Some Florida cities are living off red light cameras(wlrn.org)
wlrn.org
Some Florida cities are living off red light cameras
https://www.wlrn.org/wlrn-investigations/2024-07-05/red-light-cameras-miami-florida
90 comments
Agreed about where the funds should go, and I'd also add that all intersections with cameras should have signs telling people of those cameras to get them to slow down and stop running red lights. The goal of these cameras should be to reduce traffic infractions, not to profit from their proliferation.
When I was in Charlotte, North Carolina, some years ago (20?) I saw signs at certain intersections announcing how many dollars had been collected from red-light cameras there.
> signs telling people of those cameras to get them to slow down and stop running
This is why there’s a red light?
This is why there’s a red light?
I initially agreed, but then I had the thought that this would lead to people just knowing which lights have camera and being extra careful around those, while freely running the lights elsewhere.
Imagine if we had a problem where a bunch of people were burglarizing houses, so we decided to declare specific enforcement zones where the cops were really on top of preventing burglaries. Would people be less likely to burgle, or would they just do their burglaries elsewhere?
Instead, town-wide, it should be made known with prominent signs that traffic enforcement is in use, and ideally the cameras should move around, so that people can't simply adjust their behavior to compensate. In other words, your idea, but put that sign on every intersection.
Imagine if we had a problem where a bunch of people were burglarizing houses, so we decided to declare specific enforcement zones where the cops were really on top of preventing burglaries. Would people be less likely to burgle, or would they just do their burglaries elsewhere?
Instead, town-wide, it should be made known with prominent signs that traffic enforcement is in use, and ideally the cameras should move around, so that people can't simply adjust their behavior to compensate. In other words, your idea, but put that sign on every intersection.
> I initially agreed, but then I had the thought that this would lead to people just knowing which lights have camera and being extra careful around those, while freely running the lights elsewhere.
That’s exactly what I’ve witnessed in places that have cameras, regardless of if there are signs.
That’s exactly what I’ve witnessed in places that have cameras, regardless of if there are signs.
I worry that as long as the money remains in government hands at all there would still be abuse.
I had two ideas in this regard.
-----------------------
All fines (and proceeds from auctioning off seized assets) collected by all levels of government should be broken down into two categories:
- Traffic
- Criminal
If you have a drivers license and make it a whole calendar year without getting a traffic citation, you should get an equal slice of the traffic citation money from the feds and the city/county/state that has jurisdiction over the address on your DL.
If you have government ID and make it a whole calendar year without getting cited/arrested (let alone convicted), you should get an equal slice of the criminal seizure/fine money from the feds and the city/county/state that has jurisdiction over the address on your ID.
The funding for the distribution infrastructure should NOT come from the fines/citations/seizures.
In short, redistribute the fine money from those who broke the law to those who didn't (or at least didn't get caught).
-----------------------
The other far simpler option is that all fines/penalties automatically get applied to paying down debt owed by the collecting government.
If somehow a government has no debt (shocked face here) it would kicked upward to pay down debt at a higher level (e.g. city has no debt, so it gets sent to the state...and if somehow the state has no debt, it goes to the US Treasury's donation office).
I had two ideas in this regard.
-----------------------
All fines (and proceeds from auctioning off seized assets) collected by all levels of government should be broken down into two categories:
- Traffic
- Criminal
If you have a drivers license and make it a whole calendar year without getting a traffic citation, you should get an equal slice of the traffic citation money from the feds and the city/county/state that has jurisdiction over the address on your DL.
If you have government ID and make it a whole calendar year without getting cited/arrested (let alone convicted), you should get an equal slice of the criminal seizure/fine money from the feds and the city/county/state that has jurisdiction over the address on your ID.
The funding for the distribution infrastructure should NOT come from the fines/citations/seizures.
In short, redistribute the fine money from those who broke the law to those who didn't (or at least didn't get caught).
-----------------------
The other far simpler option is that all fines/penalties automatically get applied to paying down debt owed by the collecting government.
If somehow a government has no debt (shocked face here) it would kicked upward to pay down debt at a higher level (e.g. city has no debt, so it gets sent to the state...and if somehow the state has no debt, it goes to the US Treasury's donation office).
> If you have a drivers license and make it a whole calendar year without getting a traffic citation, you should get an equal slice of the traffic citation money from the feds and the city/county/state that has jurisdiction over the address on your DL.
I like the idea. It sounds similar to these charge-and-refund systems:
* Canada's carbon tax. This adds a fee to fuels per ton (so the more you purchase, the more tax you pay). Every resident gets the same monetary amount of refund per year.
* Quadratic voting. You pay n^2 dollars to have n votes. All the collected money is divided equally and refunded to every citizen at the end.
I like the idea. It sounds similar to these charge-and-refund systems:
* Canada's carbon tax. This adds a fee to fuels per ton (so the more you purchase, the more tax you pay). Every resident gets the same monetary amount of refund per year.
