-
The Democrats’ Walmart Obsession
June 4, 2013 | 112 comments
-
Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets
May 24, 2013 | 94 comments
-
McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 122 comments
-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 20 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
The Public Policy
Red-Lighting Photo Traffic Enforcement
Government’s revenue-raising justifications should never trump safety considerations.
BOULDER, Colo. — Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe is introducing a bill to ban photo traffic enforcement, including both speed and red light cameras, statewide. Sen. Renfroe frames it properly: “People need to be held accountable for their actions, but government should be about safety not revenue.”
Many people are sympathetic to red-light cameras, assuming they cause fewer people to run red lights, a behavior especially dangerous to others. But that assumption also assumes that fewer red light scofflaws equates to fewer accidents at intersections. Perhaps surprisingly, a raft of studies appear to show that red light cameras may actually be increasing the number of traffic accidents: People afraid of the cameras often stop short, including when the light is yellow, causing the driver behind them also to brake suddenly, occasionally unable to do so in time and rear-ending the camera-fearing driver in front (and causing the same problem for the third car in this line of traffic). To be sure, those in favor of cameras have a couple of studies they quote supporting increased safety due to cameras.
I’ve never been sympathetic to speed cameras for a simple reason: Both here in Boulder and around where I used to live in Australia, speed cameras are put in places where there is little safety justification but where people are likely to be exceeding the speed limit, though not enough to have any implications for safety.
In the Blue Mountains of Australia, the cameras are routinely placed near the bottom of hills where one would expect cars to have picked up a little speed. In Boulder, they use soccer mom-style mini-vans with radar and cameras built in and place them alongside the road where two lanes merge into one. A person might speed up to get past the person he’s currently driving next to since there’s about to be room for only one of them, longitudinally speaking, only to see the stomach-sinking flash from the cynically pleasant-looking vehicle. Forcing people to slow down when they need to get away from the other car also arguably increases the risk of a rear-end collision in much the same way that red light cameras do.
In short, speed cameras are rarely useful for anything but revenue generation and likely were never intended to be anything else despite the soothing words of Nanny State politicians. And red light cameras, even if intended in part to be a true benefit to traffic safety, seem not to be doing so, leaving them as pure revenue raisers as well.
When did Americans become OK with the idea of the cameras watching so much of our every day life? If Orwell’s Big Brother were in charge of traffic regulation, you can bet he’d love the idea of these cameras. In fact, we don’t need to theorize about a fictional tyrant; after all, if New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants more traffic cameras “on every corner,” they can’t be a good idea.
To give you an idea of the revenue generation aspect of these cameras, Denver was ticketing people $75 — the same fine as for running a red light — if they stopped their vehicles even an inch over the painted line on the road before which a vehicle is supposed to stop when the light is red. When called on it, the city didn’t have the sanity to eliminate that policy; it simply cut the fine to $40. As Senator Renfroe puts it, “The city of Denver must feel like they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar with their vote to lower the white line violation ticket cost. If it really is about safety and not revenue, how about refunding the difference to all the people they ticketed the past six months.”
Some data for you:
An article on the Left Lane News website mentions that the Denver City Auditor is very skeptical that traffic cameras are anything other than a “cash grab,” and is certain that the public views them as such. Further, “The city has little defense for the audit other than it would be ‘impossible to conduct a study that would satisfy the auditor’s concerns.’ It’s estimated that the city of Denver will generate more than $7 million in revenue from its mobile radar program alone in 2011.”
The city of Des Moines, Iowa, collected $454,412 over the last three months of 2011, including $270,866 in December, from five traffic cameras.To give you an idea of the profit involved for the vendors, the Des Moines Register reported that “After paying Gatso USA a flat, per-ticket fee for processing and issuing the citations, the city netted $192,365 from the cameras in December.” How much money do you think Gatso USA is willing to spend in campaign contributions and propaganda dissemination to keep this gig going?
Seattle and its neighboring town of Lynwood both plan to take more than $4 million from their residents’ pockets with traffic cameras this year.
It’s time to push back, as many other states have, against these cameras specifically, and against the Big Nanny state generally.
If you hear a politician defending the cameras, ask him to give you the reason for his position. If it’s about safety, politely tell him that the data on that is, at best for his side, mixed. And, you might ask, if studies routinely show that the cameras do not improve safety, is he really willing to go on record to support them just for the sake of allowing a city or state to fleece drivers?
Furthermore, and this argument should appeal to at least some Democrats, the large amount of money involved encourages corruption, as has been seen in various locales around the country. Even the Nanny State-supporting Denver Post editorializes against the obvious corruption of the vendor of traffic cameras being given the assignment to study their effectiveness.
Democratic Colorado State Rep. Claire Levy responded to a request for a comment: “I want to see facts regarding effectiveness before making a decision. My basic approach is to let the local governments respond to their citizen concerns rather than have the heavy hand of state government tell them how to handle their traffic enforcement issues.”
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/20/red-lighting-photo-traffic-enf
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
c.j. acworth| 1.20.12 @ 7:45AM
Mr. Kaminsky, you say you can't explain why accidents in Peoria AZ increased while red light violations decreased at intersections where cameras were installed. The answer is in earlier in your essay, where you point out that people are abruptly stopping short on yellow. As a result, they avoid a ticket, but get rear-ended.
Dick Nome| 1.20.12 @ 8:17AM
This is normal and has been going on long before red light cameras. It is obvious that the yellow light duration is too short. Nothing new here.
