10 Reasons To Oppose Red-Light Cameras
November 15th, 2007 Posted in Red-Light Cameras
1) Ticket cameras do not improve safety.
Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.
2) These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights.
Once red-light cameras start making money for local governments, they are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. Engineering improvements that lessen the income brought in by the cameras include traffic-light synchronization, the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.
3) There are better alternatives to cameras.
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed, and operated, there will be very few red-light violations. From the motorists’ perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.
4) Ticket recipients are not notified quickly.
People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.
5) Ticket recipients are not adequately notified.
Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understand it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.
6) There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no “accuser” for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
7) Taking dangerous drivers’ pictures doesn’t stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
8) Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents.
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. Even the most flagrant of red-light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.
9) The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual driver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
10) Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists.
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.
Download a copy of this list (PDF)
Other Related Articles
71 Responses to “10 Reasons To Oppose Red-Light Cameras”
By BreAnna on Nov 20, 2008
To: Mike jr.
Good point!
BreAnna
By BreAnna on Nov 20, 2008
And to the one’s who can’t understand why peoople are against the cameras try getting a ticket in the mail saying you have to pay 90.00 or more because of the brilliant cameras! The way the economy is we don’t need more people trying to pull a fast one over us!!!!!!
By BreAnna on Nov 20, 2008
For all the people who argue the fact that these cameras save lives, I can agree with. But what I think alot of peoples problem with this is how do we know if these cameras work, how accurate are they really? And who the @!# paying to install these cameras? Is this just another way for the city of revenue to pocket more money? In my opinion the cops need to get up off their lazy butts and do their job!I’ve seen cars run red lights in front of a cop and he must of been to tired to chase after them. Come up with another solution that will be more effective!
By James Young on Nov 11, 2008
Once again we are presented evidence that the anti-destination league is using phony data and flawed methodology to support a report that helps them make more money from a “product” that provides no value to the American driver.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2593.asp
By Mookie on Nov 6, 2008
I suppose to defend your case you first have to make sure there is no “No turn on red sign” present at the intersection. Take photos of the intersection to prove this evidence to the judge. Also, make sure that you can prove that “that” is the intersection in question by photographing or videoing the roadsigns to tie it to the ticketed intersection.
The judge will have a succession of photos available to him/her (not just one). They should acquit if photos shows no marker for no “No turn on red sign,”
Your second issue is whether your time has lapsed to request a court date. I don’t know what to offer then, other that to make calls. Tickets can be appealed too, down at City Hall.
I myself, have made it a point to no turn on red, anymore, even if it’s legal, because I don’t trust the cameras. It’s not worth the effort of having to defend yourself.
By mike on Nov 5, 2008
Got photoed supposedly running a red light. In fact, and it shows on the photo, I turned right on red and the camera shot me anyway. This happened in June, 08 and and I wasn’t notified until October, 08. Attached to that was a penality that doubled the fine and a collection notice that doubled the total amount. It went from $50 to $200.
Got any suggestions to defend the case?
By Jackie on Oct 22, 2008
Dear Sir
How can I prove in court that I didn’t run this red light taken by the camera. I was in the middle of the street when the light was yellow. But when I got the ticket in the mail, it shows me running the red light. I have been driving for 39 years, and never has a red light ticket, or ticket of any kind. How can I prove that I didn’t run the light.
Thanks
Jackie
By ruscular on Sep 21, 2008
I have a 150cc moped and the traffic signal wont pick up my bike being there and run through the sequence much faster so that the cross traffic can be on their way.
When I ride my bicycle the green light turn to red before I am half way across the street. I ride a recumbent bike which has a slower acceleration than diamond shape bicycle.
By Mike Jr. on Sep 11, 2008
Having these camera’s at red lights have there good points and bad points. The one pet peeve that I am concerned with is, like all mechanical equipment they have malfunctions now & then. Say that one of the camera’s malfunctions and starts taken pictures of every car that goes by when the light is green? Then a lot of drivers would get a ticket for running the signal when it was actually green. Unless these camera’s show both the plate & the signal light in the picture. If I ever get a violation citation in the mail and I know I am innocentI will fight it all the way.
By Mel on Jul 8, 2008
There are too many flaws in redlight cameras. I drive a tractor trailer my truck was already in the intersection when the light changed but my trailer wasn’t and caused the camera to take a picture.