* Quadratic voting. You pay n^2 dollars to have n votes. All the collected money is divided equally and refunded to every citizen at the end.
> If you have government ID and make it a whole calendar year without getting cited/arrested (let alone convicted), you should get an equal slice of the criminal seizure/fine money from the feds and the city/county/state that has jurisdiction over the address on your ID.
Wouldn’t this just encourage law enforcement to cite everyone for every little infraction?
> In short, redistribute the fine money from those who broke the law to those who didn't (or at least didn't get caught).
Everyone breaks law the eventually. The article mentions the “Miami right” as an example.
> The other far simpler option is that all fines/penalties automatically get applied to paying down debt owed by the collecting government.
So the government can purposefully take on more debt and then find infractions to pay it off?
Wouldn’t this just encourage law enforcement to cite everyone for every little infraction?
> In short, redistribute the fine money from those who broke the law to those who didn't (or at least didn't get caught).
Everyone breaks law the eventually. The article mentions the “Miami right” as an example.
> The other far simpler option is that all fines/penalties automatically get applied to paying down debt owed by the collecting government.
So the government can purposefully take on more debt and then find infractions to pay it off?
> Wouldn’t this just encourage law enforcement to cite everyone for every little infraction?
Hmm, potentially...if they thought that would secure a much larger slice for themselves by knocking people out of the running...so maybe they'd have to be ineligible. However, in most cases that would require citing a hell of a lot of people (Jacksonville, FL has ~3000 cops for ~1.2m people, so they'd have to each cite several locals a day all 365 days of the year to make a dent in who's getting any money)
Since some criminals would be non-locals, you could also hand out the fines equally to all locals regardless of whether they got busted for anything or not.
> Everyone breaks law the eventually. The article mentions the “Miami right” as an example.
Yes, there is a randomness to it all (breaking the law vs breaking and getting caught) but I'm not going to try to compensate for or control it.
> So the government can purposefully take on more debt and then find infractions to pay it off?
Yeah, I realized this oversight 5 minutes after I clicked submit. However, perhaps it could be pooled and redistributed equally to pay down equal amounts of debt for all the governments in a region.
The point is that fines/seizures should not be a line item in a government budget EVER because then somehow the government will become dependent on criminal activity to an extent and go looking for it just for the money. It should be a completely unexpected windfall and thus either returned to the people or used to pay down debt. That's my hope, the details could probably take months to hammer out.
Hmm, potentially...if they thought that would secure a much larger slice for themselves by knocking people out of the running...so maybe they'd have to be ineligible. However, in most cases that would require citing a hell of a lot of people (Jacksonville, FL has ~3000 cops for ~1.2m people, so they'd have to each cite several locals a day all 365 days of the year to make a dent in who's getting any money)
Since some criminals would be non-locals, you could also hand out the fines equally to all locals regardless of whether they got busted for anything or not.
> Everyone breaks law the eventually. The article mentions the “Miami right” as an example.
Yes, there is a randomness to it all (breaking the law vs breaking and getting caught) but I'm not going to try to compensate for or control it.
> So the government can purposefully take on more debt and then find infractions to pay it off?
Yeah, I realized this oversight 5 minutes after I clicked submit. However, perhaps it could be pooled and redistributed equally to pay down equal amounts of debt for all the governments in a region.
The point is that fines/seizures should not be a line item in a government budget EVER because then somehow the government will become dependent on criminal activity to an extent and go looking for it just for the money. It should be a completely unexpected windfall and thus either returned to the people or used to pay down debt. That's my hope, the details could probably take months to hammer out.
> However, in most cases that would require citing a hell of a lot of people
How about in the tiny cities discussed in the article that have the current problem?
It’s also easy to make it a year without an infraction: just don’t drive. Use Uber or get a friend/family to drive you. This gets easier in the cities. I know several people who have drivers licenses that never drive because they don’t have to. Do they deserve money at the end of the cycle?
How about in the tiny cities discussed in the article that have the current problem?
It’s also easy to make it a year without an infraction: just don’t drive. Use Uber or get a friend/family to drive you. This gets easier in the cities. I know several people who have drivers licenses that never drive because they don’t have to. Do they deserve money at the end of the cycle?
I don't know how I feel about all this, but I came up with an amusing idea I wanted to share.
What if we refund the money to everyone, but only those who didn't get a ticket in the past year? Creates even more incentives to drive safely.
What if we refund the money to everyone, but only those who didn't get a ticket in the past year? Creates even more incentives to drive safely.
Apparently you and I think somewhat alike!
It's like crossing social credit score with a tontine!
...as one who doesn't run red lights and hates profiteering governments -- I'm not opposed :D
...as one who doesn't run red lights and hates profiteering governments -- I'm not opposed :D
Actually, don't most of the revenues from automated cameras go to vendors?
I also remember some states tackled some of it by saying you couldn't get a speeding ticket for just 0-5 mph or maybe 0-9 mph over.
