PhotoCop: Seeing red-light cameras from a couple of angles
Posted on May 4th, 2008 – 6:30 AMBy Roadguy
Here’s Roadguy’s column from the Sunday paper, with a couple of bonus links at the end.
SEEING RED-LIGHT CAMERAS FROM A COUPLE OF ANGLES
The courts switched them off and legislators have yet to turn them back on, but red-light cameras continue to fascinate Roadguy — and he has his reasons.
In 2002, my car was totaled by a red-light runner in downtown Minneapolis. In 2006, my replacement vehicle collided with a red-light runner talking on his cell phone. Neither offending driver got a ticket; the police didn’t witness the crashes.
A photographic record of what happened in my crashes might have helped me with insurance claims. Or perhaps the presence of cameras would have prevented the accidents in the first place.
I’ll never know. But I do know that PhotoCop once captured me running a red light.
When the letter arrived, I remembered exactly what I had done. As the light had turned red, a panhandler was jumping around and acting oddly in the median, so instead of spending the next minute with him outside my window, I proceeded with my (illegal) left turn.
There was no officer present to hear my attempted explanation, which was probably for the best: the incident occurred just before the end of PhotoCop’s test period, so no fine was levied.
The cameras at 12 Minneapolis intersections have been turned off since 2006, when a Hennepin County judge found they violated state law, a ruling later affirmed by the state Supreme Court. In the ensuing years, I’ve had plenty of time to read about the effectiveness of photo enforcement. Studies tend to find significant drops in right-angle crashes, and lesser reductions (and the occasional increase) in rear-end crashes.
A few weeks ago, the Department of Public Works sent me accident data for the 8 1/2 months that the cameras were operating in Minneapolis, plus data for two comparable periods the year before they were in service and the year after.
Before the cameras went into service, the intersections saw a total of 104 crashes. While the cameras were in use, the number dropped to 69.
And after they were turned off? Sixty-one.
“We don’t have enough data — it was just nine months’ worth — to really say whether there’s been any long-term change in the behavior of people,” says Dallas Hildebrand, a longtime city traffic engineer.
The cameras are still lurking around town (it would take a change in state law to put them back in operation), and perhaps many drivers don’t know they’re turned off.
I won’t tell if you don’t.
* * * * * * * * * *
After reading this column on Saturday, alert reader R.A. sent along two related links. One is to an MSNBC story called Do red-light cameras work too well? The other is to this column from Car and Driver magazine.
34 Responses to "PhotoCop: Seeing red-light cameras from a couple of angles"
I say turn on the cameras. They only ’see’ what anyone else would if he or she is standing on the corner…
Can’t blame you for avoiding the guy walking to your car, RG. At night in certain neighborhoods, it’s hard to tell if you are going to be asked for a quarter or car-jacked…
As you pointed out in your article, studies have shown red light cameras do very little to reduce the overall number of accidents. AAMOF the number of rear end collisions increases. If the real concern is safety, I think we should install the ‘count down’ type of walk lights, where the driver knows how long before the light is going to change and increase the duration of the yellow light. Studies have shown that loading zones, and the location of curb cuts (for parking lots, etc) create situations where more people drive through red lights.
The camera would need to take a picture of the driver’s face, the license plate, and the light. The driver should get the ticket, not the owner. Traffic enforcement should not be a revenue generator.
Several studies have been published showing that the red light cameras actually INCREASE the total accident rate. People are prone to suddenly jam on the brakes unexpectedly, and do various other things that cause accidents.
Also, the cameras don’t have any ‘judgement’, but are set to record a certian activity. Depending on speed/conditions, the safest ( and legal) thing to do is to proceed through an intersection.
Finally, others have mentioned the fact that the vehicle owner is the one getting the ticket. This is just wrong. The state should have to prove that you were committing a crime — not just your vehicle.
“Studies have shown that loading zones, and the location of curb cuts (for parking lots, etc) create situations where more people drive through red lights.”
No kidding? I haven’t heard of any, not that I doubt the truth of it, but could you cite? Or at least explain the theory how curb cuts create these situations? I am very curious . . .
