Red Light and Speed Cameras

Remove all ads!

One, if it's a private corporation, I agree it's a bad idea, though still legal (after all, police are also private individuals). As far as looking at the car, that's my point! What 'privacy' are they invading? And, for the record, the analogy to clothing still fits, because it isn't you they're looking at, but the clothes.

 

NOG - I've already explained my point, and to continue in this same circular pattern is not really useful. We will just have to respectfully disagree, as we do on many other points...

 

But you never explained where privacy comes in. This I would truely like to understand, because it's a claim I hear all the time, but I don't see any valid basis for it. While you and I often disagree on things, I generally can see that your point has some logical basis, so I must assume there's one here as well, I just don't see it.

 

Speaking not for Chandos but myself - the privacy aspect comes into play not with the cameras themselves but with the addition of software reading its data. The British have a software that allows them to track registration numbers of cars in traffic. Handy for finding or tracking suspect cars. There are ideas about tracking license plates and using the data to calculate fees for using the roads.

A privacy nightmare it becomes when used, say, on trying to find vulnerabilities of an intrepid reporter NOG who has become a nuisance. He's married. What is he doing in the time in between work and before returning to his family in this particular place? Is he perhaps philandering? Interesting. Why not find out some more and talk with him about it?

That has been the interesting but unspoken of aspect in Bush's warrantless wire tapping program. Did they really only used it on presumable nasties - or also on political opponents and overzealous reporters too? Making no claim here myself - it could explain how they were able to get away with some things they did.

That's the general idea.

 

I personally think CtR is against speed cameras because he likes to go 100MPH...

Speed cameras suck...but red-light cameras are needed all across the US. I had some guy honk at me for braking when the light turned yellow today! Yellow means 'prepare to stop' and red means 'stop' people! Here in Utah, they think yellow means 'speed up!!!' and red means 'keep going...the guy in front of you did, so it's ok for you too!'

 

Insofar as illegal violations of actual privacy go (warrantless wire taps and the like) I'll agree with you. If it's something you could figure out by hiring a private eye and without even asking him to break any laws, I don't see a problem. Again, I don't understand why a computer program is any different than a person doing the same thing. Privacy deals with where something is done (is it inside my house or out on my front lawn), not how it's figured out (did you watch me do it or place a videocamera).

 

Some interesting points since my last post.

Here's a few other details about these particular speed cameras. Most of the highway has a speed limit of 60 mph. However, the area where the speed cameras are located, the limit drops to 50 mph. This is because there is an intersection between two major highways, so you can see some sense in it, as you could reason that there are heavier traffic volumes. However, I leave for work at 6 in the morning, and I pass this particular part of the highway around 6:30. Traffic volumes at 6:30 are not high.

This is where an actual officer has some discretion. Someone going 10 mph over the limit during light traffic is porbably not going to be pulled over, and even if he/she is, if you have a clean driving record the officer is probably going to let you go with a warning. With a speed camera, you get a fine. (I think it's a good thing that it doesn't go on your driving record - at least if you get caught your insurance doesn't go up.)

I do like the point about speed cameras in work zones only being active while people are working. In another section of the highway where there is an active work zone, there are never workers there when I'm going by, because most of the year, it's still dark when I'm leaving for work.

At first glance it would appear that red light cameras are a good thing. The reasoning is that if you run a red light, you can cause a major accident. At first glance it would appear that running a red light is more dangerous than driving 10 mph over the speed limit. However, in a great many instances, it has been found that installing red light cameras actually INCREASE the amount of accidents at intersections. The reason for this is that when people are aware of a red light camera, they will slam on the breaks as soon as the light turns yellow, leading to more rear-end collisions.

There is also one final argument against speeding and red light cameras. After an initial infusion of income when people are unaware that the cameras are in place, the cameras cost more to maintain and operate than they return in revenue. There are also studies on this. As more and more people are aware that the cameras are there, fewer and fewer fines are given. To use the example here in Maryland, the state is paying a contractor $8 million per year to maintain and operate the cameras, plus $17 per ticket. While the contractor certainly earns more money the more fines it sends out, the $8 million is guaranteed. It only makes sense for the state to continue to use the cameras if it's making more than $8 million in net revenue.