I also remember some states tackled some of it by saying you couldn't get a speeding ticket for just 0-5 mph or maybe 0-9 mph over.
> you couldn't get a speeding ticket for just 0-5 mph or maybe 0-9 mph over
I assume it’s just psychology and people want to feel like they’re getting away with something but this is just the same effect as increasing the speed limit.
But it makes me wonder if the point is to have lower posted limits and therefore lower above-the-limit-but-legally cruising speeds. It’s very ass backwards but I’ll take whatever works.
I assume it’s just psychology and people want to feel like they’re getting away with something but this is just the same effect as increasing the speed limit.
But it makes me wonder if the point is to have lower posted limits and therefore lower above-the-limit-but-legally cruising speeds. It’s very ass backwards but I’ll take whatever works.
> Actually, don't most of the revenues from automated cameras go to vendors?
Often yes. (I can't easily dig up broad data, but there are certainly individual examples where this is the case.)
My proposal still helps here though. These cities are willing to pay a bunch to the vendors because the remainder of revenue that they keep is "free". (It seems the cities often sign a sweetheart deal where the cities have their admin costs recouped first and then the vendors keep the vast majority of the revenue thereafter.) But if the cities can't keep any money, they don't have much incentive to send all this money to the vendors; it just pisses off their citizens.
Often yes. (I can't easily dig up broad data, but there are certainly individual examples where this is the case.)
My proposal still helps here though. These cities are willing to pay a bunch to the vendors because the remainder of revenue that they keep is "free". (It seems the cities often sign a sweetheart deal where the cities have their admin costs recouped first and then the vendors keep the vast majority of the revenue thereafter.) But if the cities can't keep any money, they don't have much incentive to send all this money to the vendors; it just pisses off their citizens.
One more advantage of this proposal: it would give some insight into who was right in this debate. If traffic camera roll out continues at the same pace after this measure is passed, we could conclude the cities are mostly motivated by public safety. But if, as I suspect, traffic cameras installation stalled, we've have good (though not incontrovertible) evidence that they are really just motivated as a revenue source.
They tried to do this with lotteries. Like all the revenue from lotteries goes to the schools. What happens is the government funds schools less as lottery revenue grows so the schools get the same (or even less) but the overall government funds grow. So they still effectively get the revenue. Ultimately all money into the government is controlled by them so there really isn't a way to just move money around that wouldn't incentivize the scheme. Then they start doing shadey things like decreasing yellow light time to cause more violations (and sometimes accidents).
This is exactly why the parent suggested that the funds have to go to another part of government that isn't being funded by the city. A city cannot cut their funding of federal parks to effectively reassign money from red-light cameras because they aren't funding federal parks in the first place. The federal government is probably going to cut park funding and reassign the money somewhere else, but the people deciding to install the red light cameras are still not directly incentivized to generate revenue with them.
I think government fines should be destroyed once collected. There’s no other way around the perverse incentives.
You could send it to the federal reserve balance sheet, or withdraw the funds and shred the cash. Or maybe apply it to the national debt since it’s so massive nobody would feel any benefit from the fine. Whatever, I don’t care.
But no benefit should befall anyone - the only goal should be to prevent bad behavior.
You could send it to the federal reserve balance sheet, or withdraw the funds and shred the cash. Or maybe apply it to the national debt since it’s so massive nobody would feel any benefit from the fine. Whatever, I don’t care.
But no benefit should befall anyone - the only goal should be to prevent bad behavior.
I think literally destroying the cash would be a good solution except that the normal voter doesn't understand that this doesn't destroy value. So it would have serious rhetorical challenges. (Also, the value accrues to current holders of cash; not sure whether this might be too regressive/progressive relative to the "default" way that transfers are made.)
How do you propose bad behavior is punished without fines?
I do think the fine should be collected but the resulting cash should be destroyed by the federal reserve.
The goal should be safety and that’s it. Not a quick buck for local governments and traffic camera vendors.
The goal should be safety and that’s it. Not a quick buck for local governments and traffic camera vendors.
Oh I misunderstood your original comment. What incentive do the towns/vendors have to setup these systems in that case?
The incentive is to make their streets safer. If they don't think the systems do that, then clearly they shouldn't be setting up the systems?
I don't know if you've noticed but governments rarely do the right thing for the sake of it.
The towns can still pay vendors, just as they pay vendors for lots of things. They just can't keep any of the ticket revenue generated.
The vendors can now just tip the town officials for choosing them.
Very good suggestion. Including "extend this to all fines levied by local governments". I would go even further than "the local governments"
But I also think "hell freezes over" is way more likely event
But I also think "hell freezes over" is way more likely event
> But I also think "hell freezes over" is way more likely event
Maybe. There is precedent for state governments constraining their local governments. I think automated traffic cameras are a promising place where this might happen again because (1) they are still relatively new, so people are less likely to fall into status quo bias ("we've always had X, so it must be good/necessary/inevitable"); and (2) traffic cameras are uniquely irritating and salient to the average citizen in a way that, say, NIMBY regulations are not.
