12 ms·
Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M
- SteveNuts 10y agoGood. These should be ruled unconstitutional everywhere. Maybe it's just where I live but it seems like law enforcement is more focused on revenue generation.
- syntheticnature 10y agoPeople talk about running government like a business, not thinking about the implications of trying to turn cost centers into profit generation in that sphere.
- jmcdiesel 10y agoDevil's advocate though : you can choose to not be affected by them by simply not running red lights. So.. while I agree on the unconstitutional part (im on your side), the other side of this, its an opt-in system, in practice
- SteveNuts 10y agoExcept for the times when it's "malfunctioning" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticket-spikes-met-20140717-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticke... If you search around, there's tons of cities that were caught manipulating the timing on the cameras to increase the number of tickets. Are you going to call the camera into court for questioning? Are they going to let a third party audit the code that runs the timers?
- mhluongo 10y agoBreaking any absurd law, by that logic, is "opt-in".
- jmcdiesel 10y agoAnd it is. Every single action you take is opt-in, right?
- daveFNbuck 10y agoWhen a city prioritizes revenue over safety, everyone is affected. Even if you don't run a red light, you'll still be stuck in traffic when someone else crashes in the middle of the intersection.
- aggie 10y agoI'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. It's unobtrusive surveillance in a public setting, so there's no expectation of privacy. It's punishing people for breaking a public-safety law. In most cases they even have signs alerting you to the presence of an enforcement camera. Now I can definitely see how automated enforcement ripe for abuse when there are revenues to be had, and it's concerning when operations like this are given to private companies with little to no transparency. But given those concerns can be resolved, what's the problem at a constitutional level?
- chrisseaton 10y ago> why you think it's unconstitutional They didn't say they thought it was unconstitutional. They said they thought it should be unconstitutional.
- ceejayoz 10y ago> I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. Most of these cameras can't demonstrate that the owner of the car was the one driving at the time. In a criminal court that'd be plenty of reasonable doubt, but red light tickets (at least around here) are handled as civil manners that go to collections agencies if unpaid to circumvent that issue.
- SteveNuts 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
- matt4077 10y agoI don't get that argument. How is a red light camera different than surveillance footage that show a murder? It's not a witness, it's evidence.
- unprepare 10y agothe surveillance footage is evidence, not an accuser. in your murder example, you would still need to be arrested by a physical person in a police uniform, you would have some interaction with an agent of the state. when you get a ticket in the mail, who is your accuser? Whose name is on the ticket? what is their badge number? how do i lodge a complaint against this officer? Who is expected to show up in court to prosecute this case?
- jmcdiesel 10y agoWhile I find the camera's themselves to be... undesirable.. Why is there a need for a grace period? The yellow is all the grace period you need. If you speed up for or ignore the yellow with time to stop, you're already breaking the law... Not that I'm a fan of the system at all - just, if you're going to do it, do it ... u know?
- JoelTheSuperior 10y agoIn fairness haven't there been problems before with cities shortening the yellow light timings after installing red light cameras?
- idbehold 10y agoIf yellow lights all had a fixed duration I would agree with you, but unfortunately the length of yellow lights is variable. Additionally yellow lights have no legal rules behind them. They don't mean "slow down", they are simply an indication that the light will be red soon. You are within your rights to accelerate through a yellow light (assuming you're still under the speed limit).
- dahdum 10y agoThey'll also adjust the yellow light period down to the legal minimum when installing red light cameras, so every other intersection might have a longer yellow around it.
- differentView 10y agoThere needs to be countdown timers on all traffic lights.
- cwyers 10y agoThe moral hazard that comes from cities using fines for offenses to generate revenue is awful and despicable, and it causes all sorts of injustices, big and small. Red light cameras are a part of this, and they're awful.
- ams6110 10y ago> an investigation by the Tribune found that the company’s interactions with Chicago officials were actually corrupt. Unsurprising given it's Chicago, but this is one of the hazards.
- rl3 10y agoI agree. I've only ever received one red light violation, and that was because I intentionally rolled through a red light at low speed on a three-way intersection making a right turn. It was early Sunday morning in clear conditions, with clear visibility in all directions for about a quarter mile, not a car in sight. My trusty crapmobile had been stalling while resting at complete stops, and the destination was my mechanic's place, which was 100ft around the corner. Stopping at that light very well could have meant calling a tow truck to be towed 100ft, and I'd already made it about 25 miles with only minor issues at that point. Well, I didn't see the red light camera that was newly-installed (let alone any notices for it), so I ended up with a $100 violation for rolling through a red at 5mph, issued via some company the local municipality contracted. You can't really argue context or circumstance with those people, since they're pretty much just call center employees ensuring that the video technically supports the violation. A stop-gap for the imperfect nature of their automation. Ended up bitterly paying the $100. In retrospect, I wish a cop had stopped me instead, because there's about a 98% chance I would have gotten off. The perverse aspect of the cameras is that in many states they don't count as moving violations, so that indicates it's not actually about safety but in fact revenue.
- jakobegger 10y agoIf your car can't stop safely at an intersection, you should have had it towed in the first place, instead of endangering everyone else on the road. The way you tell this story, those $100 were absolutely justified.
- valine 10y agoI was rear ended at a stop light because I slowed down for a yellow light while the guy behind me gunned it. Now I'm extremely hesitant to slow down for yellow lights. It has nothing to do with being impatient or disregarding traffic regulations, I simply don't trust the people behind me. I feel much safer speeding up to get through lights.
- mbroshi 10y agoA big plus of automating tickets is that it's no longer biased. You're not more likely to get a ticket in a poorer, more high crime neighborhood, just because there happen to be more police there. This way, rich white people in the Loop are just as likely to get tickets as poor black people in Woodlawn. To me this democratization seems like a big plus.
- falcolas 10y agoUnless a red light camera is put on every single intersection with a light, there's still a bias in play, a bias based on who uses the intersections where the cameras are placed. The busiest roads (and thus those most likely to get cameras) are fed by those who are commuting into town to a day job; not by those who live in-town. This immediately creates a bias based on income; the larger the city and the higher the costs of living in the city, the bigger the bias.
- codemac 10y agoI don't feel like this is true - the rich people can hire the lawyers to get them right back out of the ticket. Secondly, the cost of the ticket creates different amounts of deterrence, as when you're rich enough with no social shame (cop car with lights), you're probably going to run red lights. See: cars parked brazenly illegally are rarely beaters. These types of "democratizations" usually leave the poor even worse off, where they have no extra-legal wiggle room (chat with the cop) and no intra-legal resources. See: Modern credit cards, mobile phone billing, etc.
- djsumdog 10y agoExcept the companies are for profit. The red light cameras increase rear ending accidents: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-study-finds-red-light-cameras-not-safer-cause-more-rear-end-injuries/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-st... ..because most people don't want to intentionally run red lights. Furthermore, most cities run these as civil violations, but if you take them to court, the courts run them under criminal procedures. IANAL, but there was an excellent post someone shared on HN a few weeks back where a law professor fought one of these tickets (I can't seem to find it right now). He wasn't driving, but felt the burden of proof shouldn't reside with him, but the state. He lost his case, had to appeal, won that case and was never given any of the bond he issued to appeal. These tickets don't add points to your license in most states, their safety improvements are questionable, and they're pretty much a money making racket for cites and the companies that make/run the cameras.
- firefoxd 10y agoThey're not losing any money. It's not like someone is going in their bank account and taking that money. They simply won't be making that 17mm off of people.