19 ms·

There is pushback against automated camera enforcement in the US, partially because of worries of reducing union membership and power. This isn’t likely because

There is pushback against automated camera enforcement in the US, partially because of worries of reducing union membership and power. This isn’t likely because there already is a police hiring shortfall in major urban areas despite lackluster traffic enforcement, and it would be impossible to find enough cops to police every single motor violation. But also, it would remove police discretionary power to turn a blind eye to friends, family and colleagues.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
There is a lot of pushback on camera enforcement because people don’t like getting tickets and US government doesn’t have that much power compared to say Australia or Canada. That’s not even considering police unions, they don’t have to lift a finger here since most Americans already won’t let it happen. Maybe if there is less public resistance, the police unions will have to chime in on the issue. We obviously can’t afford to pay cops $200k+ a year without a huge increase in productivity, and only tech can provide that. It’s only a matter of time for the Americans to come around to it.
bsder 2y ago
> There is pushback against automated camera enforcement in the US, partially because of worries of reducing union membership and power. There is pushback in the US because the cameras got installed as a profit making exercise instead of a safety improvement. Yellow-light cameras, for example, magically got installed on busy intersections instead of dangerous ones. And then the yellow light timings got trimmed down when they weren't making enough money.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  People repeat this but this really depends on where you were, and then people take these blanket arguments that don’t apply to other states’ traffic regulations. For example this would not be an issue in a state that enshrines the minimum time of a yellow light in state law, and these issues occurred in jurisdictions where that is not true. There are also two kinds of red light cameras; those to catch dangerous red light running, and those to catch violations of the “block the box” variety. The latter isn’t necessarily dangerous but does gum up traffic flow unnecessarily.
  - gaadd33 2y ago
    Do a lot of states enshrine minimum yellow (and I assume green and red too) times? I figured that wouldn't be part of law but at best a DMV regulation type thing.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      As far as I know, no state legislature in this country has completely given up traffic code rulemaking, so legislatively passed rules would always take primacy, and if you wanted that enshrined you could get it done. After all, DMVs don’t have the power to set criminal penalty standards for things like DUI, seatbelt laws, etc. And traffic cameras usually have to be enabled by state legislation since they result in penalties, so the same law could also involve minimum standards on yellow lights.
    - bsder 2y ago
      It normally is a state DOT (department of transportation) regulation rather than a legislative law. The timings didn't really need much regulation as they were generally set by Professional Engineers(PEs) who had to sign off that they analyzed the situation and it was safe. Those PEs would generally take into account the speed limit as well as actual car speeds, the general road conditions, average human reaction times, and average car braking characteristics so that you had sufficient time to stop when the light turned yellow. Normally they got it right, but occasionally they missed a bit (actual traffic speeding more than expected) and you got a "short yellow" which generally would get corrected if enough people complained. And then some bright bulb got the idea to install enforcement cameras on the intersections--which doesn't sound like a bad idea. Except that the issue is the revenue goes to the police department AND gets split with the company maintaining the cameras--yeah, you can see where this is going a MILE away. The cameras initially got installed on a couple of the most dangerous intersections and genuinely helped--accidents went way down on those. People were genuinely pleased about this. But, see, that's an issue as the revenue is now below projections. So, then the cameras started getting installed on super busy intersections instead of dangerous ones that were literally blocks away. At this point people started getting pissed off but could still be deflected with "Don't do illegal crap at the intersection". But, you see, revenue was still below projections because people adjust their behaviors--they either go a different route or adjust to avoid the camera firing. It was at this point that they shortened the yellow lights to bump the revenue and where the shit hit the fan. The yellow lights were sufficiently short that you couldn't stop legally, accidents at the intersections increased because of rear-ending, people could document all this, and discovery pulled up the profit sharing agreements between the camera vendors and the police. At this point, everybody was pissed off and the cameras all got yanked because it was now an electoral issue. I got to watch this occur in real time in San Diego, but they were far from the only municipality to pull this garbage.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Just install them on all intersections and then people won’t be able to insinuate bias anymore. The tech is cheap enough at this point, the problem is that private companies are involved at all when they really don’t need to be. The same with speed cameras, you could just blanket them everywhere at this point, and if not, in ten years you definitely can. This isn’t really the main issue though. People want to get away with speeding and running red lights, and these people vote so…

