Should Red Light Camera Intersections be cleary marked by large signs?

Any time you use public property there is some reduction of privacy. To drive on public roads we agree to license our cars and drivers, and to publicly display tags. Likewise we agree to adhere to the rules of the road. Daniel's suggestion does not change these basic facts, but instead suggests another method of enforcement. His black box would not need to yield any data unless laws were being broken, which keeps it clear of the 4th amendment. Due process would occur in the normal manner: having to appear in court and explain why you were speeding, running red lights, or whatever.

Given that our country lacks the wisdom to adopt a unified national identification document, I'm not hopeful that Daniel's idea will ever see the light of day. It probably won't matter as personal transportation becomes a thing of the past.

Tom

 

I never said eliminate due process. But there is no "privacy" while driving on public roads. The roads, being public, anyone has a right to watch what you do.

And your accusation that I am racist is STUPID!!! How do you infer that I am racist from my rant against reckless driving??? You owe me an apology for that!

Tens of thousands of people are MURDERED every year by reckless drivers. We have traffic laws to protect innocent people from IDIOTS who think that red lights, stop signs, and speed limits do not apply to them. Unfortunately, the penalties for RECKLESS driving are paltry. We need penalties that actually hurt. If you endanger another person's life, you should go to prison. At the very least, if you drive like a maniac you should lose the right to drive.

As for the differential effect of fines on rich and poor, a good solution would be fines based on income: Driving over the speed limit or running a red light, fine you 1/10 of your year's total income before deductions or exemptions.

 

You are advocating that we are required to purchase spy equipment and put it in the car. We are then required to show this information as soon as pulled over. This is quite different than having a police officer watch the road. You are requiring that we spy on ourselves and likely show the police everywhere we have traveled on request. This removes a right of privacy. If you are going to apply due process than you must show who was driving. This would likely also show who they were driving with, removing even more of our privacy. All this along with requiring any officer that requests it the information further removes search and seizure protection of the 4th amendment. If after this you are going to allow due process our courts will be flooded with cases, and every one thrown out on 4th amendment grounds.

I apologize for that. Locally our city protested against Arizona's law that basically forced police to pull people over and check id for being Mexican. It was all in the name of secure border. The excuse is protecting our borders, the result is removal of rights. That was where I was going, but it was unclear, and definitely unfair to you. At the ROT rally (motorcycle rally), many boycotted Austin for speaking up and cutting contracts with Arizona. We like our freedom here more than the millions in tourist revenue.

As a civil libertarian, I'm sure I draw the line very differently than many on this board. I see very few people run red lights on purpose. Most studies show that the red light cameras do not stop the serious offenders, but do cause more rear end collisions. The old excuse was that they prevented the more serious t-bone accidents, but when recent data has been analyzed injuries have not changed in a statistically significant way. If you send every speeder to prison you will need a lot more prisons and orphanages, so I assume you are not advocating this for speeding. I would think there would be other remedies for reckless driving as well. I don't like your implication that all accidents are murder.

I always thought that your income should not matter, or be allowed in court on a simple traffic manner.

 

If you limit the box to be read only when the officer has probable cause and only for the short duration that the infraction took place it may be a different story. This is not what was said, and I included the quote above. By allowing past offenses to be read you must also show that the driver was driving the car. States have contiually violated this, but the states and us supreme court have continually reinforced this. Then we get to the root of the poisoned tree. Is it a violation if you were 2mph over for 1/2 a second? Would a police officer state this? Has the equipment been tampered with? Note you may protest this would never happen but each of these cases have happened in the case of speed cameras. This along with guilty until proven innocent. Luckily the courts have struck down many of these abuses, but I hate it when I hear how much safer we will be with fewer rights and less privacy. My political viewpoint is just different than most on this board. We are a country where rule of law is important, and we should not brake the basic protections in order for a false sense of safety.

The Texas drivers license and id card's conform to standards for national identification documents. This will only be done state by state. I am also not against black boxes in cars. What I object to is there use without probable cause. But I am glad that this, you have nothing to fear from police if you aren't guilty intrusion into rights will not likely see the light of day.

 

Where's the option to shut them all down?

Red light cameras ticket people for legally turning right on a red.
Stop.
Look both ways.
Coast is clear.
Go.
Snap! $100.00 fine for you for turning at the wrong second.

Nobody cares because corrupt idiot politicians only want your money. We're saving the children right?
In my opinion this sort of thing needs to happen to red light cameras until the replacement cost is higher than the revenue generated.
Speed Cameras

 

Did anyone suggest that in any way shape or form?

Don't think this helps your case.

 

On reckless driving - about 37,000 were killed on US roads in 2008, but pre-recession it's been running around 40,000. Thanks to enforcement of seat-belt laws, air-bags, ABS, other passive safety features, it's gone down from about 60,000 deaths annually around 1990.

I think it's time to demand the driver to be safe.

At least 60% of the fatalities are driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or something.

Add at least 3,000 from distracted driving.

That still leaves quite a few deaths from simply going way over the speeding limit.

US roads are less safe than most industrialized nations.

It's because of DUI, distracted driving, and other recklessness....without it probably no more than 10,000 would be killed annually on the roads.

If taking responsibility was more common and the alcohol lobby was taken head on - traffic fatalities would go way down.