Maybe. There is precedent for state governments constraining their local governments. I think automated traffic cameras are a promising place where this might happen again because (1) they are still relatively new, so people are less likely to fall into status quo bias ("we've always had X, so it must be good/necessary/inevitable"); and (2) traffic cameras are uniquely irritating and salient to the average citizen in a way that, say, NIMBY regulations are not.
Came here to say exactly this. Revenues from cameras should go to the general fund at the state level. At the local level, cameras should be used to improve safety and for no other purpose. Government should not profit from the bad behavior of its citizens.
A lot of small towns depend on predatory law enforcement, especially civil forfeiture. With depressed tax revenue they are incentivized to rake people over the coals.
https://cei.org/blog/charlotte-area-police-departments-are-r...
https://cei.org/blog/charlotte-area-police-departments-are-r...
Civil forfeiture (and the police corruption it incentivizes) is indeed a huge issue. But I have a hard time getting similarly riled up about red light cameras (or speed cameras): the negative position here is that municipalities should just roll over when drivers want to drive dangerously on their roads, which doesn't seem right.
(From one perspective, these kind of cameras prevent corruption: automated enforcement means fewer bored local cops trying to steal your money or pin whatever crime they can think of on you as you drive.)
(From one perspective, these kind of cameras prevent corruption: automated enforcement means fewer bored local cops trying to steal your money or pin whatever crime they can think of on you as you drive.)
I have lived in two cities that opted to remove their red light cameras. The negative position was an erosion of privacy.[0]
I think it’s deeply uncharitable to frame it as “rolling over” on crime. That’s the same manipulative rhetoric proponents use to argue for gunshot detection systems. Safety and privacy are the dueling interests - not anti-crime and pro-crime.
[0] Along with studies that found red light cameras increased accidents. I’ve seen studies in both directions, though.
I think it’s deeply uncharitable to frame it as “rolling over” on crime. That’s the same manipulative rhetoric proponents use to argue for gunshot detection systems. Safety and privacy are the dueling interests - not anti-crime and pro-crime.
[0] Along with studies that found red light cameras increased accidents. I’ve seen studies in both directions, though.
To be clear: gunshot detection is mostly bullshit. By contrast, I don't think there's (substantial?) disagreement about the true-positive rate for red-light cameras: municipalities that tend to let people off do so not because the violation didn't occur, but because the violation was deemed subjectively to be insufficiently serious.
(I believe strongly in personal privacy, and I don't buy the argument that red light cameras are a meaningful erosion thereof. Driving is a privilege that's extended with the expectation of safe behavior, which is why you're required to drive in a publicly identifiable vehicle with a government-issued license on your person. With that being said, I would happily support any local legislation that limits unconditional data collection from red-light cameras.)
(I believe strongly in personal privacy, and I don't buy the argument that red light cameras are a meaningful erosion thereof. Driving is a privilege that's extended with the expectation of safe behavior, which is why you're required to drive in a publicly identifiable vehicle with a government-issued license on your person. With that being said, I would happily support any local legislation that limits unconditional data collection from red-light cameras.)
There are also many instances of yellow light times being reduced to make people more likely to run red lights, making what should've been legal, illegal and fining people for it. Further, they made the roads less safe since the safest thing to be on the road is predictable.
if so, then that is bad. the solution isn't to remove red light cameras (which can save lives, by preventing drivers from entering an intersection with perpendicular cars), rather to standardize how long yellow lights should be
They were, but the incentive structure encouraged them to shorten those times. It doesn't help that in addition to what I mentioned above, many of these manufacturers work out deals with cities to get a percentage of these fines, resulting in an incentive for them to no eliminate false positives and find ways to fine more people, which is even worsened by courts often finding that such systems are infallible. I recall one story of a DUI being upheld against a person even when it was show that the device showing he was intoxicated was more than a year beyond its calibration date.
My intended point isn't that red light cameras can't be done right, but that in reality, the incentives result in them not being done so. It's a near endless game of whack-a-mole to force their implementation ethically.
There are some other threads here talking about changing where fines go that could get things on the right track, but there are some many other avenues pointed out in my comments and others that are potential for abuse.
My intended point isn't that red light cameras can't be done right, but that in reality, the incentives result in them not being done so. It's a near endless game of whack-a-mole to force their implementation ethically.
There are some other threads here talking about changing where fines go that could get things on the right track, but there are some many other avenues pointed out in my comments and others that are potential for abuse.
Florida shortened yellow lights to increase red light camera revenue https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5707465
Ours removed them after the guys who made and installed the cameras were caught ducking the process servers from triggering their own cameras and all involved were found to be hypocrites.
> Along with studies that found red light cameras increased accidents
Really?
Perhaps a citation?
I do not believe it
Really?
Perhaps a citation?
