On the surface it looks so simple: mail a ticket, collect the fine and resusitate muncipal budgets. The camera companies claim the cost of the cameras and maintenance is quickly offset by the unwilling contributions of Massachusetts drivers.
Here’s where the law of unintended consequences comes in thanks to the defense attorneys of drunk drivers. Savy citizens have learned from their drunk driver brethen. The lesson learned is that, upon being ticketed, red light offenders quickly appeal the violation. They ask for maintenance and calibration records for the cameras.The appeal process proves to be so expensive in recordkeeping and court appearances that the second veil of increased income is quickly torn away.
Please share widely!
raise taxes on those making more than $150,000/ yr. But that would offend the sensibilites of people who excel, put forth the most effort, take the most risks, and make the biggest sacrifices. You know, the people who trade stocks on Wall Street.
…as greedy Wall Street types is a quick way to make the Democratic tent smaller, given that the average pay (after bonuses) for Goldman Sachs (including support staff) is $700,000 a year. Taxing incomes over $500,000 is fine, but I know alot of people with families in expensive MA struggling on $100,000.
How about increasing taxes for those earning more than $250,000 yr. The difficulty in Massachusetts is that it would have to be done in a roundabout way, with exemptions, etc. But with a little imagination, and there is plenty of imagine in our government, it could be done.
<
p>I’m not sure why there is so much concern about losing voters to a tax increase for those over $250,000. If they want to see a livid constituency, they should certainly raise income taxes on those in the $70,000-$150,000 yr range. That would be the very best way to get people out to vote…for the other party.
<
p>I know the other concern is that our elected officials are worried they will lose the larger campaign donations if they were to support a tax on the wealthier constituency. I have a feeling that is the biggest driver of the reluctance to speak out in favor of such a tax, as well as trying to quickly implement one.
However, running a light is extremely risky for everyone in the intersection and I favor cameras on those grounds. I’ve experienced my share of close calls. I’ve also had a handful of minor traffic/parking violations and I’ve nevered hired a lawyer. My success record on appeal is about 50/50 regardless.
Which appeal will cost them $25 (to see a clerk-magistrate) or $50 (to see a judge). Even if the magistrate dismisses before hearing any evidence, it costs the accused money.
<
p>Red-light cameras have turned out to be bad idea. The rear-end accidents mentioned are not just a result of people panic-reacting to a yellow light because of their fear of getting a ticket; camera companies have a history of preferring to install their equipment at intersections with short yellow cycles. Those intersections turn out to be the ones that generate the most revenue for the camera companies and the towns. This has led some municipalities to shorten the yellow cycle on camera-monitored intersections, even to illegal lengths.
<
p>Here is a list of 6 studies, with excerpts, that demonstrate how the cameras increase accident rates.
<
p>With the fees for appealing a ticket, these things will cost drivers money unfairly and cause accidents. It’s a lose-lose for us.
…don’t activate until at least a couple of seconds after the light turns red. That way there is no question that you deliberately ran the light as opposed to just misjudging a yellow.
would make less money for the town and the camera company. Please link to some evidence that there are any such altruistic entities.
Sorry, no links this time, but this is also what I personally support. Otherwise, appeals are a hassle for all sides.
Is it the red-light cameras that increase accident rates, or the decision to shorten the yellow cycle?
<
p>The use of traffic enforcement as a revenue generator is one of the more venerable traditions of American government since the dawn of the automotive age. It seems to me that we now rely on this at the expense of increasing traffic safety.
<
p>If we truly value safety above revenue, then we have a wide range of affordable technology options that are far more effective than, for example, paying expensive State Police officers in cars with Lidar guns.
<
p>As one example, it is trivially easy to calculate the effective speed of vehicles on the Mass Pike using existing EasyPass data. A trip from Stockbridge to Boston that consistently averages 20+ mph over the posted speed limit is readily identified from existing data, and could be readily ticketed. It is difficult to argue that all the transponders were broken.
<
p>The truth is that traffic enforcement only yields revenue when it is not effective. The cynic in me suggests that this has a stronger role in our aversion to the various technology alternatives than any privacy or safety concerns.
<
p>If exceeding the posted speed limit more than very occasionally always resulted in a stiff fine, nobody would exceed the speed limit. Period. Enforcement revenues would plummet, police officers would have time for more important priorities, and our roads would be safer.
<
p>Vehicles that run red lights are dangerous. My late father was nearly killed in Washington DC some years ago by a car that ran a red light and broadsided him. I am not receptive to privacy arguments about this — driving is a privilege, and a privilege that I think should be revoked for those who view running a red light as an exercise of their personal freedom.
<
p>If shortening yellow cycles increase accident rates, then don’t shorten the yellow cycle. The red light cameras are a simple, effective and much-needed improvement to highway safety in Massachusetts.
That’s why there are Federal and local standards on how long the yellow light should be. It’s all well and good to say “then don’t shorten the yellow cycle,” but at least some of the time, those who control the light timing decide to do it anyway, even when it’s illegal. In the links I provided, you’ll see examples of that.
<
p>Here’s an excerpt from a North Carolina study (PDF):
in my view, the short cycles are the problem — not the red-light cameras.
<
p>I’m reminded of the argument currently offered against a women’s health clinic slated to open in Coolidge Corner. The opponents cite the aggressive and inflammatory behavior of anti-abortion protesters as evidence for why the clinic should be blocked — rather than pointing the finger at the unacceptable behavior of the protesters.
<
p>I hope that stomv will weigh in on this, I suspect he can better offer the specific statistical flaws that significantly weaken the conclusion drawn by this study. I found no indication, for example, that the statistical analysis controlled for amber length in comparing red-light camera accident rates.
<
p>I do note the following paragraph from the study (emphasis mine):
<
p>Many of the accidents reported here are rear-end collisions. It seems to me that when motorists understand that the car in front of them really will stop when the light turns red, such accidents will decrease.
<
p>It is driver behavior that is the problem here, not red-light cameras — driver behavior that widespread adoption of red-light cameras (with suitable changes in amber duration as needed) will change for the better.
<
p>I want drivers to stop at red lights.
It could be as simple as publicizing the legal minimum and have drivers call a hotline (not while on the road of course!) to report a light that isn’t yellow long enough, then the proper authorities could investigate and address the issue.
…but I’m pretty sure that in the past it was required in certain jurisdictions that you stopped at an intersection, got out and walked across carrying a lantern to warn oncoming traffic. This was before headlights, but I believe falls in the category of laws nobody ever bothered to repeal, so it shows up in collections of weird and stupid laws.