My wife has had a couple encounters with running lights in the Powderhorn neighborhood. She had friends that live there and she would meet them late at night at their house. Once, when leaving late at night as she drove toward 35W, a car was following her excessively closely (she says) for many blocks and around one corner. My wife was freaked by this so she blew through a just-switched light hoping to throw off the car tailing her . . . that car was a police car. She got the ticket.
A second time, it was late at night again, but it was winter and my wife misjudged the iciness of the pavement and simply slid through the red light and was caught by the camera this time. Second ticket.
How bout an addition to the system that would automatically turn the light green if it detected a panhandler approaching a car?
If rear end collision are increasing at camera controlled intersections, that would suggest that drivers are preoccupied with things other than driving or following way to close.
Curmudgeon Geographer says: “Or at least explain the theory how curb cuts create these situations? I am very curious . . .”
As far as I can remember, they found that poorly laid out streets: like a gas station having an entrance/exit right on the corner, or a loading zone where big trucks block the view of the signal, or perhaps distract the driver. I distinctly remember reading that more red light violations occur in these situations.
There are tons of studies, just google red-light cameras:
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/evaluation-red-light-camera-enforcement-pilot-project/
“Final Report
December 2003
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
This study commissioned by Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transporation shows that those rear-end collisions can be fatal.
After evaluating the performance of red light cameras at 68 sites over two years, the report concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage accidents of 18.5 percent coupled with a 4.9 percent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions. Rear-end collisions involving property damage alone jumped 49.9 percent. “
In general I’m for red light cameras as part of an overall traffic management plan. Obviously using them as a revenue source is a very bad idea as it has led to things like cities tweaking the yellow lights to generate more tickets, but with proper oversight they can be useful. Cops can’t be everywhere at once, cameras can be a good force multiplier as long as they’re not misused.
The idea of counting on variable fine revenue as a fixed part of your budget is absurd to me, what kind of brain dead people are we voting into office who think like that? I work at the library and we don’t consider money collected as fines as part of the budget, instead any fine money collected goes into the book buying budget as a bonus over and above the regular allocation. That way if we get fine money great, more books, but if we don’t it doesn’t affect any of the normal operations of the library. Red light and other fines should be treated the same way, perhaps put them into a fund for street improvements or use the money to buy trees, something that would benefit the area, but isn’t part of normal expenditures.
http://www.photoblocker.com/
PhotoBlocker Spray
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjdq2akM_8Y
Blocker Make Your Car Invisible Red Light Speed Cameras
I’m not for a “nanny state,” but I am for personal responsibility and accountability. And because there are so many people who choose not to be responsible, they must be held accountable. And that comes in the form of Photo-cop. I don’t understand why it’s not setup to photograph the driver, as well as the plate - but I’m ok with ticketing the owner. If it’s your vehicle, you are responsible for who’s using it. If they choose to drive irresponsibly, you take the hit. But when you get the ticket, you discuss the infraction with them and maybe you decide to never loan your car to them again. Why do people have such a problem with responsibility?
Pete - because it’s a criminal charge and you don’t get to charge people with criminal violations because they ought to patrol someone who is driving their car.
I honestly think that you could use some form of siren and flashing lights to alert people who run lights. I am guessing that people generally don’t intentionally run them, but try to justify their actions somehow, such as “it was still yellow,” or “I thought it would stay yellow longer.” Adding in some public humiliation would get the job done.
I’d also have a much easier time with them (assuming you get past the reasonable doubt threshold) if they only caught people who were speeding through the intersection. I think that most people who intentionally run them do so while speeding, while it would ignore the innocent violations such as the one Roadguy describes.
Josh R. & John K,
Do you think that the illegal aliens with no DL or insurance are going to pay those tickets?
————————-
Prof S,
I agree with you, it’s all about intent. I don’t think people realize that once you start measuring events (such a red-light violations) you can criminalize everyday behavior by law abiding people.
