I'm not so sure about this. I actually think that the red-light cameras are a good thing, especially when there is a big-ass sign saying that they are present. We know that actually stopping at red lights is kind of an 'honor system' law. Take parking meters for example. Should we just put a sign up and say 'Hey, if you park here, send some money to this address.'. No, that would not work out too well. And if we didn't have meter maids, would people actually put money in the meters? Again, no. Now illegal parking probably is not a big killer of innocents, but running red lights ... well, I think you can see the difference. It's not like these units detect a violation and immediately open up with 50mm automatic armor piercing machine guns. It's a ticket. You saw the light. Pay up.

A man should wear a fedora. Not necessarily for criminal purposes (he may himself be a lawman), but in order to have style. I'm extremely glad that I myself have a fedora, which I wear for special occasions. I wore it all day yesterday.

The problem with these lights... with ALL these technological innovations in 'crime' fighting- is that the laws are the way they are because 99% of the time people are NOT caught. Imagine if every car used tyllemetry to notify the cops of every instance when you broke the speed limit. The speed limits would raise at least 10 mph across the board. It is the fact that we AREN'T caught that allows the speed limits to be so ridiculously low.

So when technology allows high levels of enforcement the laws change. It's that time between enforcement increases and law adjustment where people will feel like they are really getting screwed. And not in a good way. And they'll be right, since it is natural to assume the enforcement percentages will remain consistent.

Illinois already gives speeding tickets automatically. If you use the automated toll collection, they will issue a speeding ticket if you travel from one toll station to another too quickly. If you want to avoid using the system you can still pay cash, however they have recently doubled the rates for cash transactions.

Dude, there have been warning signs on I-15 round about Halloran Summit for months stating that it's an experimental photo enforcement area. If Schwartzenegger just started shipping the tickets from those cameras, he could balance the state budget quickly.

(I drive there frequently; traffic is always going at least 10mph over the speed limit)

Here in Detroit, an adminstration official was bragging about how the traffic lights were generating a profit. Peeps looked into it and learned two things:
1. The "sub-contractor" running the system was getting paid based upon how many tickets were issued.
2. The timing of the yellow light duration had been reduced on those lights that had the camera installed.

With "mass management" comes "mass corruption".

In regards to having the license plate photographed; Kim DuToit had an article (over a year ago) regarding a spray paint that could be applied to a license plate that reflected the flash and rendered a photo useless. It was non-glossy and not visible to the naked eye. It was marketed as a product to help prevent debris from accumulating on the license plate, thereby circumventing the state laws that prevent covering or obscuring the plate.

The combination of driving with a face-obscuring object and a plate-obscuring coating would render a photo-light system from confirming your identity.

However - and most importantly - I believe that running red lights is wrong, and an automated system for enforcing these laws is a good thing. But it needs to be properly (and legally) administered.

Measures, countermeasures...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030703-120901-3612r.htm

All arguments opposing red light cameras beg one very important question: If you don't run red lights and thus break the law, why should you be worried? If you get a driver's license, you make an explicit agreement to FOLLOW THE RULES. I am absolutely in favor of them. Unconstitutional? Pah! Please cite the article and section.

For the most part, we run red lights by making judgment calls that don't quite work out. As an earlier commenter noted, the current law is based on the idea of punishment, based on the assumption that 99% won't be caught. In NJ, this is a fine of about $70, and two points on your record so you'll end up paying an extra $800 on insurance over the next couple of years.

So if you put cameras that catch red-lighters all the time, the penalty should be rewritten to reflect the fact that everyone will be caught. Perhaps a warning first, no points but a fine the second time, eventually escalating to the current $70 and 2 points.

One key thing forgotten here is that the presence of red light cameras greatly increases the number of rear-end accidents, enough that insurers may begin to advocate for their removal and/or charge higher rates where red light cameras exist.

Presented with the facts about red light cameras increasing accidents, profit-motivated officals do nothing. Their presence may have initially been about safety, but now that they are about profit, I suspect that we'll find them a tenacious foe.

It can be argued that speeding or excessive speeding is less a cause of a crash than a contributing factor. After all, the injuries sustained to either yourself, your passenger and sometimes to those around you are due to the forces of sudden deceleration. Oops, lost control and now I flipped the car into the ditch. Doh!

Running at a red light? Even going 20mph could kill the driver of another car if you strike it on the drivers side. Escalade vs. Echo anyone? I say catch 'em all and show no mercy.

