Replies to a contrarian, supportive view of red light cams [priv]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:38:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <other () platt us>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] A contrarian reply to red light camera thread [priv]

I wonder if Mr. Healy would be satisfied with a red-light
camera system that merely made a record without triggering an
automatic fine. If running a red light caused the death of
innocent people (such as the "young children" whom Mr. Healy
seems to feel are somehow more intrinsically valuable than
other citizens), then the camera record could be used as
evidence in consequent civil and criminal actions. At the
same time, since the red-light camera would not generate
revenue in the absence of accidents, the camera system would
be free from the taint of the profit motive which obviously
is a factor, regardless of Mr. Healy's touching belief in the
fundamental decency of local government functionaries.

---

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 01:40:40 -0500
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
From: James Moyer <james () moyer com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] A contrarian reply to red light camera thread
  [priv]
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20040204235537.028ac3e8 () mail well com>

Declan,

In 1999 the Ohio legislature had a bill to introduce a pilot program to 
install red light cameras in several Ohio  cities. (Toledo and Dayton have 
the cameras, independent of state law.)

In order to allay a few concerns, the bill was amended so that 
intersections with the cameras would be marked and that the first ticket 
issued to the motorist would be a freebie/warning.

With the amendments, camera makers and cities said that there would not be 
enough revenue generated and withdrew their support.

As the story goes, a state representative point blanked asked "is this bill 
about safety or about revenue?"

Apparently the answer to that question killed the bill.

Mr. Healy's heart is in the right place, but I believe there is simply too 
much evidence to suggest that the motives for red light cameras are not 
entirely pure.

James

---
---

From: "Charbeneau, Chuck" <CCharbeneau () lear com>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: [Politech] A contrarian reply to red light camera thread [priv]
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:27:33 -0500

Declan, use this, don't, I just needed to vent.

> From: "Tony Healy"?
> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>, <politech () politechbot com>
> Subject: RE: [Politech] Another report from red light cam
> fight in Chapel
> Hill[priv] REMOVEEMAIL
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:49:26 +1100
>
> It is really unfortunate that we need to have these debates
> on road safety. Cars do crash, maim and kill, and about half
> the casualties are completely innocent. This includes young children.

Snide comment to follow:

Road safety?!?  This isn't a debate about road safety.  Any 'debate' about
road safety would include LOCAL research on speed limits, population
density, traffic patterns, law enforcement personnel per capita, traffic
related deaths, or even incidents, involving red light running per capita,
and the comparison of effectiveness of any one technique against other
techniques of control and enforcement by an UNBIASED third party that would
receive NO FINANCIAL GAIN based on the decision.

"There are three types of lies.  Lies, damn lies and statistics" --Samuel
Clemens

The only thing you get from a red light camera is a picture of a license
plate at best or the high detail picture of bodies flying out of windshields
at worst.  So, you'll be able to prosecute the offender, whoop ding.
Forcing your constituents to 'obey' through fear versus education, that's a
great idea....fact is, I think there was a great book written about the
topic by an author name ORWELL, look it up.

Isn't it more important to use the money to create an educational
environment in which we are teaching new drivers the true dangers of said
acts?  Or creating REAL studies to learn proper traffic flow and pattern
control based on current automobile design, population density and local
automobile and foot traffic?

Oh, wait, wait....

How about using some of that money to create well thought out PUBLIC
transportation models that remove the responsibility of driving from the
masses who, apparently, can't be trusted to drive safely, since we are using
cameras to track their every move.  I work in the auto industry and still it
sickens me to see the strength of their lobbying power.  Detroit is dying
for lack of a decent public transportation model, and still the big three
(and their supporters) rail against it.

Cameras aren't methods to stop accidents, they are a means to place blame.
Seems pretty typical for us Americans, though, placing blame rather than
accepting responsibility, doesn't it?

What's next?  I know...Smoking cams.  Cigarettes kill millions of people
yearly, and secondhand smoke is directly linked to a few thousand of them.
Why don't we put cameras on the outside of all our buildings and start to
prosecute the smokers?

Bah.

A remote police environment that uses technology to track, tag and prosecute
it's people is one that lacks morality.  When the system removes the human
element from it's investigative process, failures in the system evolve.
Just look at the intelligence fiasco we are encountering in the middle east.
Ask any gvt. employee who actually WORKS  in the intelligence environment
(not legislators on an intelligence committee) and they'll say that the one
major thing lacking is human intelligence (humint) to do their job
correctly.  You keep reading about it, but it keeps on getting shushed.

Why should this issue be any different?  People effect people, not machines,
not cameras and certainly not companies and local governments whose concerns
lie in making money first and protecting the citizenry next.

Oh, and teach your kids to NOT play in traffic, to drive responsibly, to
OBEY THE LAWs when they are just and to question them loudly and often when
they aren't.

