Breakin’ The Law
The Indiana Senate by a vote of 28-22 passed legislation that would allow cities and towns to install cameras at intersections to catch drivers who run red lights. The cameras would photograph rear plates and the tickets issued could not be more than $100.
Proponents say it will save lives and free up police. My civil libertarian friends say this is an invasion of privacy and just a way for governments to raise money.
Of course there is a real easy way to avoid getting a ticket, it’s called don’t run the red light. If you don’t run a red light, you won’t get a ticket.
Understood?
February 19th, 2009 at 8:10 am
The cameras do NOT catch drivers who run red lights if all they do is take pictures of the rear plate. They will send a ticket to the registered owner of the vehicle who may or may not be the driver at the time. If I am not the driver of a vehicle at the time of an infraction, I WILL NOT pay a ticket for said infraction. The premise behind this is not safety, it is revenue plain and simple.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:21 am
There will now be a run on electrical tape at the hardware stores, as people begin changing ’3′s to ’8′s and ‘P’s to ‘B’s.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:50 am
LOL at John. Excellent idea, except: altering your plate is a crime.
Statler: if you own the car, you’re responsible. It’s been a simple element of vehicular law for 90 years. And yeah, you will, pay the fine, or suffer the consequences.
All my instincts on this are negative: I’m a strong civil libertarian. This flies in the face of freedoms. And, Carmel has done it for a few years, and, well…anything Carmel does, with their little Napoleanic mayor…I’m against, just on principle. He’s the classic bully. Roundabouts and all.
But our driving habits have become so intolerable, that we’ve got to do something. Years of too-few-tickets and too-little-enforcement have instilled ridiculously bad driving habits. Dangerous, too.
Running red lights is but one example–the 465 avg. speed is off the charts. I don’t know how these cameras can affect that.
I’ll live with this, but then, I always stop fully at signs and lights. If this stops the horrendous yellow-light abusers, we’re all better off.
Hint: yellow means clear the intersection IF you’re alrady in it. Not “speed up to make it through.” Geeeeesh.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Stat: You’re mincing words but your premise is still the same. The things are there to generate revenue and considering the coffers are low in municipalities I knew this was coming. However, my concern is how often do these things malfunction? If I get by on a yellow light but am tagged as running a red light, guess what’s going to happen the next time I see a yellow light? I’m going to brake! Hopefully the person behind me is not traveling too closely. Hell…even if I’ve never been tagged and I know there is a camera there I’m braking on yellow.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Best I heard on this was high schoolers photoshopped the license plate of a hated teacher, put it over their own plates, and ran stop lights. Apparently, they did it so well and so often that the teacher did NOT have to pay the bogus fines.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:08 am
They send me a picture of a ticket, I send them a picture of money.
For one, its well known that yellow lights are timed shorter with red light cameras to catch more people running the yellow.
And be prepared to a large number of crashes where someone slams on the brakes to avoid being caught by the camera.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am
My, My we do have all the conspiracy theory people on board today. Many police departments and others working with public safety are not motivated by any thoughts of revenue but rather the real point of seeking a means of enforcement and safety that goes beyond having to have a police officer actually observe the offense. And the conviction rate will be higher since the legal beagles are less likely to defend against the camera than just taking the word of an officer as the “proof” of an infraction.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I don’t think it’s appropriate for citizens to be ticketed by machines without an witnessing officer who can be more aware of any circumstances or whether there was recklessness, intent or other things that contributed to the violation.
…
One problem that has been observed in areas where cameras were used to enforce red lights was that the “yellow time” was slightly shortened resulting in boosted revenue to the city or any private corporate partners involved in managing the program.
…
In Pinal County, Arizona the Sheriff (Paul Babeu) has banned photo radar cameras for a couple of excellent reasons. He is on record here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UunKOtJXurU
…
Pascal (above) noted a recently publicized story about teenagers who, indeed, did create ‘fake’ license plate overlays and rack up violations on at least one teacher and I believe some other individuals. They made a game of it.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Think Again,
It’s a moving offense. You have to identify the driver in court or you can’t get a conviction. And rightfully so. Since when are we responsible for traffic violations someone else commits while driving our car? That’s never been the case.
I don’t know that the bill addresses the identification problem or whether it does so appropriately. There may well be constitutional problems.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I’d have less of a problem if the money from the red light cameras went to the public schools – and not the city budgets. Less of an incentive to start getting creative with the timing of the yellow lights.
Accidents and insurance claims do tend to go up after red light cameras go into effect. Mostly rear end collisions. Cities have been caught shortening yellow lights as well.
And the potential is definitely there for mischief – the game referenced in comment #8 is explained here: http://boingboing.net/2009/01/06/naughty-speed-camera.html.
There’s also numerous studies of people getting red light tickets for turning on red, even though they’ve come to a complete stop first. Thenewspaper.com collects lots of statistics about the “politics of driving” and has a lot of information related to red light cameras: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/related.asp?page=1&T=0&S=2&K=0&V=0&X=0 .
I wish it were just as simple as just stopping at a red light…
February 19th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Amusing that Indiana is jumping on the red light camera bandwagon, just when it appears that the pendulum is swinging away from its general usage elsewhere. Once again our politicians are right on the leading edge institutional backwardness.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Diana Vice has done some excellent research on this:http://diana-vice.blogspot.com/
February 19th, 2009 at 11:21 am
varangian … I was thinking exactly the same thing. Could it be that since use is diminishing in other places that the companies that make and service the equipment just have that much more incentive to push (lobby) the product harder in areas they have not yet had success?