I do not believe it
Causing people to panic and jam on the brakes, perhaps? Rear-end collision from someone who had been expecting to follow through the red light (with camera) ... Seems a rare combination.
There's decent evidence that red light cameras increase the total number of accidents, due to people suddenly stopping at yellows rather than blowing through[1]. At the same time, there's decent evidence that red light cameras decrease the number of fatal accidents, due to fewer people blowing through[2].
So the story is complicated: red light cameras seem to have a positive effect on the serious accident rate, but a negative effect on the overall rate. Municipalities could probably improve this by both doing a better job of signaling upcoming yellows and by redesigning roads to match the marked limit, rather than encouraging intuitive higher-speed driving. Personally however, I would take more fender-benders over more fatalities any day of the week.
[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras...
[2]: https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running
So the story is complicated: red light cameras seem to have a positive effect on the serious accident rate, but a negative effect on the overall rate. Municipalities could probably improve this by both doing a better job of signaling upcoming yellows and by redesigning roads to match the marked limit, rather than encouraging intuitive higher-speed driving. Personally however, I would take more fender-benders over more fatalities any day of the week.
[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras...
[2]: https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/doral-red-light-cameras-g...
Linked to in TFAYDR
Linked to in TFAYDR
My anecdata is when the city of Philadelphia put speed cameras on Roosevelt Blvd, a hellish road that had a speed limit of 45 through residential areas with 12 lanes and people regularly driving 80, with iirc 2 or 3 of the top 10 most frequent accident rate intersections in the country, driving on the road noticably improved and the average speed dropped a good 15 mph.
Isn’t the problem that many municipalities give different orange light times for signaled intersections for those with and without cameras, so causing more accidents (people hard braking unnecessarily), and then entrapping people (do you potentially cause a crash by hard braking or risk a ticket because this particular light has a camera timed to half the normal orange light timing?)
If a municipality ever gives shorter times for lights with cameras the answer is very clear: it is about revenue not safety. There is no safety related justification that would ever say “the timing of a light is tied to income production”
If a municipality ever gives shorter times for lights with cameras the answer is very clear: it is about revenue not safety. There is no safety related justification that would ever say “the timing of a light is tied to income production”
There should be a national standard yellow light times, perhaps scaled based on the speed limit of the area. That way folks will develop an intuition that serves them everywhere. Ideally with a countdown signal like making the light smaller or a number of seconds.
It's entrapment playing games with the timing to get more money from people, cameras or not.
It's entrapment playing games with the timing to get more money from people, cameras or not.
There are already documented/recommended timings for lights.
The whole point that people are bringing up is that there are a large number of documented examples of municipalities explicitly giving intersections with red light cameras significantly lower orange light times than all surrounding non-camera’s intersections. More over these municipalities have a documented increase in collisions, but collisions don’t cost the municipality anything, they just add a greater tax (through increased premiums) to all the people living in them.
I believe the correct course of action is cameras - red light, and speed, applied universally - however in the US where blatant corruption is legal it’s not reasonable to say “don’t break the law if you don’t want fines”, especially when again the whole reason this is up for debate is that timings for red light cameras are significantly shorter than non camera intersections. Eg what is legal in one intersection is illegal on the next and your only way to know is whether you get a fine in the mail.
This all ignores the part where fine based penalties for a crime simply renders crime legal for the wealthy. Again, if the intent is to ensure safety there would not be a subset of society for whom the law functionally does not apply, but the intent is very clearly revenue.
The whole point that people are bringing up is that there are a large number of documented examples of municipalities explicitly giving intersections with red light cameras significantly lower orange light times than all surrounding non-camera’s intersections. More over these municipalities have a documented increase in collisions, but collisions don’t cost the municipality anything, they just add a greater tax (through increased premiums) to all the people living in them.
I believe the correct course of action is cameras - red light, and speed, applied universally - however in the US where blatant corruption is legal it’s not reasonable to say “don’t break the law if you don’t want fines”, especially when again the whole reason this is up for debate is that timings for red light cameras are significantly shorter than non camera intersections. Eg what is legal in one intersection is illegal on the next and your only way to know is whether you get a fine in the mail.
This all ignores the part where fine based penalties for a crime simply renders crime legal for the wealthy. Again, if the intent is to ensure safety there would not be a subset of society for whom the law functionally does not apply, but the intent is very clearly revenue.
I passed through a town in Ohio and was cited to pay or appear to a mayors court. I looked it up and it was literally the mayor's court, and he was required to have something like one day of training.
Immediately decided they'd probably just arrest me on some bullshit upon arriving and if not in a town of 100 or whatever there was no use arguing so I just paid.
The map of the town was like one Podunk neighborhood plus like a 100 ft stretch of state highway gerrymandered in for ticket revenue.
Immediately decided they'd probably just arrest me on some bullshit upon arriving and if not in a town of 100 or whatever there was no use arguing so I just paid.