Chuck Charbeneau

---

Subject: RE: [Politech] A contrarian reply to red light camera thread [priv]
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:46:07 -0800
From: "Paul Bunn" <Paul () UltraBac com>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>

[please forward to the list if appropriate]

This person sure has bought into the red-light camera companies' PR
hook-line-and-sinker, or maybe "bought into" is literal and he has stock
in one of the companies ... Either way, there is no motive of safety in
installing these systems, the motive is purely financial -- these
systems generate cash, and have not saved any documented lives, or even
prevented accidents.  In fact, there is evidence to support that
installation of these systems *increases* the number of accidents at the
junctions where installed because drivers will often panic-break at
yellow lights, resulting in rear-enders, or worse, become too focused on
the traffic signal and not pay enough attention to traffic or
pedestrians.  Any evidence supporting the claim that RLCs cause a
decrease in accidents can be attributed to specious claims, or
statistical anomalies.  In any event the effect on accident rate is
marginal.  The effect on financial bottom-line is ALWAYS substantial,
and always easily measured, and can always be traced as the root
motivator.

Now, if you REALLY wanted to do something that DID reduce accident rates
and save lives, at NO COST -- no cost of privacy, no cost financially,
and no cost to our constitutional damage. There is a way to do that
today, and best of all it's documented in terms of the actual
preventions of red-light running.  A 56% reduction in red-light running
is not a statistical anomaly.  What was this miracle cure ?  Simple:
Increasing the duration of the yellow light by ONE second.  The trouble
is that the state doesn't make any money from preventing accidents this
way -- they'd rather the accidents happen, that people continue to run
red-lights as long as they can earn money while doing so.  One light in
San Diego generated $1.8M in 18 months!  Did it save any lives, did it
prevent any accidents ?  That's very doubtful.  Did it make a lot of
money ?  You bet.

What *is* obscene is how drivers are being bilked for millions of
dollars every year under the guise of "safety", with no measurable
effect on safety, when such a simple, quantifiable solution to the
problem exists that won't cost drivers a penny.

Source:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3805


---

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:00:13 -0600
From: Matthew Hunter <matthew () infodancer org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] A contrarian reply to red light camera thread [priv]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 12:08:25AM -0500, Declan McCullagh 
<declan () well com> wrote:
> From: "Tony Healy"?
> It is really unfortunate that we need to have these debates on road safety.
> Cars do crash, maim and kill, and about half the casualties are completely
> innocent. This includes young children.
>
> Funnily enough many people do have strong views about this, especially if
> they have actually seen the effects. To impute that these concerns are
> nothing more than corporate PR, as your red light camera opponents do, is
> obscene.
>
> The nub of this argument is what civilisation is all about. Roads do not
> exist soley for Ben Brunk's enjoyment. He has to share them with 250 million
> other people. It's called civilisation.

I'm disappointed that you chose to publish this one, Declan.
"Save the children" as a means of influencing public policy is as
old as politicians kissing babies and as relevant as the boy who
cried wolf.

If we are going to save the children, shouldn't we be focusing on
proven approaches that actually work, rather than using appeals
to emotion in defense of a corporation more interested in
profitting from the victims of car crashes than actually
preventing crashes?

Does creating an imaginary crisis of red-light-running help save
the children if we could save more children for less money by
fixing the speed limits and traffic light settings?

Can we really save the children by issuing automated,
impersonal traffic tickets, forcibly transferring funds to the
government and the camera corporation, thus providing both with
a substantial financial incentive to perpetuate the problem?

--
Matthew Hunter (matthew () infodancer org)
Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt
Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp
Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp

---

Please do remove my name and email address if you post this.  I'm shopping for
a different employer right now. :-)

However good a driver you think you are, and however much better cars, tires,
and brakes are now than the 1940's, driver skill hasn't improved, and neither
has driver attention nor patience.  Traffic volume is up, as is horsepower,
which really just allows people to get into trouble at higher velocities.

The fact that the red light camera salespeople take a portion of the revenue
stream generated by fines means they have an interest in inflating, or at
least judging less charitably the "shade of yellow" that was up there on the
traffic light.  Moreover, should't the traffic cameras really be TiVO style
devices that record not just one snapshot, but a whole series, thus helping
establish that the device is in working order when the infraction ocurred?

I know I've seen my share of quick lights, and for four years suffered through
a green left-turn arrow that was green for exactly 2 seconds (I timed it), and
which the state said was "functioning normally."  The problem is we tend to
justify our bad driving based upon the few bad traffic lights we encounter.
We hold up the example of speed traps as our reason for wanting to be rid of
all speeding tickets.  The way to change a law is to actually -- change it, or
if the law is being applied unjustly, to use the appeals process.  I realize
that lobbying, protesting, and voting is messy and time-consuming, and unlike
laws against marijuana, where there may actually be a medically valid reason
for it, there's no medically valid reason for getting to work a couple of
minutes earlier.  But until the law is repealed, you're just another
lawbreaker, no matter how self-justified you feel.

Personally, I'm in favor of hydraulically operated speed bumps that turn in to
barriers, instead of red lights, but that's just me.  I'm one of these
annoying people with a spotless driving record, which means either I'm lucky
and haven't been caught, or that I drive prudently.

