[Speed Gibson,
Wednesday June 8, 2005 at 8:04am]
AutoCop
I knew this day was coming. The first of the red light traffic cameras are up and issuing warning tickets. If all goes well during the first few weeks, it will then issue tickets.
This is a response they say to the growing problem of running red lights. I agree with the diagnosis, but not with the solution. Even in traffic court, I should have the right to face and challenge my accuser. Here, we have no humans, only a machine whose entire output can be inadvertently or can maliciously wrong. I say maliciously because in one city, the duration of the yellow light was decreased when the camera was installed.
Radar guns are very accurate, but (at least for now) there is an officer operating it to certify its output, and that it applied to your vehicle. Similarly, a photograph is not admissible in and of itself in a criminal trial. Someone must testify as to how and when and where it was taken, and withstand any cross-examination as to whether it was altered after the fact. But with the red light camera, you have no such rights.
Indeed, that's a big part of this. These cameras are literally cash machines to the government. You put them up, it writes the tickets, there is no cost for an officer, no real appeal possible in traffic court, so the money pours in, even if you don't tamper with the yellow timing.
Even if the machines function perfectly, is this what we want? If you're approaching such an intersection and the light turns yellow at "the point of no return" what do you do? Do you take a chance, knowing, yes, that your rear bumper might not clear when the light turns red? And do you really hit the gas to make sure? Or do you brake hard, unsure of the yellow timing, taking a chance that an inattentive driver behind you doesn't plow into you? Sure, it's not your fault, but it's still significant time and money out of your pocket even after insurance, and hopefully no one gets hurt.
And what about in bad weather? If it's icy, do you really want to brake, possibly spin out and hit someone? Or coast gently through? Yes, the light turns red on you, but it's the correct driving decision for the situation. The camera doesn't know that.
What if traffic is congested? The timing is based on 40 mph, but we're crawling along at 28 mph today. What now? Even if we know exactly where the point of no return is at 40 mph, are we expected to be able to instantly calculate where it is at 28 mph?
That's why we put traffic cops out there, to put the situation in context. The correct decision might be to waive the technical offense, issue a warning, issue a ticket, maybe more if flagrant.
Finally, let me note that some good old fashioned speeding is now rewarded. The faster you go, the more time you have to decide and less time you spend in the intersection.
A letter writer in the Minneapolis Star Tribune cited evidence that increasing the yellow time would eliminate 94% of the problem. I'd like to believe this, but long term, we'd all eventually adjust accordingly. The adjustment many of us have long since made is to simply look both ways before entering an intersection when the light turns green.
Sooner or later, unless you crawl to each green then gun it at the line, you will be ticketed. If you think these are more than just revenue generators, that first ticket will educate you like your first W-2 did.
This is a response they say to the growing problem of running red lights. I agree with the diagnosis, but not with the solution. Even in traffic court, I should have the right to face and challenge my accuser. Here, we have no humans, only a machine whose entire output can be inadvertently or can maliciously wrong. I say maliciously because in one city, the duration of the yellow light was decreased when the camera was installed.
Radar guns are very accurate, but (at least for now) there is an officer operating it to certify its output, and that it applied to your vehicle. Similarly, a photograph is not admissible in and of itself in a criminal trial. Someone must testify as to how and when and where it was taken, and withstand any cross-examination as to whether it was altered after the fact. But with the red light camera, you have no such rights.
Indeed, that's a big part of this. These cameras are literally cash machines to the government. You put them up, it writes the tickets, there is no cost for an officer, no real appeal possible in traffic court, so the money pours in, even if you don't tamper with the yellow timing.
Even if the machines function perfectly, is this what we want? If you're approaching such an intersection and the light turns yellow at "the point of no return" what do you do? Do you take a chance, knowing, yes, that your rear bumper might not clear when the light turns red? And do you really hit the gas to make sure? Or do you brake hard, unsure of the yellow timing, taking a chance that an inattentive driver behind you doesn't plow into you? Sure, it's not your fault, but it's still significant time and money out of your pocket even after insurance, and hopefully no one gets hurt.
And what about in bad weather? If it's icy, do you really want to brake, possibly spin out and hit someone? Or coast gently through? Yes, the light turns red on you, but it's the correct driving decision for the situation. The camera doesn't know that.
What if traffic is congested? The timing is based on 40 mph, but we're crawling along at 28 mph today. What now? Even if we know exactly where the point of no return is at 40 mph, are we expected to be able to instantly calculate where it is at 28 mph?
That's why we put traffic cops out there, to put the situation in context. The correct decision might be to waive the technical offense, issue a warning, issue a ticket, maybe more if flagrant.
Finally, let me note that some good old fashioned speeding is now rewarded. The faster you go, the more time you have to decide and less time you spend in the intersection.
A letter writer in the Minneapolis Star Tribune cited evidence that increasing the yellow time would eliminate 94% of the problem. I'd like to believe this, but long term, we'd all eventually adjust accordingly. The adjustment many of us have long since made is to simply look both ways before entering an intersection when the light turns green.
Sooner or later, unless you crawl to each green then gun it at the line, you will be ticketed. If you think these are more than just revenue generators, that first ticket will educate you like your first W-2 did.
But back to the problem. Cities can't afford the number of cops it would take to adequately enforce the traffic laws. The city I live in, a moderately-sized western suburb, has hired three additional officers to focus exclusively on traffic enforcement, at a yearly cost of $200,000 or more (a guess on my part, but seems reasonable when salary, benefits, pension, training costs, etc. are added up). For this money we get maybe 1 1/2 more sqaud cars on the street, not enough to do any serious crackdown on traffic violations.
So the idea of a RoboCop writing traffic tickets becomes very attractive to many cities, at least financially. What's odd about Mpls' implementation is that the ticket is a moving violation which goes on your record. Most other cities issue them as civil penalties which don't go against your record but have proven to be easier to defend in court.
After suffering one very near-miss from a red-light runner I'm tempted to go along with anything that will stop the problem, but I don't think this is it. I'd rather pay more in taxes to put more cops on the street.
This technology will make good drivers a little better, but bad drivers a little worse for the reasons I gave.