Umm how about just slowing down. Just a thought. I was caught in Germany on cam, but hey I was speeding. I paid my fine without dealing with a police officer and I didn't have to waste time sitting for the ticket. Maybe I'm missing how this is an infringement. Could you imagine if people actually obeyed the traffic laws. Perhaps less accidents? Maybe?

File me with those who aren't overly concerned about this. I fail to see what rights are violated by using an automated system to detect lawbreakers. (The Wash Times article cited above mentioned violations of "privacy." This is ridiculous: you have no expectation of privacy in terms of how you drive your car on a public road.)

The issue isn't about privacy per se, it's about pervasive enforcement.

Think about all the times you break the law, or have broken the law -- all the instances you have jaywalked, exceeded the speed limit, made a U-turn where you shouldn't have, maybe even smoked pot. (And don't tell me you've NEVER broken any law, as some people do. I know you are lying.)

Now imagine each time that you broke the law, someone knew about it. Someone, somewhere, usually some faceless computer, kept track of this.

As Vernor Vinge knew, pervasive law enforcement is the beginning of the downfall of society, because it never gets any better. Only worse.

That's the issue we're fighting against here.

There's a great Bruce Schneier article on this I wish I could find.

Oh well -- the point is that this is the first step down a path no one wants to travel.

Checkout the Gatso and Talivan buttons....

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm

.....and do visit the links.

Have a wonderful day!

Pssst....

http://www.phantomplate.com/

I only put my front license plate on when I park, because, for the most part, you'll only get plate tickets while parking (Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica for example instruct their parking enforcement to give those tickets with a vengeance).

E.Nough, another thing to consider: There is no consistent timing for traffic lights - nor is there any good indicator of when a light is going to change. Some people go by the pedestrian signs - they're not always active. I've seen lights with long, generous yellows and others with incredibly short ones. In fact, the final straw for me was when I was going through an camera-enforced intersection which happened to have a really short yellow light and poor pedestrian idicators (no solid red, just flashing) that I wasn't expecting. There was a car close behind so I didn't want to slam on the brakes and be rear-ended, nor did I want the ticket. I ended up doing something far more dangerous, took a right turn (I'm sure they enjoyed the picture of the driver's side of my car). Luckily there was nobody on that street (because I went wildly into the other lane of traffic.

Ever since then I refuse to drive with my front license plate on - it's just too dangerous.

Humans are easily conditioned, and when camera-enforced lights can be set up slightly differently to encourage more tickets (as they do in Beverly Hills), it's just plain wrong.

you've awoken an old dream of mine. thx!

Actually, there are very few crimes for which society would wish to apprehend and punish all violators - murder and rape would be some examples. There are significant economic and social advantages to having a random component in law enforement. Those having a strong interest in this area should check out "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach" by Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker.

The goal of law enforcement is to regulate human behavior, not control it. Putting up cameras at intersections represents a significant intrusion into the lives of US citizens. One could argue that it represents an assumption of guilt. This intrusion is only justified when the contribution to public safety outweighs the intrusive nature of the measure. This might well be the case at intersections with high traffic levels or with a demonstrated high accident rate, but even then it is not so simple. What if the accident rate at that intersection doesn't go down after installation of the camera? What is the sense of having it there then? What about other measures that could make the intersection safer? If the government can control nearly all aspects of driver behavior, what incentive is there for building better highways and designing safer intersections and cars?

A staggering number of people are killed or injured on American roads each year, and automated traffic control certainly has a place as part of the solution. But it should only be applied when and where it can be effective.

Every time I hear a person argue that some law enforcement measure is inherently wrong or illegal or unconstitutional, 3 things go through my mind: 1) many people use the argument to excuse their own propensity to break the law for personal convenience; 2) there is a huge consideration to be made when enforcement is arbitrary or discretionary; and most importantly, 3) I personally make those same arguments on occasion.

While I am loath to side with the law enforcement industry, I must say that they have a point when they say that "the law is the law". That said, any law enforced arbitrarily or by discretion is not a law, but rather, a fund raiser. I am NO fan of fund raisers since the police can use the badge to extort from some random, or worse, select member of the general public.

So how does this affect the concept of traffic cams? I believe that they are a wonderful way to take discretion and random selection out of the mix. Do I agree with the laws that they enforce? NO WAY!

