I think it was right on the money and I think the points were well-supported by facts.
These forums provide such amazing insight!
For example, Jarivs has distilled this issue down to one simple fact: we are all too damn stupid to comprehend a traffic signal.
If I had only been more cognizant of my intellectual limitations, I would have never wasted all that time trying to figure out the terror threat color chart.
You’re all stupid. Pay attention to what you are doing and when you see a yellow light, like none of you have mentioned, that is when you begin to SLOW DOWN, then you actually “STOP” on the red. Seems pretty self explanatory. Does anyone remember taking their drivers ed classes? Apparently not! Camera or no camera, an accident at any intersection ultimately will fall on human error! This is the bottom line.
We went to the mainland last year [we live on Maui] {I know Boo-hoo}. went to see my Navy son in Jacksonville FL.
I pretty much follow the rules and it felt good to drive leagaly without someone pushing you down the road as they try here.
Too many out there drive by intimidation [I honk, you move, personality].
What a beautiful place Jacksonville is.
I wonder if its because most drivers are educated?
It is a never-ending source of fascination for me that people have convinced themselves a camera-issued citation is a more effective deterrent to running a red light than the natural built-in deterrent. Like getting t-boned by a semi.
I don’t know what you thought that you saw. I am just pointing out the empirical evidence that red light violations are not nearly as rampant as the Luddite Authoritarians would have us believe, yet they want to employ an enforcement method that we know does not work but that does generate millions in revenue for the jurisdiction.
RLC have always been used for cash not safety. When the revenue really disappears , so do the cameras. NC is great case in point on this. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1909.asp
No one on this site advocates driving unsafe let alone me. But most RLV crashes are plus 5 into red, not under a second. Yet your typical RLC ticket is for under second! ON this web site is evidence showing increasing amber time reducing violations by over 90%.
Law enforcement for profit is inherently dangerous in that it focuses on volume not safety. Which is defintely the case here. Heck ATS sat there and admited to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal that they needed 20 violations a day to be profitable (10 per 12 hours). http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/041807/loc_041807033.shtml http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1707.asp
Mr. Young:
Are you saying that when I was in Florida, I did not see red light runners on an almost daily basis? I do see quite well; do not need nor use eyeglasses.
Would you believe that early this year (2007) a bus was behind me on highway 192. I slowed for a yellow and stopped in time for the red. The bus changed lanes, passed me and ran the red. A city bus yet!
I talked to a cop while buying gas about red light runners. He said that about half were tourists and the other half were locals.
Bill writes:
“Too many people [in FL] are in a huge hurry, especially in the Orlando area and are running red lights. We saw red light runners almost daily. From reading the news and seeing red lights run in Florida, I can assure you that I am convinced that revenue generation is not of primary interest. The primary interest is safety and they have a problem in Florida to address.”
Sorry, the empirical evidence does not support your assertion. Companies that sell red light camera systems do so on the basis of the revenue generated, not the improved public safety. That is largely because (1) the municipality is expressly interested in the money and (2) overall crashes increase at camera-equipped intersections.
I pay very close attention to what other drivers are doing and to what other posters assert. After an assertion that a particular intersection (41st & Yale, Tulsa, OK) had “hundreds of violations every day,” we sent out a team to observe and in 6 hours of observation saw zero deliberate violations and one questionable late entry. We did see some rolling right-on-red turns but these were of no consequence to traffic safety at all.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please tell us where to get it.
We spent a few months last winter in Florida. Too many people there are in a huge hurry, especially in the Orlando area and are running red lights. We saw red light runners almost daily. When your light turns green, you are wise to wait a few seconds. They don’t have enough cops there to get the word across to some motorists and were pushing hard to get the law changed to allow cameras.
From reading the news and seeing red lights run in Florida, I can assure you that I am convinced that revenue generation is not of primary interest. The primary interest is safety and they have a problem in Florida to address.
To beartoe,
I resent that you think were stupid and lazy and i would like to see where you get your evidence. Were not lazy when you need us for help, just when it interupts your day huh? But i do agree that the cameras are a bad idea and very easy to beat in court if you know what to say. That i agree with.
As the owner, I lawfully complied and returned the mailed citation, reluctantly listing the driver in the photo as my son.
The video showed his brake lights on but a rolled “Ca. stop” for a right turn. It also showed NO cars in the 6 lane-wide intersection. Even the most zealous “human” urban cop wouldn’t have ticketed him.
The kicker was that we sent it back to the out of state private company serving as the city’s front man and shared revenues partner. Two months later I had an arrest warrant out for me (40 years clean record) because I listed my son’s address as “same” on the line beneath my address. The response: “We don’t know where SAME street is”. I felt like the AFLAC duck communicating with Yogi Berra.
It does not follow that the best strategy to prevent crashes is predicated upon cameras capturing the event. Red light cameras are a failed preventive measure but are quite punitive for drivers and quite rewarding for the jurisdiction and the vendor selling the service.
Further, red light cameras as noted in the article, by comments, and elsewhere are set up at the most lucrative locations rather than the most dangerous. On top of this, yellow light times are frequently shortened so that the intersection will produce more citations, hence more money.
The engineering solutions listed above are much more effective than cameras but produce no revenue so the result is that we drivers not only get a more dangerous situation but we also have to pay for it.
I will guess that none of you have lost a love one to someone running a red light.I have no problems with cameras at intersections because I STOP WHEN THE LIGHT TURNS RED!!!!! Why blame someone else because you want to break the law?? If you are always late start leaving earlier.
Certain states have stamped license plates, with raised non-retroreflective letters/numbers on a retroreflective background.
You need to have all retroreflective material, or all non-retroreflective material.
The stockk contrast is too great, and is so easily visible via cameras, once the image is inverted.
Also certain states that mandate front plates [they are usually the ones that are very highly retroreflective] are the ones that engage in the use of LIDAR laser trap extortion. Laser guns only prove average speed, not instantaneous speed, and should be excluded from traffic enforcement usage. (but they won’t because it is far to easy to rake in the bucks)
i’ve also heard that applying certain kinds of hairspray to your license plate will defeat the cameras. not basing this on anything but my gf’s mom’s word.
camera tickets are easy to beat
you’ll need to do some research, maybe consult a “legal professional,” but the jist of your defense is that you have the right to face your accuser in a court of law.
though it’s anecdotal evidence that most cops are stupid & lazy, it’s a proven fact that the justice system is founded on the premise that maximum profits depend on processing (read: fleecing) as many people (read: sheep) in as little time.
if you can make yourself a massive administrative ballache over a petty camera ticket, then of course they are going to dismiss your case. pure, self-interested, capitalism folks. learn up!
Thanks so much for your post. Here is my story.
Some time ago cameras were installed at a major intersection, near a transit hub. They are set to catch red light runners and also catch folks who do not come to a complete stop when making a right turn on red. They were set incorrectly for buses making a right turn on red. Many tickets were issued to bus drivers before they were adjusted. Bus drivers had to take the day off and go to court to get the ticket dismissed. A commercial license allows for few tickets before it is suspended in this state. Now few bus drivers will make a right turn on red. This defeats the purpose of right turn on red, moving traffic and decreasing gas use. I’m a bus driver and I see these lights flash, when it is dark, and there is no one in the intersection. I have seen the lights flash when only those cars with a green light were in the intersection. So how many people have received tickets unfairly and just paid them? And me? I never make a right turn on red.
Right on the money! Dick Armey had it right when he called them a scam!