Pete says
” I don’t understand why it’s not setup to photograph the driver, as well as the plate - but I’m ok with ticketing the owner. If it’s your vehicle, you are responsible for who’s using it. If they choose to drive irresponsibly, you take the hit. But when you get the ticket, you discuss the infraction with them and maybe you decide to never loan your car to them again. Why do people have such a problem with responsibility?”
1) I imagine there are challenges based on windshield reflections, camera angles & blocking of view. I’m tall; if I put the visor down I can see about an ‘inch’ above the road at the horizon. I think a camera mounted on a light pole would not be able to photograph my face in this scenario.
2) Its not about people wanting to ditch responsibility, its about the basic premise of our legal system that you’re innocent until proven guilty. As Roadguy explained in his post, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that induce people to run red lights.
Reducing the frequency of people running red lights is certainly a worthwhile goal. Photocop is just the wrong way to do it.
Are there really that many people who loan their cars to scofflaw friends/relatives who run red lights? I once borrowed a friend’s car, was ticketed for parking in a tow-away zone, but the ticket blew off the car. When my friend got the past-due notice, he contacted me and I paid the ticket. Is that so difficult???
I realize photo-copy is a heavy-handed response, but the reality is the pendulum of pushing the limit has swung too far and driver’s need a “dope slap” to bring them back in line. Education doesn’t work, because these people realize what they are doing is wrong. The fact is, they don’t care. And they don’t care because they are able to continue their behaviour without any consequences. And, if those consequences only come in the form of a few car horns, disgusted looks, or unfriendly gestures from irritated cross-traffic - again, THESE PEOPLE DON’T CARE. Cops can’t be everywhere, and even if they could, this is viewed as a minor problem. Otherwise, why aren’t more cops camped out looking for red-light runners vs. speeders? Peer pressure doesn’t work because, people don’t care what you think of them.
Photo-cop is a perfectly understand attempt to address this issue. Short of putting a cop at the intersection and having them run down every “runner,” what else could be done?
Being quite vulnerable to red-light runners while biking to work, I’m all in favor of photo-cop. I’m not sure why a different category can’t be set up for photo-cop tickets, akin to a parking ticket. Hence, if a real cop catches them, they’re hit with the current charges and fines, and if the photo-cop catches them, the owners are still hit in the pocketbook. What am I missing? Or what is everyone else? Common sense?
Photocop aside, I’ve never understood why we can’t have more police officers monitoring people’s driving and handing out tickets for all the bad driving behaviors. I don’t know, but I would think that one cop and patrol car would generate more revenue in fines than it costs the city to have them on the payroll. Figure conservatively 20 tickets a day at $100 a ticket, that’s $2000 a day. Assuming a 5 day work week, that’s $520,000 a year. How much does one cop and vehicle cost?
Pete, Did you read that Photo Cop actually increases the amount of property damage? They do more damage than good!
Then there’s that messy document called the US Constitution. If we can circumvent it for red-light runners, it’s a bad prescedent.
If you’re referring to rear-end collisions, presumably from people slamming on their brakes to avoid running the red light and then being hit by people who are TAILGATING - how is that the fault of photo-cop? Do you place any burden on irresponsible drivers at all? And, where’s the presumption of innocence when you are caught, in the middle of the intersection, when the light is red? If there are extenuating circumstances, such as the aforementioned example of the person not wanting to stop while a nearby crazy person was posing a threat - then go to court and plead your case. But don’t let that one instance offset the hundreds (thousands?) of instances photo-cop is meant for.
Sorry DGB, the photo cops themselves are not causing those crashes. Setting the yellow lights too short in order to gain more ticket revenue can cause those crashes, and people driving poorly, then freaking out and slamming on their brakes to avoid running a red can cause crashes. But both those things are the result of human error/bad choices, the tool is not to blame, a photo cop by it’s lonesome cannot cause you to rear end another car any more then a car can cause you to run over a pedestrian.
DGB, did you even read the article before writing your knee-jerk response? In paragraph 7, Roadguy clearly writes “Studies tend to find significant drops in right-angle crashes, and lesser reductions (and the occasional increase) in rear-end crashes.” SIGNIFICANT DROPS!!! In the short, 9-month test, crashes DECREASED by 40%. This is SIGNIFICANT!!!