The map of the town was like one Podunk neighborhood plus like a 100 ft stretch of state highway gerrymandered in for ticket revenue.
The cities in question are really small towns: West Miami is about 7000 people, per the article. That makes the statistics a little bit less astonishing: these aren't huge towns or cities that are substituting red light tickets for proper local taxes; they're small bedroom communities on busy roads between nearby big cities.
>these aren't huge towns or cities that are substituting red light tickets for proper local taxes; they're small bedroom communities on busy roads between nearby big cities
Those aren't really contradictory. You can be a "small bedroom community" but still be "substituting red light tickets for proper local taxes".
Those aren't really contradictory. You can be a "small bedroom community" but still be "substituting red light tickets for proper local taxes".
Sure. And given that it's Florida, they probably are. But I still think the headline here gives a misleading impression: a town with a small tax base but a busy road is naturally going to get a larger fraction of revenue from a red-light camera than a town with a larger tax base would.
No kidding. The article content really doesn't support the title at all.
A town of 7000 people issued 3000 citations in a year, but the town itself has a major road in it connection other larger towns.
Even given that, it isn't the largest source of income for the city (property taxes are #1).
There's an easy way that the average person can fix this problem: stop driving through red lights.
A town of 7000 people issued 3000 citations in a year, but the town itself has a major road in it connection other larger towns.
Even given that, it isn't the largest source of income for the city (property taxes are #1).
There's an easy way that the average person can fix this problem: stop driving through red lights.
> stop driving through red lights
I'm with you. Make it impossible by replacing them with roundabouts and traffic circles.
Can't drive through the red light if there isn't one taps forehead
I'm with you. Make it impossible by replacing them with roundabouts and traffic circles.
Can't drive through the red light if there isn't one taps forehead
I can't replace intersections. I can stop for red lights, though.
>There's an easy way that the average person can fix this problem: stop driving through red lights.
That's hard to do safely when they shorten the yellow-light time so that you have no warning that the light will turn red.
That's hard to do safely when they shorten the yellow-light time so that you have no warning that the light will turn red.
Might work where you live. A huge portion of my city has foreign plates or straight up illegals driving, they don't give a fuck about a camera and can, will, and have totaled my car for playing the safe stop fuck fuck game. Nope nope nope if the intersection is clear I'm not getting my car totalled again by the tailgater behind me just to satisfy the law.
> safe stop fuck fuck game
The what?
The what?
[deleted]
Strike that, legal stop
If you have to ask, big boy, you can’t afford it
FL gonna FL. Route 301 was notorious for nearly 2 decades for revenue driven speed traps.
https://apnews.com/domestic-news-domestic-news-general-news-...
https://apnews.com/domestic-news-domestic-news-general-news-...
> Doral killed its red light camera program last year, after officials noted that accidents greatly increased at intersections where the cameras operated.
This is crazy, I'm glad they are being required to open up more statistics on these because unpredicted externalities definitely make this go from a seemingly mildly unethical government behavior to a public safety issue. Cities trading revenue for safety seems extremely perilous.
This is crazy, I'm glad they are being required to open up more statistics on these because unpredicted externalities definitely make this go from a seemingly mildly unethical government behavior to a public safety issue. Cities trading revenue for safety seems extremely perilous.
If it’s anything like where I used to live in NY, the instantiation of red light cameras were soon followed by much shorter green-yellow-red light timings. I wouldn’t be surprised if once the data is opened up, a correlation was to be found there.
I have often heard that total accidents go up. But major accidents go down. They are replaced with and surpassed by minor accidents.
If that is indeed true, what’s the needed replacement ratio to make it worth it?
If that is indeed true, what’s the needed replacement ratio to make it worth it?
I know someone in South Florida, who, while in a funeral cortege, was directed to go through a photo red light by motorcycle policemen managing traffic. Everybody who went through the red light was issued a ticket. The city learned of the error but instead of rectifying the error at the department, required the mourners to submit forms to have their tickets invalidated.
I would gladly pay tax dollars for engine noise monitors that hand out tickets. I have to imagine it's out there already but if not there's a startup idea.
In New Jersey a great example of this are the mobile DMV units... extremely small towns with no major highways invite the DMV unit in once a month to setup checkpoints to check car inspection stickers on local roads.. which then leads to full blown police stops and tickets for other violations. It's a huge monetary boon for the municipal budget for a town that other wise doesn't have an opportunity to pull cars over. It's all about the money and definitely not about public safety or emissions.
Given that a NJ driver from a small town with an suspended license killed three people this past week with his car[1], I think there might be a decent public safety argument to be made here.
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/us/colears-hook-park-nyc-truc...
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/05/us/colears-hook-park-nyc-truc...
Depends. Like, I could see the argument made that these things get set up less in wealthier, white neighborhoods. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd love to be wrong! I just hate when we make it even more expensive to be poor.
> Like, I could see the argument made that these things get set up less in wealthier, white neighborhoods.