By Pat Susco on Jul 2, 2008
Well, If the fines break me,,,I will just trot myself down to the local police,,,walk in ,,plop myself on the desk and say HELLO??? Here I am,,,Im going home to live with you,,,You guys broke me,,I have no place to live thanks to your friggin cameras,,,End of discussion thankyou,,,whats your wife cooking for dinner??
By Mookie on Jun 21, 2008
Traffic court has sidestepped the constitutional right to “confront one’s accuser” in the ‘red-light ticketing’ issue by turning the penalty into an ordinance violation. This lowers the courts’ requirements to gain a conviction.
The good news is that it won’t effect one’s auto insurance in the form of a moving violation conviction. The bad news, is that the city has embraced this strategy as an excuse to maximize ticket revenue. Gone is the defense that the accused ticketed driver is not guilty because he/she was not behind the wheel of the vehicle when the violation was recorded. The owner is thus found responsible whether or not he/she was driving. Therefore, the conviction process for the violation is more strongly guaranteed, which is obviously the major goal of the city so it may more reliably guarantee greater revenue from this system.
What causes further rage is that Redflex, an Australian company, is taking a chunk of the profits from the ticket revenue. Yes, ticketed drivers generate income for an offshore company that installs these camera systems. Call it the Ticketing Industrial Complex, instituted by Big and Little brother’s circle-jerk agreement to further exploit the Chicago citizenry.
Then again, the city of Chicago needs to pay over $155 million in payouts to victims of police brutality. How else can the city pay?
What a common problem…. I, personally know of three individuals that have been murdered by Chicago Police resulting in coverups. It’s pretty disgusting.
By Gina on Jun 16, 2008
In regard to the cameras, the term “HIGHWAY ROBBERY” comes to mind. This is just another way in which the government can screw us (we, the people).
By Gina on Jun 16, 2008
I suppose the excuse for ticketing “the passing of gas” will be that it could create “a dangerously explosive situation” (LOL)!
By Gina on Jun 16, 2008
The government is not “for the people, by the people” as the Constitution implies. I fear that one day if we pass gas we will be ticketed by the police state. It is so totally unreal! I am all for safety, but “safety” is an excuse to extort money from citizens! I hate the establishment!!!
By Peggy on May 13, 2008
this is a great blog. I just got back home after going through an intersection with an extremely short yellow and then it turned red and I saw the “flash” of the RLC. Now I’m worried. I moved from a state with long yellows. I wasn’t driving fast so I feel I can safely contest this (fortunately I found out these tickets in my community are contestable). You bet I’m going to contest it since I didn’t run a red and I know it!
By tracker on Mar 17, 2008
George 11/28/07: I just read your question on how they know if the citation was delivered. They do not have to. You do.
When you are pulled over for any reason they run your car tag while pulling you over, and do a drivers check when they have possession of your license. If they both have no criminal activity showing on either registration in most speed-trap circumstances they will make you one for either/or. I can think of several instances where friends or family have been arrested, detained, fines exorbitant fees and required lawyers to get licenses reinstated for judicial errors or misconduct which is marginally lawful, but unfair, which to me is the same as unethical.
The terms lawful and ethical are supposed to serve what is justice which is what we are supposed to have in a court of law. The term just has the word ice added to it and is supposed to cool situations where the heat of wrongful actions is contested in a civil environment.
It cost my son-in-law about two-grand in bond, court-costs, attorney fees and lost work due to incarceration in which the full imprisonment was not documented for a minor traffic stop in which they let him know an outstanding arrest warrant was issued for him years earlier out-of-state because the court did not post his payment of a fine years earlier. My daughter had the canceled check payment in her file.
Since his lawyer was officially concerned with the reinstatement of his commercial drivers license and he was not officially arrested, but only detained he decided it was not worth fighting the county and state adding more cost to this cruel joke( the date was 4/1/99) he let it go. You have to know what is on your drivers license and what you are driving. All state laws are different.
By David MacPhee on Mar 16, 2008
Hey Jim Cole…You’re a woosie sheeple jellyfish. These cameras are not about life saving-they are about tax and more tax.
ake up and smell reality….woosie.
People like you make me very angry because you are part of the problem.
By Joe on Mar 10, 2008
It’s leading to totalism. If they have a system that screwed up then imagine how many others are also in your shoes. When good people get treated this way by the law it really calls into question the legitimacy of the whole system. It’s pretty obvious the city doesn’t want to work with you to get it resolved.