Mike Hawk| 1.20.12 @ 8:20AM
A truism.
Legarto Rey| 1.20.12 @ 9:33AM
The yellow light duration is typically shortened when the "red light camera" is installed. Often from 4 seconds to 2.5 seconds.
Moe Blotz| 1.21.12 @ 8:32AM
Engineers from your state's department of transportation usually recommend a yellow light duration of at least six seconds.
LarryK| 1.20.12 @ 10:16AM
Quinn's First Law:
1. Liberalism always generates the opposite of its stated intent.
zooage| 1.20.12 @ 3:07PM
When I took Drivers Ed back in the early '70s, we were taught that the yellow light meant "prepare to stop", not speed up and try to beat the red light. If more drivers actually obeyed the traffic signals, there would indeed be less accidents. I for one am in favor of cameras at intersections, though not "speed" cameras.
Stuart Koehl| 1.20.12 @ 7:30PM
This goes to show you that everything you learn in school is wrong. A yellow light means only that the light is about to turn red, requiring you to stop. It may (and in most cases does) mean slow down in preparation for stopping, but there are also many instances where the distance between the car and the intersection is not sufficient to allow stopping before the light turns red. Your choices then are to (a) stop somewhere in the middle of the intersection; (b) panic-stop and run the risk of rear-ending (not to mention injury to any passengers in your car); or (c) to accelerate and go through the intersection before the light changes from yellow to red.
As someone noted, the typical yellow light time is about 4-4.5 seconds; the FHSA mandates a minimum of 2.5 seconds. It has been documented here in Northern Virginia (and elsewhere) that when red light cameras are installed, the traffic lights are usually reprogrammed to the minimum 2.5 seconds. This ensures a higher percentage of red light runners (hence higher revenues for the jurisdiction and the camera company), but also more rear-end collisions.
albert constantine jr.| 1.20.12 @ 8:00AM
This is a topic usually addressed shortly after the author gets a red light ticket. Like parking meters, these devices are primarily a revenue generating mechanism masquerading as a means to enhance public safety or convenience.
Mike Hawk| 1.20.12 @ 8:20AM
If you have that much revenue being generated, you have one or both of two problems. Too many a-holes running red lights and/or too short a yellow light time.
albert constantine jr.| 1.20.12 @ 8:43AM
I think both problems occur, but there's another phenomenon as well. These enforceement methods generally only work against people who are in compliance with other motor vehicle laws, i.e. driving cars with proper registration and displayed plates. The unlicensed, uninsured members of the criminal underclass who tend to commit numerous violations are largely unaffected, because of fictitious or stolen tags, etc.
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 11:42AM
Would those be the same feral thugs who play the Knockout game?
Ross Kaminsky | 1.20.12 @ 9:21AM
for the record, I've never gotten a red light ticket.
albert constantine jr| 1.20.12 @ 12:18PM
My wife got one last month that we are fighting, as she clearly is making the red turn on red.
Moe Blotz| 1.21.12 @ 8:35AM
The National Motorists Association has information that will help anyone fight a traffic ticket.
2Anglico| 1.20.12 @ 8:31AM
Seat belt laws fall into this category too. We live in a police state. It is only going to get worse.
rnd| 1.22.12 @ 9:42AM
Please add bicycle helmet laws to the idiocy as well. I am rather certain that Joe Biden has recently become an advocate of a nation-wide bicycle helmet law.
I guess no surprise there. As if Joe Amtrak Delaware Biden has ever used a bicycle as his means of transport.
I hate do-gooders who presume to know what is best for us. I am a bike rider when weather, traffic, and circumstance permit. Both for work commutes, leisure, even some errands. I really do like the freedoms to choose (I somehow thought this was what the human condition is supposed to be.) Sometimes I choose the helmet, based on circumstances. Other times I forego it based on circumstances.
The key is that I choose.
Treat people as the independent, responsible full adults that they are (and maybe, just maybe, they'll behave as such).
Secretly I bet that there are sports gear manufacturers out there like Bell, Giro (global producers of bike headgear) that are salivating at a bike helmet "mandate."
The state gets in on the cut, too. Via sales taxes.
So: Just make more products mandatory. Like the $385.95 car baby safety seats. If that is the sales ticket price, how much revenue in sales tax does that produce in your state?
I am on the side of most here that agrees, agrees that the overall motive behind traffic cameras is local governments' insatiable cravings for more tax monies.
More tax revenues is not just more to play with, it means less inspection of how each dollar is spent/used by the local governments.
MikeN| 1.20.12 @ 9:06AM
Don't the feds help with the installation?
Brother John| 1.20.12 @ 9:06AM
Well ..... do you want to live in a free land, or not?
Dave | 1.20.12 @ 9:21AM
Let's cut to the chase, kids. Red light intersection cameras aren't all about public safety; they're all about the ... m-o-n-e-y.
Too simple? Well, Batman, riddle your local mayor this: If red light cameras didn't generate sufficient cash flow to Joe City budget to justify their installation and maintenance cost, do you think, for even a New York minute, they'd have been installed at all critical corners of Maple and Vine, USA?
tick-tick-tick ...
And as far as Joe City's annual P & L sheets read, does anyone, honestly, have a clue as to how much of a "take" the companies who manufacture and maintains (said) safety cameras get out of the monthly ... click violations?
crickets ...
If anyone believes that Joe City mayor will give up THAT figure to public scrutiny, I've got some nice lakefront property in the Mojave to sell them.
