
Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M - kennyma
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/red-light-camera-grace-period-goes-from-0-1-to-0-3-seconds-chicago-to-lose-17m/
======
cwyers
The moral hazard that comes from cities using fines for offenses to generate
revenue is awful and despicable, and it causes all sorts of injustices, big
and small. Red light cameras are a part of this, and they're awful.

~~~
jakobegger
How is it an injustice to make people pay when they make our roads unsafe?

People drive reckless, ignore speed limits, race over intersections in the
last possible moment, ...

... and then it's an injustice when someone fines them?

~~~
cwyers
So, that's an open question -- do the sorts of infractions that red light
cameras catch make roads less safe? Does the installation of red light cameras
make roads more safe? As it turns out, no. The installation of red light
cameras in Chicago has actually increased rear-end collisions that result in
injury by 22%.[1]

And that's what I mean by moral hazard. Revenue generation by these means
changes the city's incentive. Rather than having traffic laws and enforcement
designed to increase safety, you have laws and enforcement designed to turn
the greatest part of your city's population into offenders as possible, in
order to maximize your revenue generation, _at the expense_ of public safety.

And it's an injustice because the well-off simply pay their fines and move on,
while the poor end up trapped in a neverending cycle of fines and punishments,
because the inability to pay the first fine leads to a cascade of involvement
with a court system pressured to produce revenue, not justice or fairness.

1) [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-
st...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-study-finds-
red-light-cameras-not-safer-cause-more-rear-end-injuries/)

~~~
wcummings
>As it turns out, no. The installation of red light cameras in Chicago has
actually increased rear-end collisions that result in injury by 22%.

You're misrepresenting the results of the study. The study recommended the
continuation of the program. The rear-end collisions were less severe than
types of collisions it reduced, it was a safety improvement overall.

From the findings section of the actual study (emphasis mine):

> _Quantitative studies conducted in this project demonstrate significant
> safety benefits of the current RLC program. As a result, it is appropriate
> to recommend continuation of the program. Most of the intersections have
> experienced an improvement in safety, particularly in terms of severe angle
> and turn crashes, albeit with an accompanying increase in less severe rear-
> end crashes. The safety benefits extend beyond the immediate vicinity of the
> RLC intersections, evidenced by a significant spillover effect._ However,
> some intersections appear to experience no significant safety impact.
> Recognizing that crashes are the result of complex interactions amongst many
> factors, and subject to considerable randomness, these deviations should be
> used as opportunities for detailed investigation and learning to design and
> deploy more effective automated enforcement programs

[http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/research/RLC...](http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/research/RLC-
Report-Web.pdf)

Similar benefits have been demonstrated in other cities. Doesn't mean it will
work in every city, but there is evidence it works in Chicago.

~~~
cwyers
If you want to accuse me of "misrepresenting" things, you should have your
facts right. The study I was quoting that finding from was conducted by Texas
A&M at the behest of the Chicago Tribune. The study you're quoting from was
conducted by Northwestern University for the Chicago Department of
Transportation.

~~~
wcummings
Fair enough, I incorrectly assumed you were citing the one released last week,
not 3 years ago. Either way, increased collisions (or one type of collision)
doesn't necessarily mean decreased safety.

~~~
cwyers
I don't know if I consider "fair enough" and a backhanded insult to really be
an apology for unfairly assuming maliciousness on my part, but okay.

I would perhaps phrase that as "citing the study released by an impartial
third-party, not by the people who are engaging in the moral hazard and trying
to justify their behavior" instead.