I agree; there is absolutely selective and biased placement in many municipalities. That's another good reason to put red-light cameras on every light, and to turn traffic violations into a sliding scale based on income, car value, and other factors (like the car's weight, as a good proxy for the damage it can do to pedestrians or other drivers).
I agree; there is absolutely selective and biased placement in many municipalities. That's another good reason to put red-light cameras on every light, and to turn traffic violations into a sliding scale based on income, car value, and other factors (like the car's weight, as a good proxy for the damage it can do to pedestrians or other drivers).
Umm. What.
1. Mobile DMV units checks to see if your car inspection sticker is expired. It has nothing to do with DUI or DUI prevention.
2. Monmouth Junction is actually not a town but a census designated place in South Brunswick Township, a rather large municipality by NJ standards.
3. What on earth would a DMV inspection do to prevent someone who's license is already suspended from driving? Clearly they don't care and are going to keep driving anyway.
1. Mobile DMV units checks to see if your car inspection sticker is expired. It has nothing to do with DUI or DUI prevention.
2. Monmouth Junction is actually not a town but a census designated place in South Brunswick Township, a rather large municipality by NJ standards.
3. What on earth would a DMV inspection do to prevent someone who's license is already suspended from driving? Clearly they don't care and are going to keep driving anyway.
I might have misunderstood: I thought these were checkpoints, meaning that you'd have to drive through them and (presumably) present your license. No license while driving should mean having your car impounded on the spot, at the minimum; if NJ doesn't do that, it's a policy failure.
There was another article suggesting that this driver was also driving without a mounted plate, which I assume would similarly have been caught. But I take your point for other cases, if they aren't checking licenses.
There was another article suggesting that this driver was also driving without a mounted plate, which I assume would similarly have been caught. But I take your point for other cases, if they aren't checking licenses.
On the other hand, New Jersey doesn't have red light cameras anymore; the entire state got rid of them a decade ago.
Regarding the emissions checkpoints, I wonder if they still pull over EVs and give them tickets for other violations. Since NJ only does emissions inspections, EVs don't require inspections at all, so maybe it's harder to justify the stop in the first place?
Regarding the emissions checkpoints, I wonder if they still pull over EVs and give them tickets for other violations. Since NJ only does emissions inspections, EVs don't require inspections at all, so maybe it's harder to justify the stop in the first place?
With greater transparency it would be interesting to see if rational behaviour kicked in, reducing fines.
Anecdotally with speed bumps in my area, I've seen that people increasingly aren't being rational recently: five plus years ago the vehicles that would get in trouble were typically company owned/municipal vehicles - the prospect of damage to the vehicle didn't concern those who didn't own the vehicle and thus those were the ones being driven at speeds great enough to cause self-inflicted damage. However in the last few years, it's common to see people frequently trashing their own private cars, with scrapes due to going too fast, which you would imagine they don't want to do but end up doing by accident - the speed bumps are the same, so either the cars got worse somehow or the drivers did (more distracted/less attentive or simply a worse judge of speed/the physical environment)
Anecdotally with speed bumps in my area, I've seen that people increasingly aren't being rational recently: five plus years ago the vehicles that would get in trouble were typically company owned/municipal vehicles - the prospect of damage to the vehicle didn't concern those who didn't own the vehicle and thus those were the ones being driven at speeds great enough to cause self-inflicted damage. However in the last few years, it's common to see people frequently trashing their own private cars, with scrapes due to going too fast, which you would imagine they don't want to do but end up doing by accident - the speed bumps are the same, so either the cars got worse somehow or the drivers did (more distracted/less attentive or simply a worse judge of speed/the physical environment)
I've noticed a significant uptick in the number of drivers busting through red lights in my town.
I wish I thought cameras would help
I wish I thought cameras would help
Sounds like a lot of these citations are for "right turn on red", which makes me wonder if some of these intersections could use better traffic lights, such a blinking orange right-turn light during off-peak hours. On the other hand, having a similar "right turn on red" law in California where I drove most of my life, I don't recall ever rolling through these. I might roll through an empty 4-way stop, but never a red light. I would sometimes make a quick and jerky stop-and-go for those right turns, but I have no idea if that's citable. I always tried to let the car 'fall back' from the forward momentum before accelerating.
Red light cameras are good. Minimal bias (fn) compared to an all-too-human police officer.
And it's not like speed traps, where the posted limits are well below the design speed of the road. A red light is a red light!
fn: We can argue the toss around discriminatory placement of cameras e.g. there's probably more of them in neighbourhoods with certain demographics, but there's a simple solution here: every signalised intersection getting a camera, or at least the top half by traffic volume.
And it's not like speed traps, where the posted limits are well below the design speed of the road. A red light is a red light!
fn: We can argue the toss around discriminatory placement of cameras e.g. there's probably more of them in neighbourhoods with certain demographics, but there's a simple solution here: every signalised intersection getting a camera, or at least the top half by traffic volume.