…
The “sales” effort of those companies is going to be constantly looking to expand their market.
…
Didn’t Chicago just announce a red light initiative? http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/buses-cta-red-lights.html
…
don’t forget to visit http://www.libertyfile.com/ on a regular basis for updates on news that affects the economy and your freedoms.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“Think Again,
It’s a moving offense. You have to identify the driver in court or you can’t get a conviction.”
Depends on the judge. A moving offense is an infraction, there is no threat of losing your freedom if found guilty, just a monetary fine. As such, the burden of proof is only 50%+1. Right now, if someone parks your vehicle on a cross-walk or within 15′ of a fire hydrant, the registered owner of the vehicle gets the ticket. It is up to the owner of the vehicle to bring with them the person who actually parked the vehicle illegally. Once that person admits in open court they were the ones that parked the vehicle, the judge will usually dismiss the ticket…and then allow the officer to ticket the true violator. That means the violator will then have no defense as they have admitted their violation in open court.
Now, this all changes depending on who is sitting on the bench. What I wrote above came from the prosecutor’s office as how the judge in traffic court _at that time_ wanted things done on parking issues. These red light tickets will be the same. Bring in the person who was running the light, have them admit to it, let the state then issue the citation to that person, then go from there.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
John Doe,
I agree with almost all of what you said. YOu’re right it’s an “infraction” and not a criminal matter. I was a little sloppy with my language when I talked about a conviction.
However, with a moving offense you still have to identify the driver. Now how much proof a judge requires is another matter. I think though if there is not identification evidence presented you could get it reversed on appeal. Of course, people are going to pay thousands of dollars to appeal traffic court tickets. Judges know that too that’s why they don’t care if they get sloppy about things like the identification requirement.
Some of the examples you’re talking about are not moving violations. There’s a big difference there.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Kathryn,
There is no shortage of money going to schools. Education spending has soared way above inflation for over 30 years. Schools don’t need more money. They just need to spend it more wisely.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I would recommend that somebody look at the history of this issue in Hawaii. First, you will have a public procurement for a vendor. The “three-letter” company that is engaged in the eligiblity deal will get the business. There will be a public outcry. Politicians will blame the three-letter company and will shut down project. Three-letter will sue. I’ve seen it first hand. Red light cameras are a bad idea. Period.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Even an infraction must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Since cars don’t commit infractions that means people do. An essential element of any case brought by a prosecutor, either criminal or civil, is the identity of the offender. Just because the state can prove that my car ran a red light doesn’t mean that I was the one driving it. I currently have five vehicles registered in my name with the BMV. Three of them are almost exclusively driven by my children and one of them is driven by both my wife and myself. I fail to see how the name of the registered owner, without more, can constitute a preponderance of the evidence on the element of identity. What will likely happen is that many people that get these tickets will request a trial and the state will end up dismissing any case based entirely on a camera since they can’t prove the charge. Many others, however, will simply pay the ticket to avoid the hassle of spending all day in traffic court. That is what Big Brother is counting on.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
You have the right to a jury trial in traffic cases but you must request one in writing within ten (10) days after you enter your denial. The instructions for entering a denial are on the back of the ticket in fine print.
If drivers asked for more jury trials in traffic cases, we’d see a lot fewer dubious traffic tickets and an end to red light cameras, in my opinion.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
The foot is in the door now. What infraction or law will be the next target? I guess that puts the ‘right to trial’ out the door. Will the cameras be used to catch people smoking in thier cars or the street? This is only the beginning of using the cameras to catch people doing something to get a ticket. It will lead to other things more invasive, for our protection of course.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
The only issue I have with this is the removal of one of the facets of this country. That is innocence until your guilt is proven. Red light cameras presume guilt until you find some way to prove your innocence. Unless they have a picture of me driving through the red light I don’t see me paying a ticket.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:10 am
On the radio, Abdul stated that he had nothing to hide, thus he had no fear of the cameras.
-
I suppose that it’s okay for government to enter his home unannounced at 3AM, since he has nothing to hide.
-
Police use this gambit at traffic stops, etc. “Let me search your trunk”. “Nope”. “Well, if you have nothing to hide, what’s the harm?”
-
The ‘harm’ is my right to privacy, and right to be free from warrantless searches of my property.
-
Unfortunately, not enough people actually stand up for their rights. Pity an attorney is fine with this latest example of government intrusion.
-
I wonder what OTHER uses these camera’s, or the camera’s that will surely follow, will be put to use?
-
Eventually, government will be able to identify ALL of us by simply viewing us in a traffic cam.
-
Think this is ludicrous? Think about the new BMV policy of not smiling when your pic is taken. No makeup, etc.
-
WHY ???
-
Because it interferes with their facial recognition software!
-
Once this policy is in place long enough, ALL persons in Indiana will have their faces digitized, and government will be able to ID everyone by simply looking at your face.
-
Welcome to “1984″.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:19 am
-
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/18226101/detail.html#-
-
BMV: Don’t Smile, Wear Glasses
Smiles Confuse Facial Recognition Software
08 Dec 2008
-
INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is restricting glasses, hats, scarves — and even smiles — in driver’s license photographs.
-
As of right now, 62 percent of those polled (10164) vote AGAINST this new BMV policy.
-
Alas, since when has government cared what we want?
February 21st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
“When government treats the people as the enemy, then government is the enemy of the people.” Michael Rivero, 21 Feb 2009
July 5th, 2010 at 5:39 am
I think life is simple and comfortable, so the decorate at my home is very concise. This is also my character, my life is like this, these simple store are my favorite. Nike air Zoom Lebron soldier IV