Next time, read before you spew.
This nation needs more than red light imaging…America has been the biggest automobile dependent nation in the world yet traffic enforcement is pathetic…there should be speed cameras, red light cameras, etc… but noooo. It takes a whole lot of piddlin around to get a TEST speed camera in phoenix,AZ while nations in other continents have thousands. Sure rear-end collisions went up, i bet they would go back down, then much further down after a short period the camera has been there. It is advertised in Illinois in some construction zones that the speed limits are photo enforced, right, the drivers going through those zones are not abiding because……there is only one mobile unit that has a photo enforcing camera, and even that is out for a little bit of time.
Don’t like them. A friend received a ticket while part of a funeral procession and had to waste significant time and energy proving himself innocent. That’s not the way our justice system should work.
Ed - Perfect example of why this thing is a bad deal. It presumes you are guilty of something and forces someone to fight (and spend a lot of time and money) to prove their innocence.
Moreover, even if you have a good explanation such as this, there’s always the possibility that the clerk you’ll deal with will say “too bad, but I can settle it for $50 in court costs” as I have had happen to me.
SperryK rants: “Next time, read before you spew.”
Maybe you should have read the link that I posted:
http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/studies/
It sure would be great if all our problems could be solved by red-light cameras.
Pros and cons, but if you’re on the receiving end of a red-light runner, I think you’d vote for the photo cop.
You might even vote for a trigger device that trips off a compacting machine to reduce the car and its offending driver into a cube that fits in a desk drawer.
But seriously, proving innocence is what everyone has to do in court for any accusation of any crime. Why is knowingly roaring through a red light different from stealing a TV? Someone thinks you did it, you gotta say in court why you didn’t.
In this case I’d love to see someone demand to confront their accuser in court per their sixth amendment right. What are they going to do, unbolt a photocop and lay it on the prosecuter’s chair. If photocop doesn’t say anything would you get a default judgement in your favor?
Monte, could a bank robber use the same defense if he is caught on their surveillance camera’s?
Barry - “But seriously, proving innocence is what everyone has to do in court for any accusation of any crime.”
On the contrary, in criminal court the state must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Interesting. The photo of the car in the intersection during the red light is proof of the crime. Even if the identity of the driver isn’t evident in the photo, is the vehicle owner guilty of abetting? Is this at all similar to if you owned a gun, and someone else used it to commit a crime?
Barry says: “proving innocence is what everyone has to do in court for any accusation of any crime. ”
The above statement is 100% inaccurate.
This is the reason the photo cop tickets were thrown out of court.
Pete - No, it’s not proof of the crime. You don’t know if the person who stands accused was actually driving.
No, it’s not abetting. Maybe you don’t know they are going to drive through the red light or maybe you tell them not to break any laws before you hand over your car. And what if your car was stolen. Sure, you could prove that and get out, but again, demonstrates guilt before innocence.
If you own a gun and someone else uses it to commit a crime, that does not mean that you necessarily committed a crime. For example, what if you lend your hunting rifle to someone who is presumably going hunting, but knocks off a store along the way. Or what if they are on their way to target practice, but snap along the way and kill someone. In neither case did you willingly facilitate the crime.
Actually, Prof, the photo is proof that the crime of running the light had been committed; but you’re correct in that it doesn’t indicate who the perpetrator is. I feel that the registered owner of the vehicle should be cited, and then it is up to them to accept the consequences or go to court to prove they were not the driver at the time. I realize you may feel this twists the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” but the fact of the matter is - running red lights is dangerous, and therefore illegal; photo-cop proves the crime was committed; and vehicle owners need to assume a level of responsibility for who has access to their vehicle. It’s illegal to leave an unattended vehicle with keys in the ignition. There may be exceptions or extenuating circumstances, but if the problem of red light runners is every to addressed, there has to be a first step and photo-cop seems perfectly apt to do so.
It’s illegal to leave an unattended vehicle with keys in the ignition on a public roadway or alleyway. Photocop is a solution in search of a problem.
