A couple of decades ago, the pointy-headed socialists running the city of Greensboro enacted an Orwellian scheme to install cameras at traffic lights, and fine drivers who run the red lights. The program was halted when the city was forced by the courts to turn over the monies to the county school system.
Now, the same kinds of pointy-headed socialists are trying to start the program once again. The News and Record reports the City Council will vote tomorrow night.
This is a bad program. The city ought not be conducting electronic surveillance on its citizens in order to fine them and be rewarded with a steady stream of revenue. This is a form of entrapment. Drivers sometimes will have difficulty estimating when a yellow light will turn red. Does one slam on the brakes, and risk getting rear-ended, or accept the possibility of a fine?
Citizens need to keep their eyes on this vote, and remove from office those council members who vote in favor. One drawback– several are not running for re-election and therefore have no incentive to be accountable to citizens.
Whoever regurgitated this bad idea should be fired but in the Peoples Republic the Commissars do as they damn well please. Greensboro Attorney Marshall Hurley has been an outspoken foe of these red light cameras.
Speed and red-light cameras are the bane of many motorists. A modern idea made possible by technology, they have been installed in at least 24 states. Although these cameras are a revenue boon for governments across the nation, their intrusion into daily life is disturbing, and their constitutionality is dubious.
Specifically, use of these cameras could violate the Sixth Amendment. The Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. Since it is a camera and not a person that witnessed the offense, such violations generally cannot be considered a criminal offense. The ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle, not to the person driving it, leaving a lack of certainty as to the identity of the offender.
Therefore, the “ticket” in most places is nothing more than a civil fine, making enforcement and collection difficult. To date, governments have avoided this problem by requiring payment of the fine before motorists can renew their driver’s license or auto registration. Although there generally are appeals procedures, they typically do not give drivers a day in court. In other words, what happened to being innocent until proven guilty?
There are several for-profit companies that install and operate the cameras, some of them foreign-owned. In a typical arrangement, a camera company will contract with a local government to pay the capital cost of installing the cameras in exchange for a share of the revenue generated via fines. In short, governments get a new revenue stream without any operating cost, and the camera companies make a tidy profit.
The companies and government officials argue that greater safety will result from fewer accidents and that the increased government revenue will benefit the local communities.
Studies to confirm those claims have yielded mixed results. Studies paid for by the camera companies or governments usually show fewer accidents. Independent studies and those financed by opponents usually show no gains and sometimes worse results.
There is more evidence that greater public safety actually depends on the timing of yellow and red lights. Longer yellow and all-way red times have been shown to significantly reduce accidents. Sometimes local governments actually decrease yellow-light timing to catch more red-light runners, a result of the perverse financial incentives that tempt government officials and camera companies. Studies also show motorists are more likely to hit the brakes hard at camera-enforced intersections, increasing rear-end collisions.
Unsurprisingly, these cameras are deeply unpopular. Since 1991, there have been 42 elections on adopting or prohibiting either speed or red-light cameras or both. In all but two of these, voters have opposed the cameras by an average margin of 63 percent.
However, polling on the issue can show different results. A recent Public Opinion Strategies poll of 800 likely voters nationwide found 69 percent of respondents either strongly or somewhat support red-light cameras, while 29 percent somewhat or strongly oppose. Interestingly, 47 percent of those same respondents thought most of their neighbors opposed the cameras.
A possible explanation is that, as a national poll, most respondents do not live in a locality with red-light cameras since less than half the states allow them and not all jurisdictions in those states have them. Therefore, many have never experienced them. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Most citations for speed and red-light cameras are simply civil fines. The offender essentially has no recourse in court. The financial incentive creates a conflict of interest for local elected officials and camera companies to game the system in their favor. These factors can undermine citizens’ faith in government and breed mistrust.
Thanks, Fred, for a very informative post. Unfortunately, the premise that the red light cameras are a bad idea increases the likelihood our esteemed city council will approve their use.
But your post reveals various dynamics that call the whole project into question.
Perfect summation. Thanks Fred.
I was twice a victim of the lights (I was sitting still and both pictures proved it, but my appeal was denied).
Wow, Tim! I had no idea that was happening.
In my opinion, this is a great example of massive government overreach– a zeal to surveil citizens, control their behavior and capture more revenue in the process.