Never forget, grasshoppers: "When attempting to seek an answer, follow the money. It will lead to a truth ... every time."
CAPT JAP RET| 1.20.12 @ 9:24AM
In San Diego they shortened the yellow light time when the Red Light Cameras went in. The city had to be taken to court to get the yellow light times restored to the original settings. As has been said many times, when in doubt "Follow the money!".
Evilned| 1.20.12 @ 9:33AM
Do you want the cameras to go away? The government won't listen to you or the majority of people?
Simple answer.
Destroy them.
Paint over the lenses, removed them from the poles, cut their power feeds.
Is this legal? Of course not! However, a stack of broken cameras piled up on the front step of the mayor's home might get his attention
buckeyeman| 1.20.12 @ 10:18AM
How 'bout a .22 with a telescopic sight? I thought the cameras were on all the time until my house got burgled. I'm right on a red light camera corner and we could have had a nice photo of the thieves pulling into my driveway and leaving with all the loot (they took my PS3 AND my Modern Warfare III, the dirty rotten Obama Voters!). Anyway, the cops said the cams are only activated when the red light is violated. Soooo..... a patriot in the bushes could wreak havok with a sharp aim.
Stuart Koehl| 1.20.12 @ 7:32PM
A paint ball gun can do the same thing without the risk of a firearms violation.
Harry the Horrible| 1.20.12 @ 11:43AM
The Brits used to "necklace" their traffic enforcement cameras (old tires and gasoline), but they were more accessible than our cameras. I guess we'll have to used the scoped rifle method.
Michael Crites| 1.20.12 @ 3:56PM
I remember reading a story about a group of high school students who made paper copies of city official's (mayor, councilmen, etc) license plates, mounted them to their cars and repeatedly ran lights and were photographed. When the tickets started showing up in the mail, the cameras were quickly removed.
I have to admit that I admired the creativity of these students. Not that I would ever condone such behavior ... haha
David W| 1.20.12 @ 9:49AM
As someone who has almost been t-boned twice as the result of someone running a red light I support the cameras. I believe that they do increase safety, HOWEVER, most drivers, like the one who almost rear-ended me because she was too busy eating her bowl of cereal to pay attention, only pay attention to the car in front of them. They do not pay attention to the car in front of that one nor the light that is half a block in front of them. If they did, then the chances of rear-end collisions would be lessened if not eliminated. To be honest, after observing how poorly people stop at stop signs (they are stop signs, not "drive slowly and look carefully both ways, maybe" signs) I'd almost support stop-sign cameras.
Unfortunately, what was begun most likely as a safety issue has devolved into a revenue enhancing gimmick (I don't agree with some of the comments regarding parking meters - I don't like them, I like parking for free, but I understand why local businesses/cities may feel they are necessary). We probably have a small minority of people who have caused this inconvenience for a large number of people. If people would exercise a little more self control we might not need redlight cameras (because they would become too expensive to operate)
Gary| 1.20.12 @ 11:15AM
Yeah, the cameras are about safety, and Santa Claus is gonna bring me a Mercedes next Christmas.
Stuart Koehl| 1.20.12 @ 7:34PM
It might work better, David, if you didn't jump off the mark when your light turned green, but waited a second or two to ensure that nobody was going to run the red light. After all, someone not paying attention and going much faster than the speed limit is going to run that light, camera or no, and you're still going to get T-boned.
PolishKnight| 1.20.12 @ 9:54AM
Full disclosure, I got busted by a red light camera but under special circumstances (stuck in LA gridlock traffic and moved through the intersection, judge wasn't sympathetic.)
So after that, I hit the brakes when I saw yellow. And a LARGE suv behind me had to pull over to the right to avoid rear ending me. If that space hadn't been there...
Simple solution to the problem I didn't see here: Delay the green light on the clear intersection for a second (or even a half.) The red light runner would still be breaking the law (and subject to the police writing him up) but at least it would enhance safety without generating revenue.
Even with the red light cameras and everyone following the law (and speed limit), the current instant-green is still dangerous since a yellow light running getting into the intersection at the last possible microsecond poses a danger to oncoming traffic when they see the light about to turn green and decide to assume it's safe. Those are the videos shown by red light camera defenders: "See! That JERK who ran that red light was in the intersection when Mr. Safety drove in." Yet, Mr. Safety seeing that a light is still red and about to turn green moving towards the intersection could still hit a car entering when yellow and should be more cautious but he has the "green light" so he's clear. I personally approach existing red lights about to turn green with caution.
Ironically, the automobile has been big government's friend as compared to public transportation. Nearly all Americans have to have a driver's license (and tags) and if you don't have them, the police just love seeing that and getting ticket quota for that month. With your license and tags, they can track your movements while those who take public transportation in Europe can remain largely anonymous. The police also get to generate all kinds of revenue from car owners while public transportation users are net consumers of government revenue so mo' money for the worthless public sector unions!
Stuart Koehl| 1.20.12 @ 7:35PM
Delayed green is an excellent idea, and where implemented has done much to reduce intersection collisions. Alas! There's no money to be made in it.
Moe Blotz| 1.21.12 @ 8:59AM
Most intersections that I drive through where traffic lights are present already have about a three second delay between red and green. Upgrades take time, what? With short yellow some tractor-trailers get nailed because the power unit was through the intersection before the towed unit cleared the zone.
John Navratil| 1.21.12 @ 2:17PM
PolishKnight, Stuart Koehl,
Here in Houston we have had both the reputation for red-light running and the cameras.