Traffic signals are not always useful at all. For example: in a condition of no traffic, and a timed signal with a long wait, a person may waste several minutes at each intersection waiting for red lights which stop him. OR, suppose a person is on a motorcycle at an intersection with a pressure switch. I often cross intersections against the signal because MY motorcycle does not trip the switch to change the signal as it simply does not weigh enough.

Worse than signals is the concept of speed zones. These are typically set as an arbitrary measure which is well below known average speeds and traffic capacities. There is a littany of research regarding 85th percentile speeds which suggests that these should be the standard, rather than arbitrary values. Similarly, conditions can have a great affect on safe speeds. Enforcing an arbitrary speed limit in order to collect revenues is quite litterally highway robbery.

We have the technology and capability to create perfect (100% of violations detected) enforcement. It used to be my belief that the best way to fix the problems of arbitrary enforcement as done by individual cops in traffic stops or arbitrary regulation like speed zones as they exist today is to simply employ a perfect enforcement mechanism like traffic cameras and mailed citations. However, Washington DC was a perfect example of how that fails. In DC, they employ these mechanisms and the enforcement caused near 100% compliance with the rules in the areas where perfect enforcement was applied. Instead of creating outrage against the arbitrary speed limits, people simply learned where to slow down to avoid a ticket. Instead of creating outrage against ridiculous intersection controls, people just learned which ones to obey. To the enforcement agencies, this is a job well done, while the people giving in to control face daily inconvenience and only the occasional tourist gets nailed in the perfect enforcement systems.

So my biggest concern about traffic cams is not that they exist, or that they are used against the public. My greatest concern is that the public at large has expended more energy fighting the perfect and fair enforcement mechanism than they have spent fighting the arbitrary and obstructionist rules which are being enforced.

It seems to me that the biggest concern, and therefore the most spent energy, should be in getting rid of ridiculous laws and publicly challenging legislators who impose these laws in the first place. With the level of outrage that is obviously tied to the enforcement mechanism, perhaps people could make a difference in what is actually being enforced in the first place. Then, at least when someone says that "the law is the law", the public at large can agree that "the law is a reasonable or good law" and perhaps accept enforcement of the law a little easier.

Thomas-any cites on IL using the IPASS system to issue tickets? I expected this would happen once the governor forced people into using the IPASS, but this is the first I've heard that he actually has done it.

Actually, traffic lights are not safety devices but efficiency devices. They may in fact reduce safety, but we like the efficiency.

They're efficient because they allow you to sail through an intersection without slowing or looking. They compromise safety exactly because of this.

There's running red lights and there's running red lights. If you verify it's clear, it has no safety impact at all, and in fact increases efficiency itself. You lose however the ability to assume that the nut stopped at the red light won't pull in front of you, in the sense that you will have been right and him wrong, which people are reluctant to give up. Surprisingly, though, right turn on red amazingly came into being, showing that efficiency trumps this, sometimes.

Here's my problem with red-light cameras: I got a ticket in the mail showing ME RUNNING A RED LIGHT. I was really surprised, since I don't knowlingly run red lights, but I obviously unknowingly did in this case. But here's the problem. I got the ticket three weeks after the images were made - the context was gone, and I had no way to know what factors led me to blow a red light. Was I ogling some babe out of the pic? In a diabetic stupor? Trying to avoid being rear-ended by a fuel tanker bearing down from behind? Who knows - I couldn't even recall being in the intersection. Had a cop immediately pulled me over and ticketed me, however, I would have had that context and would thus have been able to learn from the experience and possibly correct whatever factors induced me to miss the light. My other problem with traffic cams is that I don't like the idea of being ticketed by some lady sitting in her PJs in her living room in Baltimore watching Oprah with one eye, a bunch of day care brats with the other, while simultaneously processing unauthorized photographs of me whilst also updating her lousy blog.

Get rid of these cameras - stick with the cops I'm already paying to protect me from myself and from others.

If you don't grow marijuana on your property and thus break the law, why should you be worried if Big Brother puts a camera on your porch?

If you don't sort your recyclables, why should you be worried if Big Brother puts sensors on your trash can?

If you don't jaywalk and thus break the law, why should you be worried if Big Brother puts GPS sensors in your shoes?

If you don't dump toxic waste down storm sewers and thus break the law, why should you be worried if Big Brother requires you to wear a poison detection sensor at all times?

If you don't cheat on your taxes, why should you be worried if Big Brother puts a barcode on your forehead and hand?

Hey, what's up with those opaque plastic grocery bags?