 

I already apologized above. Locally the Arizona immigration laws, which in basic form makes looking Mexican a reason to be pulled over. The politicians used the same reasoning as you. The boogie man is out their. We don't need any evidence the law works, lets take away the rights. I disagree with unjust laws, and don't believe we should short circuit our constitution or state laws to catch speeders or red light runners. Its the politics of fear. Again I didn't mean to imply that Daniel or anyone on this board demonstrated racist attitudes, and I apologize that my statements did that.

 

That near-60,000 death toll is for the mid-1960's to early 70's, ending with the OPEC oil embargo. See Traffic Fatalities for an annual list.

The National Safety Council's annual list (I'm looking at old hardcopy), using a slightly different accounting, shows a peak of 56278 in 1972, falling below 50000 in 1982.

 

The estimate is down to 34K Last year. The lowest collected fatalities per passenger mile. This is a more productive discussion than lets put spy boxes in the cars and start arresting people.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811291.PDF

I thought that time was before I was born, when fatalities per mile were much worse. Now may be the time to look at what works and what doesn't, while preserving rights.

I'm not sure what it is today. It was down bellow 40%, but had risen back to 41% in 2008. Note it was 32% under the new method of counting those with bac of at least .08%. The higher number is attributed to any accident where there is some alcohol that measures bellow the legal limit or alcohol is just suspected. All of these are preventable though.

I have no idea how many from distracted driving. I was rear ended after exiting the freeway and stopped to not run over a dog. The car behind me was probably going 65 (highway speed) in a 45 not slowing down, talking to her two friends, and got mad that I hit the brakes. She was definitely distracted and thought she was safe because she wasn't using a cell phone.

I think MADD is stronger than the alcohol lobby. I think absent marshal law where driving is illeagal there will be accidents. Many can be prevented. I agree with the goals, but ends do not justify the means, and programs should focus on safety not punishment. Before you get carried away, there were 5,500 of those fatalities from people on foot or bikes. I've been part of the coalition to educate drivers about looking for people on bikes and on foot, and requiring drivers to drive a safe distance to those on bicycles, providing bike lanes and foot paths. If 1% of the money wasted on the red light cameras was spent on this, fatality rates would drop greatly. Of course no one is making mountains of money on this.

 

This poll should read:

Should red light camera intersections be clearly marked by large signs?

A) No. Otherwise people will run red lights on intersections that aren't marked
B) Yes. Because I love wasting tax money making technology useless.

 

Accepted - sorry I missed that.

 

In regards to my remarks on 34,000+ US traffic deaths, it's clear most are easily avoidable.

We can't go that much farther telling the automakers to make vehicles safer - it's time to demand the driver be safer.

Just about every day I read about a traffic death the vehicle rollovers and passenger(s) are ejected....obviously not wearing seatbelts, probably DUI, esp if it's a wrong way accident.

 

Well this has gone far afield from whether cities should follow the federal recommendation and post signage for red light camera intersections.

I don't support running red lights. I agree its a problem. The law and order arguments, with damn the driver no matter what just bother me, and I let the discussion get a little out of hand. I just don't think the solution is to try and catch more people and give bigger fines, despite the evidence that the cameras and enforcement is actually increasing accidents. Keep fighting the good fight. Remember that car fatalities are not significantly different than europe. SUVs and trucks have different safety regulations and significantly higher numbers of fatalities. But the worst statistic is that the fatality rate is 10 times higher in the US for pedestrians struck by cars, than in Germany or Holland. These are all rolled up into the number, and vehicle related fatalities are at their lowest level ever in the us. Regardless the number is too high.

 

So if the camera's really are causing more accidents (something that as of yet has been claimed but not supported with verifiable data in this thread), what's the severity of the accidents? It seems to me that if you can stop 1 high speed T-bone and it only costs you a few low speed fender benders, that's well worth it. Yeah, fender benders suck and you have to have work done on your bumper... but that's much better than slamming into someone, possibly rolling their car, and maybe even ending with a death...

 

How about EVERYBODY just stop at the damn light when it's RED !!!!
Go on Youtube and just watch the vast numbers of jerks running lights!!
It has become a sport, people die!

People spend more time whining like bitchy little babies about the cameras.
If you would just stop at the light, you would have NOTHING to bitch about!!

 

I call B.S. Who are you going to believe - studies that have been linked to on this thread that show traffic light cameras save lives, or some random person on the internet who claims they don't?

 

I suspect that red light cameras initially cause more rear end collisions, since many drivers plan on sneaking through the "orange" light, and are surprised when the car they are tailgating actually stops. Just as the cameras cause people to be more serious about stopping at red lights, eventually people will learn to not tailgate when coming up to a light. That would be another desirable change in driving behavior.

Tom

 

Here is a quick set of links. Thanks for looking. I only have hard copies of the reports of Texas Department of Transportation. I appreciate any comments of the integrity of the links.

Analysis of multiple studies
» Public Health Researchers Take Closer Look at Red-light Cameras

Check out the pdf's
What are red light cameras really used for? :: Schaumburg Freedom Coalition

Illinois: Study Finds No Benefit To Chicago Red Light Cameras

I am interested because the police force here wants to increase red light camera, but have fraudulently characterized the number of accidents. This follows in most cases where you drill down into the data as the USF study reports.

Show me a study with numbers. I do want to look into it and learn.

 

Most importantly austingreen... your sources don't seem to me to be addressing the severity of an accident. how many deaths have been caused by rear-ending someone at a red light camera intersection?