I've lived in Houston since '73 and observed the latency between a light turning red and the opposite turning green since then. I've done no studies, but strongly suspect that "stretching" the green light has developed as a habit among those who come to a stop and wait seconds before crossing traffic begins moving. It affected my driving.
On a second point, traffic lights are signals intended for error-prone humans to use to co-ordinate their actions sharing a bit of common pavement. They are not designed to require perfection from the drivers. The cameras are.
Say Baptist| 1.20.12 @ 10:27AM
By and large traffic enforcement has always been Highway Robbery. While parkiing meters might have been installed to encourage turnover in the space. The merchants who asked for it frequently park all day in front of their stores and feed the meter.
All American American| 1.20.12 @ 10:37AM
I'm fairly certain these cities could comb through their budgets and cut 10x in waste whatever these revenue-enhancers bring in. Is that ever a solution???
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Not only that but if its all about "safety," why come these cities have so much crime? With cameras on every corner you'd figure criminals would be easy pickins, huh?
Police State, USA.
TW in SC| 1.22.12 @ 11:20PM
There has never been a revenue problem. Only a spending problem.
Vern Crisler| 1.20.12 @ 10:43AM
Our current Homeland Security chief was behind having cameras on Arizona highways. This caused a storm of controversy, and they were finally discontinued by Governor Brewer.
All such restrictions on our freedom, freeway cameras or red light cameras, are justified in the name of protecting people. That's why it's so insidious.
Perhaps we can hire some gang members to go out and vandalize all these Orwellian cameras. That way, at least they'd be doing something productive with their "skills."
rhortus| 1.20.12 @ 10:51AM
Fight back! Spray paint over the cameras!
Buck Ofama| 1.20.12 @ 11:15AM
i have been thinking of ways.
Stuart Koehl| 1.20.12 @ 7:36PM
Three words: Paint. Ball. Gun.
Make your own pellets, though, adding epoxy to the paint mix so that it's impossible to clean the lens aperture.
Scott Draeker| 1.20.12 @ 10:56AM
Red light cameras are placed on a revenue sharing basis. The City doesn't buy them. They are owned by private companies that are in it for the money. These revenue sharing contracts generally require that the City guarantee a minimum royalty.
Now what happens is that the locals quickly learn where the cameras are, so revenue falls off. Note that Boulder recently moved a bunch of cameras -- safety, right?
When revenue falls the City faces the possibility of losing the cameras. Sometimes they respond by shortening the yellow lights. This is a primary cause of increased accidents at these intersections, and belies any claims that safety is even a factor, much less the prime motivation.
mbd| 1.20.12 @ 11:01AM
Abetting this the rush of municipalities to install these revenue generating devices are the companies which produce and, in some situations, service, these devices and their use. It is equally lucrative for them - which, unfortunately, is not rare among those entities which do business with governments on various levels.
Gary| 1.20.12 @ 11:12AM
This is pure and simple a way of ripping off citizens and making money. I would take great pleasure in using the cameras for target practice. This is a prime example of crony capitalism as local governments contract with companies, many not even in the state where the cameras are, and pay them bounties for nailing citizens. The safety issue is bogus,
Jimmy| 1.20.12 @ 11:18AM
"Furthermore, and this argument should appeal to at least some Democrats, the large amount of money involved encourages corruption, as has been seen in various locales around the country. "
Democrats -- even some Democrats -- against corruption. I usually write more substantive comments, but this? What a belly-laugh.
Buck Ofama| 1.20.12 @ 11:29AM
I have observed what is described: dumb ass drivers not paying attention, fucking light goes yellow for only 3 seconds, then near-rear end collision.
If we must have these goddamned things, then they should have a two-mode yellow: flash quickly for 2 seconds, then 2 seconds of steady-on, then red.
On the other hand, I think of dressing in black, and spraying the fucker's lens black with a spray can mounted on a pole. But how to get away?
I also think of making a James Bond license plate flipper.
Finally, when all else fails, just say FVCK OBAMA with a big rubber dick and break it off! (credits to George Carlin).
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 11:50AM
ooor,
get some Truck Nutz big enough to cover the plate.
Bob Grant| 1.20.12 @ 11:47AM
I live in a small suburban town and EVERY friggin' intersection, no matter how small, has cameras installed in every direction.
Are all used for red light enforcement or other purposes? I've never seen an intersection having the sign as illustrated in the above picture.
Dmac| 1.20.12 @ 12:04PM
There is another issue here as well, the "Big Brother" issue. To most freedom loving Americans we believe we have a right to not only face our accuser, but to question our accuser. Mr. Camara, you took a picture of a car with my license plate on it, can you tell me Mr. Camera, who was driving the vehicle?
When these typ eof "Big Brother" intrusion are allowed the government becomes even more brazen with wild ideas. Next thing you knwo they will say you have to submit to a blood test and incriminate yourself??????????
Dick Nome| 1.20.12 @ 1:35PM
The state gives you a license to drive and license for your vehicle. It can revoke either. You are responsible for ther car no matter who is driving. The ticket is not a felony either. If you don't like that , that is too bad as it is in the jurisdiction of the state you reside in. Don't anybody try arguing a Constitutional issue either. There isn't one.
crash| 1.20.12 @ 1:59PM
well how about if you loan your car to someone and they get drunk and run over someone and kill them, do they arrest the car, no, they find the driver!
