Red Light & Speeding Cameras
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
I remember, in the late ’90s, having a heated discussion with my father about Red Light Cameras. Speeding cameras hadn’t come along yet. Why did such a conversation matter? I was a cop. My dad was a District Court Judge. As a cop you’d think I’d have been all in favor of Red Light cameras because they would help enforce the law. My loss in understanding was how someone could be fined without there ever being ANY proof that they committed the crime.
Judge Dad tried to explain to me that the Red Light Camera enforcement was based on an old English law that allowed the Queen to seize vessels caught committing acts of piracy on the high seas. It didn’t matter whether or not the vessel’s owner was on board. If the ship was used in acts of piracy then the ship and all belongings on it were seized “in the name of the Queen.” Apparently the same “law” applies to Red Light Enforcement cameras. If YOUR VEHICLE is observed (photographed) running a red light, then you - the owner - are held responsible civilly.
In my very limited point of view this equated to charging someone with a violation and punishing them without due process. Judge Dad explained that wasn’t so. You CAN challenge a red light ticket. But the challenge isn’t whether or not YOU committed the violation. It’s all about whether or not YOUR VEHICLE was photographed committing the violation. Now again, you’d think that as a cop I’d be all in favor of such enforcement tools; and if they accomplished what they were designed for I think I’d believe in them more. But here we are a decade later and people still run red lights on a regular basis; the same ones over and over. People are now being caught on “speed cameras” on a regular basis but people are still speeding. Obviously, as enforcement tools, these cameras and the fining system are not successful. So why are they still not only around but growing in numbers?
The answer, I’m sad to say, is dollars. Pure and simple, the governmental organizations that collect the fines from the red light and speeding violations COUNT on drivers NOT obeying the law. Why do I say that?
Because those governmental organizations build a budget every year and one of their revenue line items is fines from those cameras. If drivers don’t commit those violations then no fine letters get sent; no fines get collected; no revenue comes in for that line item and their budgets get out of balance. In essence, when they put those camera enforcement tools in place they did so to increase their potential revenue.
Let’s look at this another way: while the camera enforcement tools are supposed to enforce the law and reduce violations, if they did so - if every driver in the country stopped running red lights and stopped speeding - do you think the camera enforcement tools would still be kept up and operational? I don’t think so.
Someone would have to pay the maintenance cost. It won’t be the commercial organization that makes them and sets them up because (in my experience) they get paid a percentage of the fines collected. No fines mean no money made. I don’t think the governmental organizations will keep maintaining equipment that produces nothing for them… But if the camera enforcement tools were REALLY there for enforcement and the governmental organizations were REALLY committed to increased public safety through traffic enforcement, then those cameras would stay up even if there were zero violations, right?
So, what do you think about those cameras? Like them? Hate them? Think they are unconstitutional? Believe they help increase traffic safety? Think they are simple revenue generating gimmicks? Your thoughts appreciated.
I’ve always hated red light cameras and speed cameras. They are all about dollars, and enforcement is NOT a fund raising activity. (Or it shouldn’t be)
The problem is not really holding the owner responsible for the actions of his car. We’ve been doing that for years with parking tickets. The problem is indeed on the financial end.
The unspoken truth is that towns depend on enforcement fines and fees to fund services. They project them and budget accordingly.
Is it coincidence that when you see stories by ‘our friends’ in the press about speed trap towns, the town in question is a little burg with limited cash flow? I think not.
Why do you think that some states dropped the Justice of the Peace system, where the local judge got a cut [or all] of the fines?
Some PD’s saw the same thing when drug forfeiture came along and the departments did not see a drug fighting tool…they saw $$$$. There was abuse, and it resulted in the rules getting tighter.
If traffic enforcement is successful, and you gain compliance on the part of the public, your funding dries up. So this sort of budgeting assumes they will not get compliance, and though they would never say it, they hope that Joe Citizen continues to commit infractions.
