

Judge Throws Out Red Light Camera Tickets As Program Declared Illegal - ravindra1982
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090811/1701585847.shtml

======
ShabbyDoo
Fines levied against anyone/any corporation ought to go into a fund that is
divided up in some manner independent of any individual jurisdiction's
propensity to levy them. The problem with allowing a municipality to enforce
laws and then profit from that enforcement is the obvious incentive to
optimize on revenue instead of the public good.

Let's pretend that all fines from red light cameras had to be divided up among
100 municipalities. The free rider "problem" would kick in. Why bother to
purchase expensive cameras when you only see on cent per dollar in fines? Only
at the most problematic intersection would one find such devices.

I would believe claims that law enforcement was for the public good if those
entities doing the enforcing did not profit significantly from their
propensity to enforce.

~~~
eru
Why do not lobby for legislation that allows you to drive over a red light?
Instead of arguing indirectly against applying that law.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
Because I don't like people who run red lights. I've gone so far as to chase
them down, knock on their windows, and ask them why they were trying to kill
me.

If the motive for enforcement is not profit, then the overall revenue derived
from enforcement would not change if the distribution method became more
indirect. If my suggestion changed behavior, it is sufficient proof that
governments' motives are not pure.

~~~
eru
There's nothing wrong with providing incentives for local governments to
enforce the rules.

~~~
ShabbyDoo
One problem (of many) is that there are so many laws that everyone probably
breaks a few every day. Did you cross the street to talk to your neighbor?
Jaywalking. $50 fine. So, a system of laws has been created that allows local
governments to almost arbitrarily tax their citizens at will simply by
choosing which laws to enforce.

I believe there are restrictions on the work that prisoners can be forced to
do because there's a fine line between incarceration as punishment and
enslavement. If the government has an incentive to incarcerate, it will seek
to find ways to acquire more prisoners. I see this as a parallel to fine
collection.

All of my comments in this thread are US-centric, obviously.

~~~
eru
Perhaps we change the underlying laws? Not enforcing unjust laws seems a
second best.

------
dmfdmf
Out here in California the state is broke and to balance the budget the state
reneged on funding some local programs, confiscated county and city money (as
a forced loan back to the state) and other chicanery -- so the local cities
are stepping up issuing traffic citations to make up for lost revenue. I hear
that cops used to let you slide on doing 5 mph over the speed limit but not
any more. I recently got a totally unjust parking ticket for not curbing my
wheels on a street that was flat and unsloped and this a-hole cop ticketed
every other car as far as the eye could see. So be careful or you will become
the source of budget-balancing revenue.

~~~
apotheon
There are good reasons I not only don't live in CA any longer, but intend to
never visit the place again. What a hole. . . .

~~~
dmfdmf
Yes, but the good weather and the fine wine make my little hole quite nice --
even if it is a little expensive and overcrowded....oh wait, I take that all
back... don't come to California, it really sucks like apotheon said.

------
devicenull
Why does the money from this go back to the police or people enforcing it?
Giving all the revenue from tickets to say, the library or education system
seems like a far better idea to me.

------
pj
I don't like these stories much because in most of these cases, the red light
runners really were running red lights and they were jeopardizing other safe
drivers.

If you see a yellow light you should stop. If you think the risk of running
the light is worth it, suck it up and pay the ticket.

Everyone knows it is illegal to run a red light and everyone who does it is
selfish and puts the lives of others at risk for their greed.

~~~
kgrin
That's not really sound logic - if you see a yellow light _and there's enough
time to safely stop_ , you should stop. That's an important qualifier. Indeed,
that's why the duration of yellow lights differs based on the expected speed
that people will approach them - because it's not, in fact, always safe to
stop when you see yellow. (As a thought experiment, ask yourself why we have
yellow lights at all, and why they're not instantaneous).

What the city did in this particular case was deliberately shorten the yellow
light to a lower time than is actually legal or safe - just to make a few
extra bucks.

Now, if your argument was more that "well, the city's wrong, but most of the
people who ran the lights are still guilty", then the argument is really
similar to the one about the exclusionary rule (evidence in criminal cases
can't be used if obtained through an illegal search). Without some way to
punish the city, there's no disincentive for them not to keep screwing over
people - in this case, in a way that actually increased the accident rate.
There's got to be some pain felt for malfeasance, and it sounds like that's
exactly what's going on here.

~~~
jws
Careful there.

The article doesn't state that the city shortened the yellow lights. They
promised to not use cameras with yellows shorter than 4.4 seconds. They then
started moving the cameras around to other intersections. It is possible that
these different intersections had light programs with yellows shorter than 4.4
seconds.

I also don't see any mention in the article of increased accident rates.

~~~
dmoho
Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, but I just wanted to point out
that the article does state that the city moved the cameras to intersections
with yellows shorter than 4.0 seconds.

~~~
lucumo
That's what he said. There's a difference between shortening a time interval
of a light with a camera and moving the camera to a light which already has an
interval that's too short. Both are wrong and breaking a promise, but the
latter can happen by just being dumb, instead of bad intentions.

~~~
apotheon
I don't think "being dumb" should be rewarded, either -- especially when, if
allowed to flourish, such accidental stupidity can lead to willful ignorance
and worse.