Driving around on windy days those darn things can be seen blowing around like leaves in Autumn. And I can't count the number of times I get home from doing my errands to find one of those nasty little things, its handle caught on the edge of my front license plate and the sack stuck flatly to it by some unidentifiable goo that had oozed from the products originally carried by it.

I never really paid much attention to the prevalence of these occurrences, but my curiosity had been aroused a while ago and I decided to do some investigating. Nothing scientific, mind you, just counting the times each day I would see this same occurrence, hoping that I might not be the only one this cursed thing happened to.

I was bummed on my first day of observing. I didn't see a one, but damned if it didn't happen to me again. I realized it was silly to think only one person observing would be adequate for this task. I explained this to my friends in the neighborhood so that my observations would not be such a small sample. I also asked them to enlist their friends in this effort so the sample of observations would be even bigger. It also would reduce the effects of my rather short, habitual driving routes and other such things.

Now, for my remarkable results and I am sure you will not believe it. When I decided to start observing, I thought, "Gee, this should be a one in a million thingy. Why does it happen so often to me?" I am sure you would think so, too. In fact, now that I have started watching, and my friends have joined in helping and their friends, too, and so on, this 'bags getting caught on front license plates' has been found to be quite prevalent.

How much so? Not sure. The flaw in our original methods for observing didn't also include counting vehicles that did not have them. Still we noticed a lot of cars. (We can't divulge the number - there might be some money in the research we are doing.) It's probably not prudent to change to counting all cars. Doing so might distract too much from our driving and might even lead to inadvertently committing traffic infractions. It's probably better to just enlist more observers, instead.

But this one little study may spawn another. Just last week, a friend asked, "Have you noticed that some of the plastic bags we see on license plates seem to be all tattered and ready to fall off?" I told him I did, but that I've never been lucky enough to get one of those cheap, lousy plastic bags that fall off before getting home caught on my license plate. It's always some sturdy, quality bag I have to pry off my license plate after I get home. He said, "Gee, what are the chances of that, like, one in a million? I'll mention to my friends to start keeping an eye on that, too."

Bay area folks should consider themselves lucky... I live in the Peoples Republic of DC and, we not only have red light camera's, but also the parking Gestapo! I bought a new car on 12/31 and the dealership submitted the paperwork for registration and tags. I started getting parking tickets the following Monday... every day because I have temp tags. So, where am I supposed to park? And, to add insult to injury, I also got a $250 "snow emergency route" parking ticket because the Disaster of Columbia got 3 inches of snow (which, of course, they didn't plow because they never do). But, they had the friggin parking nazi's out giving tickets 5 minutes after it stopped snowing.

Big brother is totally getting out of hand.

Running red lights at any normal speed is a serious menace to other drivers. About four years ago my car was hit and totaled out by a guy who ran a red light. If I'd been a few feet further into the intersection, he would have hit me on the driver's-side door and I'd have been killed. The more people who do this kind of thing get caught and taken out of circulation, the better.

I lived in Germany for six years and the cameras are a great thing. They don't invade privacy, since the photos only show the driver and an officer would have seen the driver in the first place. And they SLOW people down and STOP them from running lights - which is a good thing.

Frankly, this isn't about your privacy - it is about people not wanting to get caught breaking the law.

Suck it up, son.

I'm sure that the people who set speed limits are fine folks with the public's best interest in mind. But who voted for them? What happens if I don't like their decision regarding speed limits--can I fire them and get someone new? Am I allowed to vote to change the speed limit if I think it's too low, or abolish it entirely if I think there should be a better system?

You're correct that reckless driving is hazardous, but there's a legal line that defines "reckless driving", and the general public had absolutely _zero_ input as to where that line was drawn (along with no chance to discuss the appropriate penalties for crossing it.)

One countermeasure that I thought of was using a large LCD display hooked to a switch on the dash. The LCD display does not have its back light panel attached so it would be see through when not turned on. One could saw it is just a license plate holder or frame. At a flip of a switch though it will activate the crystals and turn the entire panel opaque. One could also coat the panel surface with anti-reflective coating which can greatly diminish the effectiveness of laser speed measurement guns most popular with law enforcement.

I lived in Maryland for 3 years. They have avoided the entire constitutional arguement and gone straight for the money grab by issuing you a ticket if your car ran a red light. They do not take pictures of the driver. They justify this by only charging you money but not assesing points on your liscense.