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

There is a lot of pushback on camera enforcement because people don’t like getting tickets and US government doesn’t have that much power compared to say Australia or Canada. That’s not even considering police unions, they don’t have to lift a finger here since most Americans already won’t let it happen. Maybe if there is less public resistance, the police unions will have to chime in on the issue. We obviously can’t afford to pay cops $200k+ a year without a huge increase in productivity, and only tech can provide that. It’s only a matter of time for the Americans to come around to it.

bsder 2y ago

> There is pushback against automated camera enforcement in the US, partially because of worries of reducing union membership and power. There is pushback in the US because the cameras got installed as a profit making exercise instead of a safety improvement. Yellow-light cameras, for example, magically got installed on busy intersections instead of dangerous ones. And then the yellow light timings got trimmed down when they weren't making enough money.

bobthepanda 2y ago
People repeat this but this really depends on where you were, and then people take these blanket arguments that don’t apply to other states’ traffic regulations. For example this would not be an issue in a state that enshrines the minimum time of a yellow light in state law, and these issues occurred in jurisdictions where that is not true. There are also two kinds of red light cameras; those to catch dangerous red light running, and those to catch violations of the “block the box” variety. The latter isn’t necessarily dangerous but does gum up traffic flow unnecessarily.
- gaadd33 2y ago
  Do a lot of states enshrine minimum yellow (and I assume green and red too) times? I figured that wouldn't be part of law but at best a DMV regulation type thing.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    As far as I know, no state legislature in this country has completely given up traffic code rulemaking, so legislatively passed rules would always take primacy, and if you wanted that enshrined you could get it done. After all, DMVs don’t have the power to set criminal penalty standards for things like DUI, seatbelt laws, etc. And traffic cameras usually have to be enabled by state legislation since they result in penalties, so the same law could also involve minimum standards on yellow lights.
  - bsder 2y ago
    It normally is a state DOT (department of transportation) regulation rather than a legislative law. The timings didn't really need much regulation as they were generally set by Professional Engineers(PEs) who had to sign off that they analyzed the situation and it was safe. Those PEs would generally take into account the speed limit as well as actual car speeds, the general road conditions, average human reaction times, and average car braking characteristics so that you had sufficient time to stop when the light turned yellow. Normally they got it right, but occasionally they missed a bit (actual traffic speeding more than expected) and you got a "short yellow" which generally would get corrected if enough people complained. And then some bright bulb got the idea to install enforcement cameras on the intersections--which doesn't sound like a bad idea. Except that the issue is the revenue goes to the police department AND gets split with the company maintaining the cameras--yeah, you can see where this is going a MILE away. The cameras initially got installed on a couple of the most dangerous intersections and genuinely helped--accidents went way down on those. People were genuinely pleased about this. But, see, that's an issue as the revenue is now below projections. So, then the cameras started getting installed on super busy intersections instead of dangerous ones that were literally blocks away. At this point people started getting pissed off but could still be deflected with "Don't do illegal crap at the intersection". But, you see, revenue was still below projections because people adjust their behaviors--they either go a different route or adjust to avoid the camera firing. It was at this point that they shortened the yellow lights to bump the revenue and where the shit hit the fan. The yellow lights were sufficiently short that you couldn't stop legally, accidents at the intersections increased because of rear-ending, people could document all this, and discovery pulled up the profit sharing agreements between the camera vendors and the police. At this point, everybody was pissed off and the cameras all got yanked because it was now an electoral issue. I got to watch this occur in real time in San Diego, but they were far from the only municipality to pull this garbage.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
Just install them on all intersections and then people won’t be able to insinuate bias anymore. The tech is cheap enough at this point, the problem is that private companies are involved at all when they really don’t need to be. The same with speed cameras, you could just blanket them everywhere at this point, and if not, in ten years you definitely can. This isn’t really the main issue though. People want to get away with speeding and running red lights, and these people vote so…