Mike Hawk| 1.21.12 @ 7:04AM
Why were you stupid enough to loan him your car?? You are in deep shit and will have your ass sued off by the victim's family. Your insurance may be cancelled too. Boy were you dumb to do that. It's your car after all.
crash| 1.23.12 @ 4:14PM
your not smart enough to get the point, wether it was drunk driving or being distracted, its not you driving the car, its someone else, and if your scenero worked like the traffic cam worked, the victim's family would be sueing the car , "the car ran the traffic light, the car also ran over the victim" so the car is at fault once again , according to traffic cam logic
Dmac| 1.20.12 @ 3:57PM
It becomes a Constitutional issue when they seize your property for non-payment of the illegal ticket.
You wimps that are so quick to give up not only your rights, but the rights of oters make me sick. You loan you car to someone which is you right. They run a red light and a ticket is sent in the mail to the registered owner of the car. Not the person that broke the law. I don't care how YOU look at it, I see it as un-constitutional not being able to face my accuser. If a policeman writes a ticket, he can be asked, "was this the driver of the car" and give a response.
Being forced to give your blood is a clear violation at these DUI stops where they have what is called a "no refusal". Talk about totally un-constitutional. I and you, have a right NOT to incriminate ourselves. We should have a right to say no sir, I do not consent to you drawing blood from body. No different than having the right to refuse to take filed sobriety test that even the most sober policeman can't do 9 out of ten times.
At what point to people realize our government has become our enemy and it all starts with little steps. A photo at a traffic light, ilegally taking your blood, refusing to let you fly because you said the wrong thing on the interenet and upset some politician because it wasn't a liberal viewpoint.
Mike Hawk| 1.21.12 @ 7:09AM
YOu are full of crap. Seize what property?? The state (they issue the license) will suspend your license. When did driving become a right??
rendite| 1.22.12 @ 8:08AM
Mike, Dmac makes good, very valid points.
Try going for just 3 weeks in your life without your, most likely, daily use of the automobile. And, no, being on home vacation for those three weeks does not count. Choose your next busiest three weeks of work assignments, responsibilities, community involvement, family responsibilities, aiding neighbors, seniors, and siblings --- choose that three week period in your life and try to accomplish just 30% of what you are supposed to be doing without a vehicle at your disposal all the time and a legal driver's license.
You, me, all of us would fall flat on our face. Most of us live nowhere near adequate, safe, reliable public transportation to fill the gap. Carpooling to get these life responsibilities done? No, as a what one should be -- a fully autonomous adult fulfilling all of one's responsibilities -- the lack of one's own conveyance at all hours of every day is nearly akin to shackles on your feet and a prison cell.
We have a very strange country, our USA. A person without a driver's license and means of personal (aut0) conveyance is a person shut out of all aspects of U.S. society.
Have you not been with seniors as they reach the point in their lives where they can no longer safely drive themselves? As they either willingly or very reluctantly relinquish their driving, they enter a period of their lives when they become helpless, totally dependent on others. Try as one might, I rarely see any seniors fully prepared for this moment of loss of mobility, freedom, liberties, self-sufficiency, independence.
Sure, we don't need unsafe drivers; unsafe ones must be off our roads. But I use this obvious example to illustrate how much driving is a life necesessity. Yes, a necessity here in 85% of our USA.
As to "confiscate" one's property (auto) for failure to pay or do whatever penance the State requires, well, just how does one again become mobile (active, productive, at work, self-sufficient) without a DMV sanctifying you the motorist AND your automobile?
The local authorities, the state, the DMV, your state Dept. of Transportation all have us over-a-barrell ALL the time.
What prompted me to write was your question, "When did driving become a right?"
Well, Mr. Hawk, think about it, "When did breathing become a right?"
Just think about it.
TW in SC| 1.22.12 @ 11:43PM
As a diabetic, a suspension or revocation of my license is a death sentence. I live alone, have no family nearby and no friends to speak of, other than the occasional hang out types. I have been through this very scenario. Unable to legally drive to work, I would lose my job, then my health insurance, and most likely die or become a ward of the state somehow. It has given me pause to reconsider the notion of driving as a "right" or a "privilege".
When asking a judge about this very thing, he shrugged his shoulders and said, "Well, guess you'd better think of something". I came within millimeters of telling him off for his flip, obnoxious attitude.
The same applies to the State Effing trooper who, when seeing me in the ER after I had a bad diabetic low while driving, and had gone off the road, simply assumed I was drunk. He was absolutely convinced until the doctor chewed his ass about it. But, to be totally up front, the sugar low was the result of an undiagnosed thyroid problem which when combined with the diabetes can cause weird blood sugar numbers and has since been treated. However, I check my blood sugar before I drive, every time because I am aware of my responsibility to others as well as to myself. I take it very seriously. The state in which I live thinks nothing of suspending or revoking a driver's license. Thus, there are probably a lot of people out there driving with a suspended or revoked license. But the cascade of failure begins when a person either overlooks, forgets to or cannot pay a traffic fine. Also, a computer glich where the DMV simply THINKS you've stopped paying insurance on your veee-hikkle (as they like to say here) will result in said state effing trooper coming by your house and pulling the tag off of said veee-hikkle. The troopers here are arrogant, obnoxious assholes. I have yet to meet one in a social situation who has any manners. They seem to be generally very angry people. And every one of them at these functions drank to excess.
There has to be a better way. I completely understand the need for fair and equitable laws. But if a person is not found to have committed some egregious safety violation, why suspend their license other than to FORCE them to come in and pay a fine, which.....upon suspension grows in size.