My husband received a ticket for running a red light in Maryland. After looking at the time and the intersection, we realized that the driver was the Maryland state inspector with whom we left the car to get its required inspection! Sheesh.

Many posters are arguing that the cameras are good because running red lights is dangerous. The vast majority of the tickets are issued not to flagrant offenders, however, but to those who ran a very stale yellow that turned red while they were still in the intersection. And for this we need constant monitoring?

Who would have thought 50 years ago that cameras would be used to enforce traffic laws? But they want to put cameras in place, "for our own good."

Request permission to speculate.....

Well, the camera already catches license plates, which are tied to a physical address, where the tickets can be mailed to, right?

So why not tie it to a criminal databse, where they start tracking your overall driving behavior. Tie that to the insurance databases. What insurance company wants to insure drivers that run red lights? These people "threaten us all," don't they?

But, really, why stop there? Can we all agree that the authorities are behind on picking up people who are supposed to be in jail? Why not just use the cameras to take pictures of everybody who passes through the light? I mean, only the red-light runners will get ticketed, right? And if we automate the system, where all license plates are checked against a database, what's the problem?

Besides, if we make the system responsive enough, it might catch the occasional car thief, and wouldn't that be grand? After all, car thieves "threaten us all." And don't forget Amber alerts. We could ID suspected cars in a hurry, and catch kidnappers.

With motion sensors, they could catch speeders, who, of course, "threaten us all." This would be especially useful in school zones, because people who speed in school zones "threaten us all" even more, never mind that the fines are (properly) sky-high for this.

Pretty soon, those motion sensors, linked to enough computing power, could probably identify erratic driving, and allow the police to arrest those drunk drivers and DUIs who, say it with me, "threaten us all."

Big Brother grows up one day at a time, just like the rest of us.

Ray makes some excellent points above, not the least of which is that a great deal of the indignation about the cameras springs from one's propensity to break laws out of convenience. Mea culpa.

The DC laws add an element of greed, though. The mayor there has dropped "safety" from his "safety and revenue" justification, and ACS, the company responsible for both speed and red-light cameras, has been spending a good chunk of money on lobbyists for "safety education". The cameras in DC appear to be a blatant money grab.

Thoughts on the money grab here and on selective enforcement here.

Props to Eric for taking on a gray area that's getting very little notice.

Simple Solution:
We have the camera's in arizona. The easy solution for those that are married...
The vehicle that I drive most frequently is registered/licensed to my wife, and the vehicle she drives most frequently is registered/licensed to me.
Case study: Scottsdale, AZ. My sister was driving my mom's car and got her picture taken. The ticket arrived without a picture, only a location and date. My mom went down to the local city office-of-big-brother. The picture was obviously not my mom. The office-of-big-brother clerk asked my mom who the driver was. In short, my mom said, "That's not my problem, that's yours". After a short temper tantrum by the clerk, they dismissed the ticket and my mom was on her way.

The main problem I have with traffic light cameras is this: what happens when they start putting up 'jaywalking cameras' and 'speeding cameras' and 'stop sign cameras' (and start sending tickets to rolling stoppers) and 'keep off the grass' cameras and 'loitering cameras' and .... These types of things aren't anything to do with public safety. If law enforcement had to give every dime it made on citations to charity or return it to the public, you'd see dramatic and instant reduction in enforcement of most of the things we get tickets for. Stop couching it as a public safety issue, because after all, if someone runs a red light and causes an accident, the camera isn't going to do anything to stop it, nor be able to assist those involved. In fact, if no accident is caused, then the argument can be made that there was no breach of safety and thus no real reason to cite.
Also, where are the cameras inside the police stations that I have access to? I mean...police are public servants, right? We all know that police aren't perfect. They break laws sometimes, too. Why shouldn't we be able to monitor them? Who watches the watchers? Do police officers in official vehicles who are not responding to a call also get tickets mailed to them? I've seen countless traffic violations by cops, which to my mind makes them totally unfit to cite anyone else. If the police aren't going to be held to the law, why should anyone else?

These cameras are not about safety. They are about money.

And for everyone ranting about privacy, that is not the issue. The issue is the inability to face your accuser (this right is recognized by the SCOTUS as a part of the 5th amendment). A redlight camera freezes a single moment in time. It removes all situational context. Case in point:
My roommate received a ticket from a camera for pulling to the shoulder on a street that had posted signs disallowing that very thing. He was shown a picture very clearly depicting his action. It was not until he supoenaed the photo taken of the other car visible on the edge of his frame that you could see the firetruck he was allowing to pass. The prosecuting agency had both pictures the entire time, and choose to go after him anyway. (I am not certain, but it appears they never contacted the other driver as they knew that case would get tossed.)

