What are your opinions on red light and speed cameras?

Our city adopted these cameras at intersections they deemed to have high violations of these laws, as well as high amounts of wrecks. They love to tout that side collisions have been reduced. But they fail to mention that rear end accidents have skyrocketed. Tony Tramel, the head safety guy in charge of this program, has been caught with a radar detector on his dash of his new car right after the cameras were installed! So wait, he talks about safety and the need to not speed on TV, but then, behind the scenes, he has a fuzz buster on his dash? Really??

They're proposing new ordinances that limit the amount that they can ticket you over the limit and also I believe the amount of the violation. Also, one wants to make a law where these violations must be handed to you in person, not mailed to you in the mail.

 

Are you only doing something illegal and therefore liable to society if you are caught by a person?

 

Legalized corruption. One camera in Brick, NJ led to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

 

I agree with the folks below. We all know what the real reason is for the cameras and safety does not even enter the equation.

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/objections

 

In my state, they are run by a private out-of-state company, who takes 50% of the proceeds from the fines. They have not proven to be of any benefit as to safety, but have been a HUGE benefit to the state coffers. Revenue is what these devices are about, not safety.

 

Taxcutter says:
These cameras are suitable for target practice.

 

We have them everywhere in our wealthy little suburb. The funny is, there weren't many accidents before they put them in and there are not many now. It was literally a non-problem in need of no solution. What is there more of now, however? Ticket revenue. So they achieved their actual goal. And now, of course, people are saying they are getting tickets even though the light was not even red. Big shock.

 

I say to outlaw them, they are not there to protect us...

 

Why don't we just eliminate traffic laws if we aren't going to enforce them?

 

I agree that sometimes cameras are used by corrupt officials to raise revenue but not as often as is made out. I also think that fact is used as a tool by criminal motorists to actively prevent measures which could legitimately identify their selfish, dangerous and illegal actions on the roads. The fact remains that these cameras couldn't raise so much money if so many drivers weren't routinely and quite deliberately breaking the law (just like everywhere else to be fair).

 

Yes, these are run by Redflex, so half the money goes to them, not even to our city.

 

If people weren't law-breaking idiots... we wouldn't need or be able to justify either one.

I've seen what people do with "STOP" signs in my own neighborhood; I wish those has cameras too.

 

My only gripe is cities/municipalities are usually so badly run they agree to contracts which give the companies that run them 90% of the profits. otherwise just follow the law.

 

the ol "if your not doing anything wrong, why do you care if someone is spying on you" logic

 

how about we just put a chip in all cars that do not allow them to go over 9mph over the speed limit? oh that is right, no profit in that for the cities

.

 

No, people are undeniably doing something wrong, lots of them, all the time. The only valid question is how do we deal with that problem.

 

That's why I support in-house cameras. If you are not "doing anything wrong" then what's the problem? Imagine how much crime would go down if you were essentially followed by a police camera everywhere you went. Then they could pass a series of fines for all sorts of things and just debit your bank account as you violated the code.

 

Well, they could have the chip issue a ticket.

 

Unconstitutional.

I am innocent until proven guilty. Prove I was behind the wheel, mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er.

 

How exactly can someone "spy" on you when you are in public and are openly doing whatever you are doing?

- - - Updated - - -

They usually send a picture of you in the driver seat.

 

There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about these cameras by people here. Apparently some in here have never dealt with these cameras. Here are some known facts:

1. These cameras malfunction all the time. They can't tell the difference between running a red light and someone making a legal right-on-red. Also, if you go through an intersection alongside someone who is speeding, you will both get a ticket, as the camera can't tell who was speeding.
2. They send the "ticket" to the owner of the car, no matter who was driving. If you speed in your buddies car and are pulled over by the cops, you get the ticket. With these cameras, he does.
3. They treat you like guilty until proven innocent. You can't confront your accuser in court.
4. Failure to pay will ping your credit, not your driving record.
5. There is no limit to how many violations you can get, as these violations never reach your insurance company thus you can't lose your licence for one. So these cameras aren't taking anyone unsafe off the road.

 

with camera's in your tv, you know, case someone beats their wife or kids, better have those camera's there just in case, I mean if your not doing anything wrong, why would you care?

- - - Updated - - -

well said

 

Still no. Any time you want to discuss what I'm actually saying just go ahead.

 

What you are saying is simple, if you're not violating any laws, why worry? So it can easily be said that why not let the cops into your house without a warrant, after all, if you're not doing anything wrong, why worry?

The problem with these cameras is that they malfunction and the person is guilty until proven innocent. Prove you didn't speed last Thursday. I say you did, here is your ticket. I took a photo of your car and you in it. Must mean you did it. Pay or you go to collections. Feel like a fair system to you?

 

Questionable at best. No technology is perfect but if these systems were as fundamentally flawed as you suggest, they wouldn't be used so widely and for so long.

I think all cameras should provide a picture of the driver though I also think the owner of the car should still have some responsibility for anyone they permit to use their vehicle and they can just identify the person who was driving it at the time.

That's a legal procedural issue, not a technical one. The data from the camera is just evidence, no different to any other evidence gathered indirectly.

Again, a procedural issue. At that point, I see no practical reason why a fine resulting from a camera can't be treated any differently to one from a police officer.

Really? That's not how it works here. Again, once you've been convicted, there should be no reason for the consequences not to be the same.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blindly supporting the current system (US or UK) or even the concept of traffic cameras in general but nor am I writing them off. I agree there are problems, especially with the manner in which they're used in some places but they're more complex and less definitive than the ones you're presenting.