Then, there's the reciprocity game where a violation in one state will result in your suspension in that state as well as the state where you're licensed. Cute. So..you have to pay reinstatement fees to both and both states have to be in agreement in order for you to get your license back.
By the way, this is what's going to happen to the healthcare system. Just sayin'
Paul from SA| 1.20.12 @ 12:34PM
I support more and better enforcement, and especially, red-light violators.
It's cheaper to place a web-cam at intersections than to pay a staff of policemen and their Democrat unions.
San Antonio is known for its bad drivers. We're not really bad drivers; actually we have bad police drivers who don't enforce driving laws. The policemen here, exceed the speed limit, don't use their turn signals, don't come to a full stop, ....
What about catching illegal cars and illegal drivers?
Dmac| 1.20.12 @ 12:58PM
Actually Paul,
All it takes is for a police officer to write one to two tickets a day and he is paid for for the day. So if you write more tickets you can afford more officers. Although I would prefer police work to stop crime and keep the streets safe from criminals rather than be a tax collector. Darned if we do and darned if we don't I guess.
David H Dennis | 1.20.12 @ 1:10PM
I'm against virtually all traffic law enforcement, because it is always used in pursuit of revenue, not safety. People can drive perfectly safely at 80mph on the freeway and yet I see them pulled over all the time.
Even in the case of safety, I'm not clear on the argument. People who pull into the leftmost lane and drive 75-90mph are choosing to do that. As a result, they are choosing to take the risk, whatever it actually is. They don't affect the person in the right lanes in the least. Why shouldn't people be allowed to take these risks if they wish?
I think it's a matter of whether we want a free country or not. It's bitterly disappointing to me what little we can do about issues like this, where no candidate I know of takes an anti-speed law position and as a result we have no way of expressing our views in such a way as to provoke change.
D
Slacker| 1.20.12 @ 1:29PM
The talk in Denver is to ignore the tickets you get in the mail. The tickets sent by regular mails aren’t “official.” The city must hand deliver the ticket.
Apparently a ticket is not valid unless it personally served (physically handed to you or sent by certified mail). The bastards have 90 days to serve someone or the ticket has to be dismissed.
At least make the ass holes spend the money it takes to track you down and serve you.
Ross Kaminsky | 1.20.12 @ 2:02PM
A reader sent me this excellent link with pictures of many vandalized/destroyed speed cameras in England:
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Moe Blotz| 1.21.12 @ 8:46AM
The National Motorists Association has stories of speed/red light camera destruction from all around the USA. Arizonans pounded cameras all over the state with their legal weapons, often shotguns.
cicero| 1.20.12 @ 2:06PM
Folllow the money. Up until about 10 years ago, the blood level alcohol prohibition was .10 for ouil and .08 for driving while impaired. Below .08, you were presumed to be sober. They then changed the statutes to lower the level for ouil to .08, or driving under the influence. This gave the State the ability to go to zero tolerance if they could. All they had to say was that the driver smelled of alcohol, and crossed the fog line. When convicted, the driver is now faced with fines and costs in the $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 range, and in Michigan, an additional $1,000.00 per year for 2 years when they renew their auto regisstration. BIG money maker, and the State didn't even have to raise taxes.
Not many adults are intoxicated at even .10, let alone at .08. However, noone can now take the chance of going out to dinner, and having a glass of wine or two. The friendly officers of the law sit across from the restaurant parking lots, and wait for patrons to leave. They then pull them over, and give them the friendly breathalyzer treatment. If you thought the restaurant trade was precarious before, you should see it now.
Of course, this does nothing to deter the really bad drunks. They drive whether they have a license or not, or whether they are drunk or not.
Another major problem is the level of fines and costs the judges inpose. Since they keep the costs and a portion of the fines, there is an incentive to maximize those. Most of the judges come right out of the prosecutors offices, and immediately start at about $139,000.00 per year plus benefits. They think that fining people $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 is no bit deal. It is a spit in the ocean to them, but may be 4 weeks pay for some unfortunate worker caught in the game. They do it because they can.
The gap between the government and the citizens is widening to an alarming degree. It is not enough to tell the poor and working class to eat cake.
PolishKnight| 1.20.12 @ 3:29PM
Perhaps ironically, the left is winning the war with the same authoritarian figures they claimed to have despised in the 1960's. After all, the police are just a part of government so getting them in on the game of generous retirement and union benefits ultimately makes them natural pro-government marxists in the long run. Also, the left has taken over education (public workers), etc. The only remaining bastion of "conservative" values in government is in the military and that's under strain (women and gays in the military).
When you have the government taken over by leftists along with the media and even much of corporate America which gets ahead by cronyism, that's it gentlemen, the war is over. It's now only a matter of seeing if they lose by default (go broke Greece style) but that's kind of like hoping the occupying troops die in their sleep due to drunkenness.
Moe Blotz| 1.21.12 @ 8:48AM
Reminds me of the Clintons referring to their police protection as "trained pigs".
PolishKnight| 1.23.12 @ 9:32AM
Bill and Hillary were 60's marxist radicals raised in an age when government institutions were still largely, on the surface, anti-communist fighting against communists in Vietnam. If the police had been drafting young men to die to help the North Vietcong, you can bet they'd love the police.
And many of them now largely do love the police since they enforce most marxist government laws and bust down the doors to collect taxes.
