Traffic Light Cameras

[Aristotle]

God, I hate these things. I think they are a gross violation of our liberty, and move us toward a police state.

Furthermore, they are so prone to abuse, there is no way for them to be used in a manner that can realistically be trusted.

The latest example:

City caught making yellow lights too short in order to boost red light camera revenue

Police officials and city engineers discovered last week that the yellow-light duration at every one of its camera-enforced intersections was too short — in some cases by more than a second. The city began using cameras in the summer at five intersections along Alvarado-Niles Road and Union City Boulevard.

Since then, about 3,000 people have been photographed driving through red lights. With the city getting $136 for each conviction, dismissing every ticket means the city now will not receive more than $400,000 that would have gone into its general fund. Adding to the impact are the costs incurred in processing all of those tickets that now will be dismissed.

In numerous other places in the USA and Canada, research has shown that the cameras often INCREASE the number of accidents rather than decrease them.

So they violate our liberty and our privacy, and are ineffective at actually providing a significant decrease (or any decrease) in accidents? The only think they actually do effectively is bring in more money.

So basically, they are a tax, and a tax on people who own cars. In other words, people who are doing things, going to and from work, engaging in commerce, etc. Great idea there. Not.

[Aristotle]

Some research on the issue:

[urlhttp://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=766]Longer Yellow Lights, Not Red-light Cameras Reduce Accidents Says Research Report[/url]

Longer yellow lights will do more to reduce crashes at intersections than any other method, including the use of red-light cameras, according to a new report.

The report from the Texas Transportation Institute is the result of a three year study of 181 intersections using police reports in three Texas cities. The purpose of the research was to determine the most effective solutions for problem intersections.

Motorists who are caught by red-light cameras frequently complain that a short yellow light forced them to make a choice between slamming on the brakes, with a chance of getting rear-ended, and continuing through the intersection.

A published newspaper report claims that based on the Texas report the best way to improve safety statistics at intersections is to lengthen yellow lights to one second more than the minimum standard, which will reduce accidents by 40 percent and violations by 53 percent.

...

The full report “Development of Guidelines for Treating Red-Light Running” by the Texas Transportation Institute is available on their web site. Similar results were announced by an early research study completed in Virginia, according to published reports.

This 5 part series of articles examined the issue at great length:

Inside the District's Red Lights

[Belaraiya]

I hate those bloody cameras. With a passion.

Within a week of getting my licence, I got clicked by a camera for running a red light because the moron behind me was doing 10km over the limit and didn't look like he was going to stop. Rather than get my car run into, I ran the light. Lucky I did, because he didn't stop either - even though the light was clearly red and had been for some time, and drove up beside me to abuse me. The worst part - because I triggered the camera, it didn't have time to reset and get the plates of the dipshit behind me

[Bael]

I know in Virginia they tried to put these in place and the Courts struck it down. Stating that they weren't legal because there was no way to prove that the person getting penalized with the ticket was the one behind the wheel of the car (say, in the case of a kid driving their parent's vehicle). Unfortunately, in places like Northern Virginia, DC loves them. Personally, I think they're kind of retarded, yeah, it's a good theory, but in practicality is flawed in so many ways.

[Graeblyn]

My parents still live in my home state, Missouri, and when they were visiting me this weekend, they told me about a disturbing new traffic technology being used there, ostensibly to track traffic congestion, but with VERY disturbing potential for law enforcement abuse. I found a link about it here:
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/...35&i=427&t=427

[Caer]

That is incredibly stupid. Sure, almost everyone has a cell phone, but -almost- is not good enough when you're trying to track something like congestion. Plus, if they start using this to try to ticket people, there's a really simple solution. Turn the cell phone off. This would only serve to reduce the functionality of monitoring road use via this method.

Seems to me that there's at least a few issues with this technology as a means of ticketing as well. For example, what do you do if you have multiple people with cell phones in the car? Which phone gets tracked?

[Aristotle]

That is an outrage.

The Missouri Department of Transportation will spend $3 million annually on a program to monitor the movements of individuals on highways via their cell phones -- without their knowledge or consent.

The part in bold is critical. This is a consumer device. The government has absolutely no right to monitor or track it in this manner.

Missouri rejected the simpler solution used by other states of embedding sensors in the pavement that record how many vehicles pass over a stretch of pavement without uniquely identifying them. Missouri wanted a program that required less equipment.

What a pathetic excuse.

"The traffic community has been really excited for quite some time about the possibility of being able to use cell phones to track vehicles," Valerie Briggs, program manager for transportation operations at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials told the Associated Press.

What a fucking lie. The only community excited about this are the corrupt government officials who see this as a way to steal more money from the populace in order to use it for vote buying.

I hate when people lie and say it is for the benefit of the people or the consumer when it clearly is not.

That is like credit card companies that turn off your card if you make "unusual" purchases and claim it is for "your protection." No it isn't. It is for THEIR protection, since the government does not allow them to hold you responsible for charges you do not make (beyond $50).