Redlight cameras are not about safety. If they wanted to increase safety, they should lengthen the amber phase at every light; this is proven effective. The cameras are about revenue generation.

Considering how readily drivers in my city run red lights oblivious to the danger they impose on themselves and others just to save themselves a few seconds of time, I look forward to the installation of red light cameras. If that means tailgaters will rear-end other cars more of the time, then the solution is for them to stop doing that.

A few years ago my state made it legal to turn right at a red light. But, this law requires that a motorist come to a full stop before turning. In practice they never do, they just whiz right into traffic without stopping. I nearly got run over as a pedestrian by one of these red-light runners so I'm perfectly happy to see the red light cameras go up.

Maybe the solution is not after-the-fact enforcement, but educating pedestrians to LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE CROSSING THE STREET.

(As a side note: I lived in California and was amused by the childish faith that pedestrians there had in traffic signals. These people would stare at a completely empty intersection for five minutes, then when the 'walk' light came on they'd step out in front of a moving bus. I'm more used to the Philadelphia style of "someone's walking across the street, DRIVE FASTER!"

There is a light in a left hand turn lane near where I live in San Antonio that does not always change. There have been multiple times late at night where I have run it after waiting for about five minutes for it to turn green. Of course I always check to make sure no cars are coming, but if we had those cameras here I guess those in favor of them would expect me to wait an indefinite amount of time before going despite there being no other cars on the road. If we had those cameras here I would proabably end up not using that intersection anymore and would have to drive a few miles out of the way (thus increasing the chances of accidents).

Nick Bourbaki is absolutely correct.

People talk about things being "proven" - well, once thing that's "proven", simply by doing, is that many areas that get these cameras start having problems with honest enforcement - that is, light times get adjusted, etc, just to catch more people, even those who are making a good-faith effort to follow the law.

Most traffic laws are only on the books because police officers don't REALLY enforce them.

Example: speeding. If it was about safety, the police should get together in a big group and catch EVERY OFFENDER on one stretch of road every day. Random stretch of road, different every day. People would stop speeding.

But they don't do that. Why? Because speed limits are set at SILLY levels.

Example: I have driven at over DOUBLE the posted speed in many areas... in a MINIVAN. This is not a "performace" car - it's more like a non-performance car. I've done it repeatedly, for years, with no accidents and no witnessed accidents there. everyone else goes way over the speed limit is several of those places, too, and they never make any list of "dangerous" places.

One of those places was just suffering from left-over speed limits from before a contruction project (when it really was necessary to go slower). Finally, a policeman began enforcing it... BINGO, 2 weeks later, the speed limit was changed.

Speed limits are a good idea very badly implemented. This was done by the governmnt. Red light cameras are a good idea... that would have to be implemnted by the government. Think about it.

Speed limits are advisory only. A safe speed depends entirely on what's going on around you at a particular time and place. A camera doesn't have the intelligence to evaluate actions in context.
And those who determine speed limits sometime seem to be mindless. An example is the frequently seen combination: Speed Limit 75. Trucks 55
That is a recipe for disaster.
It's not speed that's dangerous, it's difference in speed.

Same with red lights. The situation dictates intelligent action. Cameras don't have the intelligence of context and are an infuriating insult to yours.

Traffic enforcement is not about safety now... It's about feeding the beast. I suspect that the original intent of traffic enforcement was safety, but now the revenues are needed to support the courts, judges, clerks, police officers, and now camera makers.

Consider this... I'm a habitual speeder. I've been issued over 1/2 dozen tickets in my 15 years of driving. A typical ticket costs me about $150 depending on speed/violation. While painful, the fine doesn't stop me from speeding.

Now, let's assume they raised the fine for speeding/red-light-running to $10,000. I suspect that I, or anyone else, would ever break the speed limit again. The whole traffic enforcement system would collapse. There would be a lot of unemployed judges/clerks/DPS officers.
So, like most other government programs, once implemented (regardless of intentions), it never goes away. It becomes a monster that must create it's own food.
If the government's only aim was safety, they would just raise the fines to a painful amount.