Butch| 1.20.12 @ 4:27PM
In my state, the cops ROADBLOCK exits from all the lakes on the Fourth of July, breathalyze the drivers, and issue tickets to non-intoxicated drivers who've had a couple of beers. This program was instigated and strongly supported by MADD. Makes you want to join Drunks Against Mad Mothers, DAMM, for short.
Butch| 1.20.12 @ 4:28PM
Previous in reply to Cicero, not PolishKnight.
LarryInIowa| 1.20.12 @ 2:51PM
If it's really all about "Safety" as the proponents of these cameras insist, then they should have no problem with 100% of fines and "court costs" going to a victims charity or some other destination other than the coffers of the localiity putting up the cameras.
Derek Leaberry| 1.20.12 @ 3:10PM
Red light cameras and speed cameras are very big in leftist Democratic jurisdictions and a rarity in conservative, rural Republican jurisdictions. Why? Because Democrats have an unquenchable thirst for private sector money. Diminishing tax revenue enhances this Democratic pathology. Democrats become melancholy when they don't have more and more money to spend. Tax money to a Democrat is like crack to a whore.
David H Dennis | 1.20.12 @ 5:02PM
It's not just that, though - Republicans like to drive, and Democrats are anti-driving (see the New Urbanism, recent pronouncements of Roy LaHood, etc). So it's only logical that Democrats would crack down on speeders, while Republicans would rather not.
D
Derek Leaberry| 1.20.12 @ 5:09PM
Very good point. We could probably list three or four more reasons and write a 5000 word American Spectator essay.
Dick Nome| 1.22.12 @ 2:48PM
Likely that in rural areas there are no stop lights to run, don't you think??
pete| 1.26.12 @ 4:01PM
whores already have cracks, politics doesn't drive peoples driving behavior and poor people drive slower to save fuel. rich, selfish, arrogant, ingrates create danger wherever they roam, especially on the roadways . theres enough of them who claim to be patriots, yet snuff others freedoms in an instant. take a good look in the mirror.
Pertinax| 1.20.12 @ 4:30PM
The cameras make GREAT targets!
Stan Redmond| 1.20.12 @ 5:43PM
Why stop there. Install cameras in the home and bedrooms for deviant non Obama approved behaviour. If you're doing nothing wrong than there's nothing to worry about.
actuarius| 1.20.12 @ 6:38PM
There is a simple way to make sure that the placement of cameras is meant for safety, not revenue: make sure that the cameras are put at the intersections with the most accidents (duh).
The reason that accidents have risen when a city tries one or two of these, is that some have got the message (don't run red lights), while others have not. Americans are too aggressive at signal lights. You are not supposed to enter the intersection when the light turns yellow, let alone speed up to get through it.
I spent five years in Switzerland where permanent cameras for red lights and speeding are posted. I lost my aggressive driving in a hurry, which is the point. The Swiss authorities have a web site with every speed and red light post. They also post statistics on accidents. They want you to know where they are and slow down. It works. Try it instead of imagining big government behind every corner.
If you really want to live without some of the intrusion of big government, you need to leave the People's Republic of Boulder.
Stuart Koehl| 1.20.12 @ 7:40PM
Yeah, but the Swiss are so anal-retentive you can eat off their butt holes. That, and an espresso that costs close to $12 is a good reason to avoid not just Berne, Zurich and Geneva, but the whole country.
Brad Kruse | 1.20.12 @ 8:45PM
If you want to increase traffic safety, stop minding speed and enforce safe following distance, including when merging or changing lanes. Get the intervals between cars whether at speed or stopped, you speed up traffic and avoid stop-and-go traffic jams. Speeding tickets, like drunk driving tickets at check points, where there is no observed impairment or safety problem, are revenue generators that haven't solved any problems, haven't made the roads safer, and have become reliable cash generators as well as ongoing burdens on the community. After years of "protection", we still have drinkers and speeders on the road. Laws don't stop violations, and enforcement doesn't either, regardless of the politicians that get elected with these mantras.
John Q Public| 1.20.12 @ 9:00PM
If a camera causes an accident, then sue everyone responsible for it being there. The city, state, the camera company, the contractors who installed it, whoever maintains it, etc. Just like some idiot cities tried to sue gun manufacturers for gun violence. No difference. Touche.
POST American| 1.20.12 @ 9:30PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
Putting this Tavistock predictive soft programming
for police state EUGENICS OP
to one side------
"Notice, as the campaign approaches
----the REAL issues completely disappear."
And so, still waiting for that FIRST piece
critically calling out the overturn of the
US Constitution via the NDAA1031.
----OR the unfolding REALITY of the
Globalist RED China sellout and TREASON op.
------OR the legacy and archetypal nature
of unaccountable, psychopathic, fractional
reserve USURY
---------OR the ever swelling abomination of
socially programmed 'a--bore--shun' cult-your.
-------------OR
-----------------OR
---------------------OR
"Understand folks, psychopaths run on
pure ego, are superb liars, actors, changelings.
They worship power absolutely, and those
above ---while having NO conscience for
those below. NONE. They can greenlight
GMO foods and weaponized injections and
open a nursery for the survivors of DU
without flinching ---and even sleep like
a baby themselves that night. They are
totally charming, charismatic, and LOVE
applause and boasting about themselves.
Understand, we're living in a psychopathic
system that's given us a psychopathic
culture designed to advance psychopaths.
So, teach you children to know and recognize
psychpaths. Our very lives depend on it."
Better break your programming folks,
before you too ---'disappear'.
-----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012--------------
Tim the Enchanter| 1.23.12 @ 1:49PM
Huh?