I'll try to find the links to the articles I saw last week, but there are many cases where a state or county has stopped using the cameras, but yet leave up the signs and leave the cameras in place. They give the illusion that you can stilll be ticketed (so some people will not speed or run the red light), but they no longer have to pay the upkeep of the cameras.

 

Well I do. Counter-intelligence aside, the government is there to investigate crimes, not people. There is a very big problem when the government starts doing those things, no matter that you can hire a private eye to do them.

It's none of the government's business to know where you go. You don't owe them an explanation. That's why it is none of their business to collect these data preventively.

Computers don't tire. A license plate tracker can observe where you go and create a movement profile of you, on a routine basis, without any human action required. All it needs is you ending up on some list. They can end up with a complete movement profile over the last months. Couple that with your credit card data and your phone records and perhaps your library and DVD renting habits and a government out for mischief can learn a lot more of you that they're supposed to know. Nothing criminal, mind you, but something that can be used against you in other ways. The East German Stasi had such files on citizens, ready for use if people went out of line.

And that scenario isn't far fetched for America as well. It's not all that long ago when Nixon's goons broke into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office to find something to discredit him.

 

Aldeth, wouldnt you say the cameras are serving their purpose if people do not speed and less fines are being handed out? The purpose of any fine is not to give the state an income but to deter people from doing illegal things.

 

While that's a good point, I keep trying to stress that these are mostly private companies who are compiling your private information, without your consent. God knows what they will do with it or who they may sell it to. Plus they get paid a bounty for each ticket, so it's not like they care about the due process of law. They are like modern day bounty hunters, preying on private citizens. While that sounds a bit dramatic, think about how important your private information is these days.

 

OK, one more rant on the speed cameras. I just looked up some new info, and evidently, while the cameras were activated on Oct 1, they will only issue warnings until Nov 1. No points on your license for getting the fine, and the fine is only $40. While that's good news if you get hit with a fine, it makes the finders fee even more ridiculous - the state is giving nearly half the fine ($17) to the contractor!

 

The problem here is that you aren't objecting to them gathering that intelligence, but rather about them employing a tool that could be used to either gather that information or to enforce the law. If you were objecting to evidence that the information was being mishandled, I'd understand, but you aren't.

This, I think, is where we really differ. You object to them collecting public information that could, potentially be used to spy on you. You want to limit the government's power proactively, before there's even a hint of a controversy (on the point of information abuse at least). I want to see the government do what it can to enforce laws, and I'll wait until there's some evidence that abuses are happening before I try to shut it down.

So, I'm confused. If this stuff has been done before, without video cameras and advanced computers, if our government could manage it today without this technology, then where's the problem?

 

I would regard the purpose as being to save lives and prevent accidents, not to prevent people speeding per se. If speed cameras are giving out a lot of fines it's usually a bad sign. It means the cameras are being situated on busy motorways where you'll catch a lot of people slightly over the limit but these motorways are the safest roads by far statistically (in Ireland at least, I'm not familiar with other countries). The fact that the private contractors are being payed per fine issued shows that the aim is to gather revenue, not to improve road safety.

 

My dad got a red light ticket mailed to him from his last trip to California. Has his face clearly identifiable, and a speed of 15mph making an illegal right turn... (one of those damn "no turn on red" corners) IIRC, the ticket was over $300!

 

My father-in-law got one here, for running a red light, and they only had a picture of his plates. The document stated that although it was his car, he may not have been driving it, so he only had to pay the bill without any record.

 

I guess it all comes down to the local government and the technology they can afford. I'm sure there are models that boast multiple 20MP cameras, super powerful flashes, facial recognition software, built-in speed sensors, and probably a bunch of other features.

However, there's always the basic camera that doesn't even work at night or low light conditions...like when it's cloudy...

 

Yeah, I know. I really have to remember to ask my dad. He was a cop for 25 years, but he's retired now. Still he might know what the deal is. Also, a lot of people here have cars with heavily tinted windows, so the person driving may not be visible.