Like a previous commenter, I lived for some time (5 years) in Germany, courtesy of the Uncle Sam Tourism Service.
One thing we all learned fairly quickly was the locations of all the red-light cameras in town - they are fairly obvious, actually. I never had a problem with them - neither did anyone else I knew. My pickup truck was caught by a speeding camera one day, but when I compared the date and time with my calendar, I knew it couldn't be me - my truck was in the shop. I requested a photo from the Politzei, they provided it a few days later, clearly showing the mechanic at the wheel performing a test drive. They happily passed the ticket on to the Post Exchange garage.
I like the idea of a red-light camera - it at least has to (or should have to) offer documentation to prove you committed the crime. Otherwise it's just your word against the police officer's.
As for the shortening of the yellow lights... that wasn't the camera's fault, and should be dealt with through other channels. I believe that at least one court has tossed a bunch of tickets based on something similar.

As many others have said, this is not about safety, it is about money. I propose an experiment to prove this - when something like red light cameras are proposed, say OK, except that any fines due to them do NOT go to the company or the municipality, but to some national charity. If they protest this, it is about money, not safety. This is part of a rant that I should write someday: it is a mistake to have law enforcement be a profit center. Anytime law enforcement generates money for the police/government via fines, property forfeiture, etc. there is to much temptation for abuse.

Eric: These destestable, unconstitutional devices have sprung up all over the place, and so far they have survived court challenges. .... there'll soon be sensors linked to cameras on the highways, with automatic speed tickets being cranked out by computerized Big Brotherism, with the confrontation clause of the Constitution rendered meaningless.

If you believe the Constitution requires living, contemporaneous witnesses to an act, then you don't understand the Sixth Amendment. By your logic, if a store video camera records a burglarly, the videotape can't be sufficient evidence to convict the perp.

England, I believe, has more speed cameras than anywhere in the world. They have to be clearly signposted and there is some opposition to them with one police authority refusing to use them at all. I was recently fined and my licence endorsed for 38 mph in a 30mph zone. The camera was near a school, fair enough, but I got 'caught' at 2.40 am on my way home from hospital after an accident at work! Nevertheless, I have to admit (as a driver for more than 37 years) that speeding has reduced substantially in this country over the years and so it appears that where other measures have failed this one seems to be working. As for red lights, if you've ever seen the victim of a T-bone you might be less accomodating to red light hoppers.

I have only one comment...1984!!!!!

I just went thru this in Los Angeles, so here are a few tidbits.

It is impossible to argue that you entered the intersection on a yellow. The camera is only energized when the light is red. With my ticket, the first photo shows the car just behind the crosswalk, elasped time of red light, duration of yellow, estimated speed, etc. Second photo shows car in the intersection. Then photos of the license and the driver. As mentioned above, one of the few ways around the ticket, is to be the registered owner of the car but NOT the driver during the infraction. In my case, I was the registered owner but my daughter was driving. (She also thought she entered the intersection on a yellow only to be caught by the flash of the camera and the light changing to red.) The first summons gives you several choices. DO NOT choose trial by judge. He/She can make you sit there indefinitely until you identify the person driving the car. The summons uses certain language that tries to get you to identify the driver but stops just short of demanding it. You should choose the IIRC the "Trial by Affidavit". They send you an affidavit. You simply honestly swear that the person in the photo is not you (and nothing more) and you supply a current photo. That's it.

The only other way to argue is over the duration of the yellow. If the yellow is too short, then it can be considered an illegal speed trap. Apparently different municipalities monkey with this to increase "yield".
But in my case, the duration of the yellow is clearly shown (about 2.9 seconds) and was appropriate.

Not gloating that I put one over on the "man". My daughter got a serious talking to. Running a light is a serious and dangerous matter and she received that message. We just avoided the $300+ fine.

Gradualism + technology = erosion of personal privacy. If we give up our personal liberty in pursuit of additional safety / security , at what point do the technocrats cross the line? Constant 24/7 survelliance by privately owned companies or goverment agencies, doing who knows what with the data, doesn't bode well for the law abiding citizen's right to privacy. Once the technocrats learn that stripping liberties away through an invasion of an individual's privacy is a cash revenue stream, the sky is the limit.

Nick is indeed correct. This IS about money. But why?

To fund the outrageous pension liabilities for state and local governments.

So here's what's going on: the laziest, most inefficient people on the planet have secured a pension of 70% of salary - whereas the average in private industry is 40%. These employees also get 14 paid vacation days, sick leave, medical leave, dead relative leave, worker's comp / disability, and god knows what else.