Denver Todd| 1.20.12 @ 11:44PM
I used to do a lot of work for my company in Boulder, and this had me doing much driving in the city. I saw for myself the numerous intersection cameras, not to mention the roving photo radar vehicles. My overall impression of Boulder at one point was that along with the hopey changey green goddess lifestyle they enjoy, the place is run like a police state.
Yet not all law is black and white. Some of it is flesh colored. Sometime back I was attending a street fair in the mall area downtown, where a young female decided to display her two god-given assets for everyone to see. This wasn't a little peek-a-boo thing, but rather a shirtless display of confection. I discussed the matter with the info booth, and the people there were clueless. I sooooo wanted to take a picture.
Otis Criblecoblis | 1.21.12 @ 3:22AM
I'm all for red light cameras if they are administered equitably, i.e., set to catch flagrant violators constituting a real danger to cross-traffic. Everyone knows he is supposed to stop at a red light, and is subject to a ticket if he doesn't.
The problem is that the temptation to use red light cameras as a cash cow is apparently too strong for many jurisdictions, and crafting sensible guidelines is likely too difficult.
Dang.
W.C.Fields| 1.21.12 @ 8:54AM
Zazu Pitts would agree, but in Philadelphia the red light cameras are not administered "equitably", or any where else for that matter. Red light cameras always turn out to be administered "monetarily".
Gene| 1.21.12 @ 9:10AM
How about the right to face your accuser in court.Lets here the camera give a sworn statement before a judge,but what do I know Iam just a dumb Window Cleaner.
Mike Hawk| 1.21.12 @ 11:14AM
How is that relevant?? Traffic violations are not criminal or felonious in nature.
Traffic Ticket Guru | 1.21.12 @ 7:05PM
Good post Ross. The camera scam is a worldwide epidemic, perpetuated in the name of safety. An example that would have been good for you to use would have been that of State Rep Barry Loudermilk of Georgia who, against public opinion, opinion of the press and his fellow legislators managed to pass a bill that mandated the red light camera intersections to have their amber times properly calculated and then have an extra second added. The result? Real safety! Collisions of all types were reduced by a min, of 76%, there was an imediate drop in offences of 80% and most of the cities pulled their cameras due to loss of revenue. He exposed the scam of undertimed yellow lights and now is a hero amongst his constituents and the media. There is no research to back any safety claims on camera programs and there never will be, they are a revenue generating machine for governments and camera companies.
rendite| 1.22.12 @ 8:17AM
Traffic Ticket Guru, very interesting. Do you have a news link or public information link that can summarize the key points of Georgia State Representataive Loudermilk's efforts and the decision by the state authorities to increase the yellow light time by a second? Please post this, if you have it. Many thanks.
Moe Blotz| 1.23.12 @ 7:21PM
Look into the National Motorists Association, they have links to what you seek.
POST American| 1.21.12 @ 9:27PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
AS unaccountable capstone USURY
plunders America and the world
---the pre-emptive, full spectrum
incrimination of the American people
proceeds unchallenged.
------------------HUAC-Nuremberg 2012.
Hatethecams| 1.23.12 @ 5:16AM
Once the Georgia law was passed mandating four second yellow times on red light camera intersections, the money-making went way down. Some towns installed the cameras, of course for the common good, but took them down the second they stopped being cash cows. It was like an admission that it had been about finding a new source of taxes. That and getting rear ended at a revenue camera intersection taught me all I needed to know.
Harry| 1.23.12 @ 2:04PM
I don't mind the cameras. Anything to keep 3-4 cars going thru a red light is a plus. Otherwise the turn lane light is shortened.
POST American| 1.23.12 @ 11:05PM
---------------------------AGAIN--------------------------
-for the slow of thinking----
---PRE-EMPTIVE, FULL-SPECTRUM
'SIR--veil--ants' and criminalization of
the American people.
The FINAL phase of the Globalist
RED China transfer and TREASON OP.
That's right--
-------------------------FINAL----------------------------
James C. Walker | 1.25.12 @ 10:44PM
The unbiased research is against red light cameras, IF SAFETY IS THE GOAL. They quite frequently increase accidents. If cities truly want to improve intersection safety, reduce red light violations and reduce intersection accident risks - the answer is terribly simple. Just add 1.0 seconds to the yellow intervals and that simple move will almost always reduce violations by MORE than ticket cameras. For speed cameras, the answer is also terribly simple. Reset the posted speed limits to the level that almost always produces the smoothest and safest traffic flow with the fewest accidents. That level is the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions, normally 5 or 10 mph higher than currently posted. This is counter intuitive, but safety with speed limits comes from encouraging the smallest speed variance, reducing tailgating, reducing passing, reducing conflicts between vehicles, and NOT encouraging speeds way below the rest of the vehicles. See the science on both issues on our website. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI
Compact Led Flashlight | 2.6.12 @ 10:25AM
Good post Ross. The camera scam is a bad thing
George B| 3.7.12 @ 7:52PM
In a study of red light camera tickets in Duncanville, TX, 85% of the tickets were issued for not stopping behind the line before making a right turn on red. Drivers are supposed to stop behind the line where you can't see if it's safe to turn, wait some vague amount of time, creep forward to where the driver can see, stop again, and then make a right turn on red. Here in Texas virtually everyone turning right on red ignores the stupid paint and stops where they can see traffic on the cross street. I wish intersections were redesigned to put the stop bar for the right lane closer to the street, but intersections appear to be modified in the opposite direction to increase revenue.