There is little in this world that annoys me more than people who run red lights. It’s dangerous, it’s inconsiderate, it’s reckless, yes, but more than that, it’s offends my basic sensibilities of order. There are mechanisms of self-regulation throughout the social order, defined norms of behavior that are self-evident. Chief among these, to my mind, is traffic lights. If you run a red, you may die, and you may kill others. This is a norm that ought to require no time on the part of police, no reminders to the populace. I’m no stranger to the social sciences, and I understand the theories of why people commit crimes large and small. But the one that I simply cannot tolerate is red-light running. You know how sometimes some asshole will run a long-red light, and some even bigger asshole lets out an angry honk at the light-runner? That’s me: I’m the bigger asshole. I fantasize about taking a day to videotape everybody who runs the light in one particularly bad intersection here in Charlottesville, and somehow using that video to publicly shame them.
So it may come as a small surprise that I’m a zealous opponent of red light cameras.
I’m a lifelong believer in the importance of the Bill of Rights. First, Second, Fourth — I’m down with all of the amendments. (Not so much the Eighteenth, but we have the Twenty-First, so whatever.) I’m a fan of due process, and I’m also a fan of privacy. From both of those rights springs my opposition to a surveillance society, the sort of police state that people can only defend by saying “if you’re not a criminal, what’s the problem?” I cannot stomach automated “justice” or policing-by-computer. All of these methods of state surveillance are slippery slopes — look at Arlington, who now uses their surveillance cameras to catch people who have overdue library books.
But it’s just not just in the theoretical that red light cameras are bad. VDOT released a study early this year finding that traffic accidents increase at intersections with red light cameras. That’s right: intersections become more dangerous when cameras are installed. Worse still, the red light cameras don’t make much money for localities; in fact, some lose money on them. Why? Because the cameras are generally outsourced. Justice is meted out by some private corporation, with the municipality simply collecting a big check from the company at the end of the month. Not only do the municipalities have to share the spoils, but we now have private corporations in the business of law enforcement.
Red light cameras are bad in the theoretical and bad in reality. There is virtually no tenable argument under which they should be used.
And yet I titled this piece “Vote ‘yes’ on photo red.” Why? As much as I hate red-light running, and as much as I hate red-light cameras, I hate even more the embarrassment of Virginia, Dillon’s Rule. This legal standard puts the state out of step with most of the rest of the nation, giving localities only the powers allocated to them by the state. No locality may have red light cameras unless the General Assembly says they can. Combine Dillon’s Rule with our overworked part-time legislature, and we have localities that have their hands tied. (Compare this with most states, who pass laws that prohibit certain activities on the part of localities. That’s how laws are supposed to work — it’s assumed that we can do whatever we want, save for what’s illegal. Not in Virginia, where we ban everything for localities, letting them do only what we permit them to do.) I’d like to see the General Assembly permit any locality to install and use red light cameras, as many localities would like.
Then I’d like to see the courts rule the resulting tickets unenforceable, and for that to be the end of it.
When I lived in Sacramento, CA, they made the fine for running red lights $270. That solved a lot of the problem. The economic consequences stopped people, or at least made them think. Also, they put up signs at every traffic light stating what the fine was.
A truly Kerry-esque “nuanced” position. *grin*
I’m really torn on this matter, and I wish the matter of privacy and local jurisdiction weren’t conflated on this vote. They are quite separate matters and it is a shame to go into such an unnecessary trade off.
Your point about the efficacy of camera lights has persuaded me to join you in opposition, but fundamentally I have a hard time making a moral distinction between catching a criminal with a police officer or a camera. On oft-overlooked part of the solution is to design more roads with roundabouts. They are quite common in Europe and boast several advantages:
* They work without power, which requires no police resources to operate during storms, etc
* They are safe, as people decrease speed as they approach
* As a consequence to the above, they create natural pedestrian-friendly areas for crossing.
* They are aesthetically pleasing
* They are efficient, since many times a motorist can glide through without stopping.
The only downside is that it requires a little bit of civility and common sense, but no more so than one expects at a four way stop. So, I’m with you on the matter of local control over such matters, and I agree with you that red light cameras are a boondoggle, but we should really consider the first principle of whether traffic lights are the right solution in the first place.
The practical reality is that even in states that don’t have a Dillion Rule standard, the legislatures, in order to keep control, have placed myriad controls on what localities can and can’t do through legislation stating, “you CAN’T do this” whereas in Dillion Rule States, the legislature requires you to ask first and then maybe they will allow you permission. Jesse Richardson, lawyer and Virginia Tech professor is a Dillion Rule expert and has spoken on this matter across the state. Localities in those states don’t have it any better just because they don’t have to ask permission. In all liklyhood, they are probably already explicity forbidden from doing so…..
So you want people to vote ‘yes’ so the lagalality of the cameras can be challenged in court? I’m confused.
So you want people to vote ‘yes’ so the lagalality of the cameras can be challenged in court?
I want localities to be free to institute this law because they have the right to do so. It’s my hope that the judiciary will find photo red unconstitutional, and strike it down. But if they don’t, so be it.
The due process argument is an interesting one.. and something to think about.