To pay the pension liability (which is defined benefit, not defined contribution), public employee pension systems like LACERS and CALPERS are siezing ever larger portions of private industry - that is, they are taking control of the means of production.

But, barring some miracle, the stock market can't possibly grow fast enough to meet these obligations! They are left with few options to fill the gaps. They can raise taxes (not gonna happen, thanks ot the governator), borrow more money (which San Diego can no longer do), or they can fine people. They've chosen the latter.

These public employes are PARASITES. And I say NO MORE. If this goes on much longer then we will go bankrupt. When that happens, god help us all.

I'm torn. It is an invasion and violation of privacy.

But the town I live in has two intersections that are horrid for three or four cars going after the light turns red. This isn't even a matter of mis judgement, but people who have waited through two or three cycles not wanting to wait through another. They installed cameras on one of those lights, and no one runs the red any more. I wish they'd do it on the other one, because it's always been worse.

I lived for many years in Western Australia, where red light cameras are used, along with "multanova" automatic radar cameras. Those devices take a picture of the front of the car when "speeding" is detected, and when they first appeared they were set for around 5-6 km/hr over the posted speed limit (that's about 3-4 MPH.)

Both the red light cameras and the multanovas generate millions of dollars of revenue to the state government, and both big political parties support their use. So there really isn't any way for the people to change this system unless there is a really MASSIVE protest, which Australians generally aren't interested in doing.

But when I left there in 2002, a lot of people were upset because the police were re-setting the multanovas for only 1 km/hr over the posted speed, so thousands more were getting fines and points off their licences. There was such an outcry that the gov't changed the penalties slightly: it became just a fine for speeding (A$100 or A$150) unless it's over 5 km/hr above the limit; then the fines go way up and are combined with loss of points (12 points in 3 years results in automatic suspension of your driver's licence.)

As others have mentioned above, somehow the yellow light time gets reduced at the "best" intersections, the ones generating the most revenue for the red light cameras; and the speed tolerance decreases on the multanovas, so again, the result is more revenue for the gov't.

The official gov't line on all this is naturally, don't run red lights or speed, 'cause it is so unsafe. Somehow getting ticketed for going 5 km/hr above the speed limit, when you're on an empty divided highway in the middle of the night, doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with safety, but it sure does have a lot to do with raising money for the state government.

I see the writing on the wall here; when state & local gov'ts find out how much dough they can make in this underhanded manner, these infernal machines will be everywhere.

I say stop their spread now, before it gets as bad as W. Australia.

"The official gov't line on all this is naturally, don't run red lights or speed, 'cause it is so unsafe. Somehow getting ticketed for going 5 km/hr above the speed limit, when you're on an empty divided highway in the middle of the night, doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with safety, but it sure does have a lot to do with raising money for the state government."

Exactly... the other post about gradualism nails it, too. The government has a reason to try to screw people out of money. More money for the government = more pay and benefit for government employees and more power for governors. The people don't really have a reason to fight to stop gradual change, while the government has ample motivation for incrementally increasing revenue. The result is a fine "to keep people safe" that was coerced only to bring more money to the government. (does that work? can you "coerce" a fine?)

Jeff: what about those of use that don't keep a calendar to remind us when our car was in the garage? Do I deserve a fine and points on my license for being less organized than you?

Not one of you that supported these red-light cameras has responded to even one of the many reasonable objections to them. Am I to understand then, that your position is just that governments should do whatever they can to enforce the law and it's completely irrelevant that 1. the penalties are out of scale with the infraction given the probability of getting caught, 2. people can be wrongly punished for the crime of another person, 3. you can't defend yourself if you can't recall the incident, 4. government and their contractors have a pernicious interest in money that can (and has) outweighed the purported safety motivations for the law, and 5. you get treated equally if you deliberately run an obviously red light or you get surprised by how short the yellow is?

Is that your position? If so, it's pretty pathetic.

Speaking personally, I'm a quick-out-of-the-green guy and red-light runners bug the hell out of me. I wish the laws were better enforced. But not so much that I'm willing to put up with all the negative consequences.

You on the other hand, just keep ignoring the negative consequences. You don't even answer them, just "well don't break the law". That's not an argument, it's a slogan.

Posted by the puppy blender around the time this post went up:

"Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed. "

Nuff said.

Thought you may be interested in my blog, very naughty. It includes rants about very naughty things, for all you naughty people out there.