I think citizens see this, and they resent it. I also think they resent loosing the chance to give an excuse to the officer stopping them. Talking the cop out of a ticket (or trying) has been around as long as the automobile. I have fielded citizen complaints over the years that boiled down to the fact the officer didn’t let them tell the story and vent. Combined, the hit you take from the public’s feelings about why you are enforcing the laws should make agencies think very carefully about starting this up.
Some municipalities have dropped the programs because the increase in safety was slight and the public reaction was very negative.
I am kinda mixed on this one. I can see the deterrent to red light cameras, and it is quite simple to prove a violation of that sort but I have problems when enforcement is done by machines and not by people. I really hate the idea of speed cameras. Speeding is somewhat of a complicated offense to prove, and I don’t trust R2 D2 to perform the task correctly. However on the upside most of these automated enforcement tools are only civilly enforceable and do not go against your driving record. At least this is the case in Texas. Texas has not authorized the use of automated speed enforcement but many municipalities use automated enforcement for toll roads and red lights. If you state must do this at least make them keep these violations in civil court.
On the seizing the vessels on the high seas theory, I suppose that is what every cop or meter maid does when they write a parking ticket. Can you prove WHO parked the car? Usually not without taking time to investigate it and why do that when you have seven other cars in violation at the same time? So this type of enforcement is nothing new.
My only question is…is this England? How do we have a rule or law based upon an old english law? Wouldn’t the legislature (local or fed) have to you know…vote a bill in to change the local (or federal) laws making the old english law a current state (fed) law?
If we can just make up new rules willy nill based upon old laws from other nations can I start cutting the hands off of theifs that I catch? It is valid under middle eastern laws..I base it on that!!
Our city was supposed to have RLCs up and running by April 1st. I say supposed to because, as ususally happens, the introduction of any technology for use by the local government of our twon is doomed to fail. I believe it is the result of a Karmic black hole cretaed by an evile IT genius. Anyway…
There was the ususal and expected outcry, by residents and cops alike, about “Big Brother” tactics and the primary interst being the revEnue generation. Our traffic guys attended community and homeowners meetings, came to roll calls, posted the typical “rah-rah” memos about the cameras and how they ARE FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY ONLY!!! REVENUE IS NOT THEIR PURPOSE.
THen, in a heated and very public council meeting about budgetary shortfalls, the talk among our esteemed councilpersons turned to how the cameras would be up soon and creating a new money flow for the city. effing brilliant… true colors revealed.
Note to governing bodies everywhere… 1) IF THE ENFORCEMENT ARM OF YOUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT A POLICY OR ORDINANCE, LISTEN EBCAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE HATED BY YOUR CONSTITUENTS and 2) IF YOU INSIST ON SERVING UP A BIG STEAMING DISH OF B.S., GET EVERYONE ON THE SAME PAGE, YA DOLTS.
Speed/Red Light Cameras - tools to enhance revenue for the government. They should be banned. Places that insist on them, a violations sent in the mail resulting from the cameras should not count against the owner’s driving record in anyway such as license points, insurance increases.
Wolff, most of our laws in the United States are based on English Common law. If you read the declaration of independence you would see the phrase, “For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.” The laws in the United States is based on these “free System of English laws.” Just because we are two different nations we are still linked by our common legal systems. So the district judge’s analogy would be a correct one.
I am also kind of mixed on the use of cameras for enforcement. My city is starting a “red light camera” program this summer. The city came up with the program on their own without much input from the police department, with the exception that they asked us which intersections to place the cameras based on crash statistics. (One location that was recommended by the vendor and had a lot of violations, but was rejected because that location had very few crashes.)
The violations are civil only, and do not count as a violation on the driver’s or owners drivers license history.
My lone hang up is that it taking some discretion away from an officer on whether to issue a violation or not when they speak to the driver.
The camera system takes two still photo’s of the violation, and has 10-15 seconds of video of the actual violation to review when deciding to issue a citation. (The offender also gets to review the video and still photo’s of the violation.)