There's enough people talking about the timing of the yellow to sort of pause and consider whether a given red light is exactly the same as some other red light.
If places are shortening the yellow light to juice camera revenue then yes, that's bad.
America is the land of the lawsuit right? Surely someone - or the state legislature - could take action on safety grounds alone to ensure a reasonable minimum duration (adjusted for the speed limit) for a yellow light.
America is the land of the lawsuit right? Surely someone - or the state legislature - could take action on safety grounds alone to ensure a reasonable minimum duration (adjusted for the speed limit) for a yellow light.
Do you have evidence that they conclusively reduce traffic incidents?
I think the thing I get hung up on is that I don't know if we know they actually work. Intuitively, sure, makes sense, but maybe they are just costing drivers money but not making things safer.
I think the thing I get hung up on is that I don't know if we know they actually work. Intuitively, sure, makes sense, but maybe they are just costing drivers money but not making things safer.
[deleted]
The new hotness is speed cameras in school zones.
Article from when they were legalized: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2023/06/02/its-great-news-t...
Article from when they were legalized: https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2023/06/02/its-great-news-t...
There should be a camera on every intersection
i honestly dont mind red light cameras per say (do think people should have the right to challege them bc technology isnt perfect all the time) but i absolutely loathe speeding cameras
not that i speed much but i have witnessed too many accidents where a person is going the speed limit (maybe 5MPH over) and they quickly slam on the brakes and go 15 MPH under while the car behind them rear ends them
not that i speed much but i have witnessed too many accidents where a person is going the speed limit (maybe 5MPH over) and they quickly slam on the brakes and go 15 MPH under while the car behind them rear ends them
[deleted]
Sleep town needs Waymo
The solution here is to stop at every yellow light. If it's timed very fast, spend the entire red holding down your horn.
Enough people protest predatory lights in this fashion, either it will get fixed or the local police will start shooting people who honk.
I wonder how many people it would take to mark the route through one of these lights as blocked before mapping services route around them.
Enough people protest predatory lights in this fashion, either it will get fixed or the local police will start shooting people who honk.
I wonder how many people it would take to mark the route through one of these lights as blocked before mapping services route around them.
This seems... unsafe? I get that it isn't your fault if someone rear ends you, but the best advice I've ever hear on the roads was "be predictable." Stopping abruptly seems like a sure-fire way to cause an accident.
I don't know if it is any more, but as I understand it, the white dashed lines in the road would become solid a certain distance away from the light. That distance was roughly calibrated to being the distance it would take for the average vehicle doing the speed limit to come to a stop safely.
I was taught that if the light turned yellow and you were beyond the solid lines, you should come to a stop, but if you were inside the solid lines, you should proceed as if it were green[1]. This worked for a long time. Decades, before moving to a new area. I noticed that the newer area had stop light cameras, but I also quickly noticed that the lines didn't sync up to the lights. Perhaps there had been no effort to make them. Perhaps that was an older convention no longer followed. I don't know. But I miss having a reference for which way to handle coin-tosses without having to first become intimately familiar with the light's timing.
[1] - unless of course someone in front of you were trying to stop
I don't know if it is any more, but as I understand it, the white dashed lines in the road would become solid a certain distance away from the light. That distance was roughly calibrated to being the distance it would take for the average vehicle doing the speed limit to come to a stop safely.
I was taught that if the light turned yellow and you were beyond the solid lines, you should come to a stop, but if you were inside the solid lines, you should proceed as if it were green[1]. This worked for a long time. Decades, before moving to a new area. I noticed that the newer area had stop light cameras, but I also quickly noticed that the lines didn't sync up to the lights. Perhaps there had been no effort to make them. Perhaps that was an older convention no longer followed. I don't know. But I miss having a reference for which way to handle coin-tosses without having to first become intimately familiar with the light's timing.
[1] - unless of course someone in front of you were trying to stop
"If you don't want to pay fines, stop driving through red light" (i.e., cameras are cost-efficient law enforcement)
vs.
"Cities shouldn't use robots to extract huge dollar amounts from their citizens and travelers without having to look them in the eye" (i.e., massive income is prima facie evidence that the decision to install cameras is driven by revenue rather than justice)
There is a simple change we could make that should have broad bi-partisan support that can cleanly make both sides happy: Local governments shouldn't be able to keep the revenue from automated enforcement cameras; instead, it has to be sent to another part of the government (e.g., to charity, or the federal parks department, or basically anywhere that isn't under the control of the city council making the decision). This removes the incentive for cities to treat violators of minor traffic laws like piggie banks, but they are still free to use cameras to economically enforce laws protecting public safety if they deem it prudent. Importantly, it also reduces the appearance of corruption, restoring some faith in local government. We all lose when citizens view the justice system as an extortion racket.
(You could, and in my opinion should, extend this to all fines levied by local governments, but we could start with traffic cameras as a baby step.)