However here’s something else to think about… They have “Red Light Cameras” in a lot of cities in California. When they first instituted the cameras they got the predictable surge of revenue, and traffic incidents at the intersection fell off. But then they did something else. They INCREASED the time duration of the yellow light. After increasing the duration of the yellow light, not only did traffic accidents at those intersections fall off, but so did revenue from the red light cameras.
Hmm, accidents may increase, but how much damage comes from those rear-end bumps compared to those that occur in the intersection? Having just been hit in the bumper a few days ago, I can say with certainty that I would prefer getting a knock in the back to a t-bone from someone running a red light.
Hmm, accidents may increase, but how much damage comes from those rear-end bumps compared to those that occur in the intersection?
The Virginian Pilot article to which I linked discusses that. There are no data demonstrating anything one way or another. Until there’s some reason to think that more accidents == less bad, I’m going to figure that we want to go for less accidents, rather than more.
I wonder if anyone has studied the Rio Road/29 intersection to determine whether there are more red light runners on Rio or 29. My guess would be that there are far more on Rio.
I’m all for synchronizing the lights on 29 north, but I’d gladly live with one hitch in the system: that hitch would be a longer cycle for the cars approaching from Rio. Whether you’re crossing 29, or turning left onto 29, the green light is absurdly short. Only about 2 cars can make it through (legally) each time.
Make that green light a luxurious 10 seconds long, and I bet you’ll get far fewer people running the light.
I don’t see much in the way of Civil Rights issues here. The cameras are enforcing the proper use of a public resource out in public, not peering into anyone’s bedroom.
Plunge,
There are 2 civil rights issues here. The first is that Homeland Security will eventually start keeping all of the images from the cameras on file in some kind of massive searchable database where they can track everyone’s vehicle’s movements. Considering that the White House has now admitted to illegal domestic spying on anti-war and liberal activist groups, none of this stuff is pie-in-the-sky anymore. We have a government that tortures POWs and suspends key sections of the Bill of Rights at will. This is not a government that can be trusted with any further domestic surveillance tools. Big Brother is here and he lives in the White House.
The second civil rights problem is that the cameras generally just show the license plate and not the driver. Certainly there’s no cop checking an ID. We’re going to charge someone with a crime when we can’t prove that they were operating the vehicle? This is a very, very dangerous precendent in terms of standards of evidence.
What if a car is involved in a hit and run that kills someone and witnesses only get the license plate but don’t see the driver. The owner of the vehicle says he was home by himself at the time of the accident and argues that the car was stolen from him. Do you put the owner of the car in prison for 10 years purely on the basis of owning the car?
The red light camera system suggests that anyone with title to a car can be found guilty until proven innocent. That is not right.
Thank you for answering my question, Waldo.
The problem is that the system is inherently unfair to the accused. I say this as someone who actually, some years ago, received a photo red light violation. In Arlington at least, our photo red lights had significantly shorter “yellow light” periods than other traffic lights… I entered the intersection when the light was yellow, I saw a flash… a week later, I got a notice that I was being fined $75 or could contest it in court. The photo SHOWED my car at least slightly in the intersection when the light turned red.
On the day of my court hearing, dozens of people with the same charge were all gathered in the courtroom. The Judge began by saying that if anyone in the room would swear they weren’t the one driving, their cases would be dismissed. More than half of the people in the room stood up and took that oath. While I doubted that ALL of them were telling the truth, they were all let off and then left.
Then, the Judge began going–one by one—finding everyone guilty. When it got to me my turn, I explained that I had been in the intersection when the light turned. I showed him the photo, which I felt showed that. I had no opportunity to confront my accuser (despite the sixth amendment, the red light camera was NOT present in the room for me to cross-examine). The Judge, after I’d explained my case for less than 20 seconds, summarily found me guilty and ordered me to pay $75. No jury. No fair trial. Just a Judge speeding through dozens of us, finding us all guilty.
To appeal the fine, I was told, I would have to pay hundreds of dollars in court fees should I lose. I paid the $75 and went home.
I dislike the Dillan Rule as much as anyone… but the Commonwealth of Virginia ought to be protecting the rights of the accused against what, I can attest, is a railroading process that does not resemble due process in any way.
Sometimes people make the right decision for the wrong reasons. Regardless, banning photo red light cameras in Virginia was the right decision and it goes beyond the Dillan rule–it goes to our Constitutional rights.
Josh, that’s a wonderful example of precisely what’s so wrong about photo red. Thanks for that.
And, to those discussion civil rights, the term you’re looking for is “civil liberties.” The terms are often confused, but speak to entirely different legal concepts.
There’s a speeding camera (which to me is the same thing) at the end/start of 395 between New York and Mass Ave exits in DC. The speed limit is prominently posted not once, not twice, but THREE times (including right next to the camera) as 45 mph. People speed up to that area, hit their breaks to about 30 and then speed back up to 60.
It’s completely counter-productive and is just waiting for an accident.
I think it’s less about safe driving and more about oportunistic city government looking at revenue streams.
Waldo, finally a point on which we are in absolute, unremitting agreement. There may be hope for you yet. ;-)