As far as rights go, you can just about throw that thought out the window when it comes to traffic control. It seems now-a-days, if anything happens involving a vehicle, your rights are so thin they’re no longer useful. It’s a nice thought though.
Others might but I don’t have a short term answer for you. Long term you and others in the same boat should get together. There’s always power in numbers. Thats part of the reason the NMA exists. This is part of the problem when citizens fail to get involved BEFORE its to late. At the minimum, hopefully this’ll make you mad enough to work on a way, with the help of others, to get rid of those camera’s. At the very least write all your public officials. Make some noise. This isn’t about safety, it’s about ripping good people off. We’ve gotta quit acting like a nation of sheep.
By Janet on Mar 10, 2008
I just received a letter stating that since I didn’t pay $95 by 1/30/08 I now have to pay an extra $25 by March 23, 2008. I have waived my right to a trial because I didn’t reply in time.
This is the first letter I have every received . It is post marked March 3, 2008.
I called our police dept. They looked at the video. It occurred at night in our city. I never!!!! drive at night in our city. I am an older woman and do not go downtown at night…EVER!!!
Imagine receiving this crazy document without any chance to fight it and having to pay $120. I did nothing wrong! I have been driving for 34 years. I received a traffic ticket over 20 years ago. It was from a plane flying overhead. I have alway felt I should have fought that ticket. I dont’ speed. I always stop at red lights. Even if there is not other car on the road. This is so not fair. We have all been duped by these cameras. Every person deserves the right to face their accuser. What is this leading to?
By roadrunnr on Mar 7, 2008
So, what are the odds I will get a citation for making a right turn but stopping over the line? The light flashed at me before I hit the intersection, scared me, and I eased off the brake before I hit it again and therefore stopped over the line. I’m not really sure. Maybe I didn’t start stopping until the flash happened, but I KNOW for sure the flash happened before I hit the intersection, and it scared me, but I did stop. Am I likely to get a citation? Obviously I was approaching the intersection too fast.
By tracker on Feb 21, 2008
Swede,
Most of these people contesting these camera citations were probably local citizens from surrounding municipalities. How many of them have to take off from work, pay for parking, travel distances of fifty miles or more at todays fuel prices and other associated expenses. My arguments stem from the fact that some road agents( traffic officers ) make up laws as they go and the majority of people simply write a check. the most classic act I can remember is when my wife slid on ice into the back of my daughters car while my daughter slammed on her brakes to avoid a head-on with a speeding red-light runner attempting to make a left-turn. She was in the intersection on a green arrow ( No Cameras back then ). My wife called the police and and she was ticketed because she called the police. She went to court and the ticket was dismissed but court costs were $61.00. The ticket fine was only $40.00. What is the first thing the insurance company wants in order to process a claim? ” A police report with an accident investigation ” DUH! At the scene the officer stated that he had to issue a ticket because he was called.
By Swede on Feb 20, 2008
I meant to say the traffic courts are jam packed with mostly people contesting these citations issued from the cameras.
By Swede on Feb 20, 2008
Nobody can ever convince me that these camera systems are about anything other than money. I live in a Chicago suburb and my town installed these cameras at 4 intersections promoting safety, but what is really stupid is that the most dangerous intersections are county roads and they were not allowed to install the cameras where they are needed the most.
I have no beef with catching and fining people who blatantly run the red light but the majority of citations issued (at $100 a pop) were for crossing the white line in the right turn lane or not coming to a full stop for several seconds. Most of the Chicago stops are during the first few seconds of the red light when the cross traffic still has the left turn arrow, thus making a yield for oncoming traffic somewhat moot as there is no oncoming traffic yet. Not long ago these same intersections syncronized rt hand turn arrows with the left turn arrow so you were not even required to stop at the red light.
This is purely a cash cow and in my town the money was rolling in but suddenly after 5-6 months the cameras were turned off because they had “achieved their goal of improving awareness and safety”. Please - 4-5 months of data is not a creditable amount of statistical data to draw any formidable conclusions. Enough people with political connections bitched or an influential attorney got really pissed. There is no due process, the traffic jams are jam packed and you have little or no hope of contesting a $100 fine for a ticky tack creeping over the white line. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to due with money. Let’s call a spade a spade.