------
mbroshi
A big plus of automating tickets is that it's no longer biased. You're not
more likely to get a ticket in a poorer, more high crime neighborhood, just
because there happen to be more police there. This way, rich white people in
the Loop are just as likely to get tickets as poor black people in Woodlawn.
To me this democratization seems like a big plus.

~~~
omegaworks
The red light cameras are not distributed equally. You'll find more of them in
minority neighborhoods.

Look at what redlining hath wrought:

[http://www.radicalcartography.net/chicagodots_race_big.jpg](http://www.radicalcartography.net/chicagodots_race_big.jpg)

[http://www.photoenforced.com/chicago.html#.WNKlsxLyufc](http://www.photoenforced.com/chicago.html#.WNKlsxLyufc)

~~~
ferentchak
I know it's an anecdote but in Denver they are only in the very wealthy
neighborhoods. Usually here those parts have the city have much lower speed
limits than a comparable street in a poorer neighborhood would have so they
can generate more revenue from them.

~~~
Balgair
No, they are not at all in the wealthy neighborhoods, they are out in Aurora
in the poorer areas and around Buckley AFB to nab the servicemen. I drove past
many of them going to work/home and they erroneously flash when a bird flies
past or the wind gusts too hard. There seems to have been no correlation at
all with the many people I would see running red lights, just random.

~~~
ferentchak
I was talking Denver not Aurora or the outlying suburbs. I guess I could of
been more clear. Around here they camp outside of Cherry Creek Golf Course and
in uptown around 17th. I was also speaking of the speed limit cameras.

The red light cameras here are mainly on large intersections, 6th and Speer
etc. Not really poor nor rich more based upon volume of traffic.

------
valine
I was rear ended at a stop light because I slowed down for a yellow light
while the guy behind me gunned it. Now I'm extremely hesitant to slow down for
yellow lights. It has nothing to do with being impatient or disregarding
traffic regulations, I simply don't trust the people behind me. I feel much
safer speeding up to get through lights.

------
jmcdiesel
While I find the camera's themselves to be... undesirable..

Why is there a need for a grace period? The yellow is all the grace period you
need. If you speed up for or ignore the yellow with time to stop, you're
already breaking the law...

Not that I'm a fan of the system at all - just, if you're going to do it, do
it ... u know?

~~~
idbehold
If yellow lights all had a fixed duration I would agree with you, but
unfortunately the length of yellow lights is variable. Additionally yellow
lights have no legal rules behind them. They don't mean "slow down", they are
simply an indication that the light will be red soon. You are within your
rights to accelerate through a yellow light (assuming you're still under the
speed limit).

~~~
differentView
There needs to be countdown timers on all traffic lights.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If you can see the pedestrian crossing light, they usually have countdowns to
yellow at least. I use these a lot to estimate the staleness of a green light.

Many traffic lights in China have countdown timers.

~~~
falcolas
I've attempted this, but if the car which triggered the light change clears
the intersection in a particular time (say, with a right turn), the countdown
completes only to go back to a "walk" signal.

Makes for some confusing signaling; but it's better than a red light for an
empty crosswalk and cross street..

~~~
seanmcdirmid
On the busy intersections I'm used to, this never happens.

------
SteveNuts
Good. These should be ruled unconstitutional everywhere.

Maybe it's just where I live but it seems like law enforcement is more focused
on revenue generation.

~~~
aggie
I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. It's unobtrusive
surveillance in a public setting, so there's no expectation of privacy. It's
punishing people for breaking a public-safety law. In most cases they even
have signs alerting you to the presence of an enforcement camera.

Now I can definitely see how automated enforcement ripe for abuse when there
are revenues to be had, and it's concerning when operations like this are
given to private companies with little to no transparency. But given those
concerns can be resolved, what's the problem at a constitutional level?

~~~
SteveNuts
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause)

~~~
matt4077
I don't get that argument. How is a red light camera different than
surveillance footage that show a murder? It's not a witness, it's evidence.

~~~
ceejayoz
A murder case would require proving that the person on camera is the accused.

A red light camera generally _can 't_ prove you're the person driving your car
- they usually don't have the resolution nor the angle to show the driver.

------
firefoxd
They're not losing any money. It's not like someone is going in their bank
account and taking that money.

They simply won't be making that 17mm off of people.