The real problem here is that we aren't trying to make traffic control devices
any better.  Surely there's a way with moving fresnel lenses to show a yellow
light to cars farther back, but to show a green to those cars closer to the
intersection, and for that line, the transition from yellow to green, to be
sweep along at the same speed as traffic.  If the glideslope for landing a
plane can be assisted with a 2-color light combination....

Another example is speed limits.  Right now, they are static.  During bad
weather, or heavy traffic, shouldn't the limit be lower?  On clear days with
light traffic, should it be higher?  (Wasn't that part of the justification
behind the State of Montana using, "reasonable and prudent" as their speed
limit?)  Should School Zone speed limits be different on weekends or
holidays?  Should pedestrian crossing signs light up, or blink, when the
crosswalk is occupied?

---


Tony has cut straight to the heart of the matter: "... half the casualties 
are completely innocent.  This includes young children."

Of course, Tony has neglected to mention the great many other things that 
could be done to protect the innocent - not unusual among proponents of 
indiscriminate, invasive, and unproven technologies (such as red light, 
speed, and facial recognition cameras), which further enrich corporations 
making grand claims about their efficacy with no real data to support those 
claims.

I note that Tony doesn't seem to be aware that running a red light is 
already illegal, as is speeding, and that if the police in his community 
would only enforce the law, young, innocent children might be safer 
today.  By enforcing the laws already on the books, the number of violators 
would be reduced substantially through fear of fine or sanction.

However, the courts regularly reduce the penalties or fines of motorists 
who have been caught speeding and seek representation, as if the 
circumstances under which they were fined are suddenly suspect if some 
lawyer represents them.  This completely undermines the effectiveness of 
the courts, reducing traffic fines to the point where they are completely 
ineffective as a deterrent.

The State Police and local police departments claim that they simply don't 
have the manpower to enforce the law.  The interstate (I-64) near my home 
is the main traffic artery between Richmond and Norfolk.  The state police 
could pay the salary of an officer dedicated to patrolling the road between 
Richmond and Norfolk in fines alone, but they do not. They simply "don't 
have the manpower".

Frankly, lack of manpower is not the problem.  I drive that interstate 
every day and it's a nightmare.  The local paper has run stories about 
drivers whose licenses have been revoked, who "just like to drive fast", 
and who have flipped cars on the interstate attempting to evade 
pursuit.  Not only do they have no problem buying a vehicle, they have no 
problem habitually breaking the law.  How is a habitual offender able to 
find an automobile to drive?  Why haven't the courts put them in jail?

No.  The problem is not lack of technology.  It is lack of will.  Red light 
cameras are a convenient way for the police to go about enforcing the law, 
but they are not 100 percent effective.  They allow an unacceptably-high 
number of false positives to pollute the system.  They rely on motorists 
not contesting the fines.  If a significant percentage of motorists contest 
the fines, costs increase.  For some reason, the corporations selling this 
technology never mention the increase in court costs following the 
installation of red light or speed cameras that is inevitable.  In short, 
there is no guarantee that the fines will ever be collected, the promised 
revenue ever delivered.

In summary, red light cameras are an unproven technology designed to 
convert taxpayer dollars slated for law enforcement into corporate profit 
at the expense of the very "young, innocent, suffering children" of which 
Tony speaks.

Declan, please remove my email address if this is posted.

Jason Allen

---

From: "Chad W. Didier" <cdidier () cdsupportservices com>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com>, <politech () politechbot com>
Subject: RE: [Politech] A contrarian reply to red light camera thread [priv]
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:25:51 -0500
Organization: C.D. Support Services
Message-ID: <002b01c3ecbd$1fedad30$6400a8c0@romulus>

Injury and death are a fact of life we all endure whether we are driving
on public roads or not. It's unfortunate that some cannot accept the
risks of living but, instead feel more restraint and surveillance will
prevent that which has been shown to be unaffected by such means as
automated traffic law enforcement. I drive the same roads and assume the
same risks. I drive the speed limit, mostly, and obey all traffic lights
even at 2am, begrudgingly, when mine is the only car at the intersection
for the duration of that light's cycle. To have our innocence or guilt
rightly or wrongly decided by a device with the intelligence of a pocket
calculator even in a matter as trivial as traffic law is an affront to
my sense of humanity. I am not an automaton. Law and justice should not
be the implementation of some gadget of the day.

I am a law abiding citizen as much as the next person and as much as
possible being a human being. I accept the risks involved in living. "In
the interest of public safety" is not justification enough to submit
myself to another form of the proverbial "prison without walls". If you
are as concerned about public safety as you profess why not then create
a citizen's group and empower yourself and others of like mind to
monitor dangerous intersections and report violations if your law
enforcement agencies are unwilling or unable to enforce the law? I would
have much more respect for your efforts than your promotion of an
automated traffic cop. I mean, really, if this is such a trivial matter
that the government doesn't see it worth the effort or cost to assign a
law enforcement officer to insure the laws are being obeyed and you're
not interested enough to make up for your law enforcement agency's
deficiencies why then are you so concerned as to feel the necessity to
automate it?

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)