Everyone keeps saying revenue. Lets use the proper term; tax. Law Enforecment should not be about the taxes collected.
I’d be more inclined to call tolls a tax. When I write a speeder a ticket and (s)he pays a fine, it’s not a tax. I can view the red light / speed camera violations as a civil levy.
But I think my biggest concern is still this: if they didn’t generate fines / taxes / levies, they wouldn’t be in existance (in my opinion). I’ve YET to hear a city or town council volunteer to incur an expense to put in such cameras without the large majority of the conversation revolving around how much $$ they can be expected to generate.
If such camera enforcement tools are REALLY 100% about public safety, then let’s hear from the governmental organizations that take 100% of the revenues and reinvest it into public safety: police, sheriffs, educational programs, whatever. If 100% of those dollars received aren’t put back into public safety then the programs are NOT JUST about public safety. I don’t believe such a pure politician exists.
I think that we are all fooling ourselves if we believe that any citation whether it be speeding, running a stop sign/red light, unlawfully bypassing a toll, DWI, or any other funds reaped from traffic offenses would actually completely be used for public safety purposes.
After all, if you were an elected senator would you rather propose a new tax or would you rather tell everyone that you are being “tough” on aggressive or drunk drivers. Which type of senator would YOU vote for? All of these fines are, in many cases used to supplement or outright replace actual taxation. Although I work for a Sheriff’s Office that does not derive its revenue from traffic citations, I still know where the money goes. It goes to pay for whatever the government wants that particular legislative session. I really don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I dread having my property or registration taxes go up but I also realize that traffic fines go to programs so that I do not have to pay higher taxes. It is all about what kind of government YOU want. But let’s not fool ourselves, we can’t get it both ways. Do you want higher taxes, or b___ s___ traffic fees? This is for the public to decide. Someone has to pay for the pet projects for the government…..
The only problem with not levying points on these violations is that a majority of these violators are the ones that always gp through red lights and dont stop at stop signs and end up killing innocent people-they could care less about the fines. They are the same ones that honk their horns when you are out in the middle of an intersection directing traffic or curse at you when issuing a ticket.
ttThose red light cameras are for collecting illegal taxs and should be banned. It has been proven that they cause rear end collisions as people panic stop to avoid the ticket.
Some states have a basic rule regarding speeding which basically requires extenuating circumstances in addition to speed over the posted limit to support a speeding charge. For example, doing 60 in a 50 mph zone in inclement weather, wet pavement, etc. Oregon is one of those states. Other states, like Maryland, have a per se rule which basically supports a speeding charge if you’re driving more than 1 mph over the posted limit with no consideration for any other factors. which one seems more reasonable or fair? Speed cameras are not fair. They’re machines. But they do bring home the bacon more so than real live police officers, and that’s what it’s all about. It’s just not politically correct to admit the truth for those jurisdictions who are reaping the reward. For them; Vevitas Vos Liberabit.
It’s no secret that city council acquires mucho revenues through traffic and parking violations. This happens throughout the world. It should be viewed as a fair act practiced by the local government in favor of the citizenry: running the red light may result in a serious wreck, and parking awkwardly may impede traffic flow and deny rightful parking to others. Unfortunately, good intentions are not there, and citizen security is not the objective. In fact, traffic tickets are hardly a deterrence from speeding and other violations to the traffic laws. The recent, substantial decrease in traffic deaths is imputable to lesser traffic, due to the very high price of gasoline.
Just another area where the government demonstrates the disconnect from we the people. Money, I agree is the sole motivation. No longer are issues of: right and wrong, the will of the people, justice considered. Why any country except the US is considered in our laws is beyond comprehension. Instead of the government working for the people, the situation is reversed and we the people exist to benefit the government. Our judicial system is a cruel joke and a literal contradiction in terms today. Importantly the solution, the answer to resolve this is not easy nor pretty. In God We Trust