Science and Society

If government in this country were seriously concerned with reducing speeding, they could mandate the installation of a system that would make it impossible for vehicles to exceed the speed limit. New cars would be equipped with sensors to detect the speed limit of the road you are on, and would not allow you to go more than 5 mph above that limit. This would be big brother government at its best (worst?), but it would eliminate the "revenue enhancement" of speed cameras. Those with cars built before the new system could still speed, of course, and I'm sure someone will learn how to defeat the speed control system. So, speeders in older cars would have to be dealt with some way, as would those who defeat the system.

Such a system will never be implemented in all likelihood. Some governments using speed cameras may very well be interested solely in reducing speeding. I suspect, though, that the majority of municipalities using them are simply looking for a way to increase revenue without having to use actual manpower to do it.

The fact that the picture was taken proves the person's guilt beyond doubt, so his/her constitutional rights haven't been violated. All one has to do to avoid having to fight a ticket is to obey the law. Last time I was in Florida, I was told that at least one county had sheriffs' cars parked at problem intersections. the cars had one or two dummies in them and it seemed to help prevent red-light running and other violations. I have no objection to the technology, per se. I do have a strenuous objection when it's put to improper use. We already have a problem with the wire-tapping now being used in the fight against "terror." For me, the terror is having the government wire-tap in the name of some sinister plot.

Andy
The registered owner of the car gets the ticket instead of the driver, which may not be the owner. This is a moving violation and goes on the vehicle owners license. I have seen this happen on cars that were "in for service" or "valet" parked. By the time the owner gets the ticket he/she is no longer sure if they were doing the driving or not.

In order for a ticket to be 'enforceable' the driver's face must be clearly visible. Since the citation is issued to the owner, rather than the driver, an owner can successfully say it wasn't him if the driver's face isn't clearly visible. Otherwise, someone can borrow a car cover their face, run the light, get photographed and have the owner get a ticket. The law can't charge someone for someone else's infraction, even if done with their property - assuming there are no states in which the vehicle owner is liable for the behavior of all drivers of that vehicle. Ultimately, though, it's the notion that the person who drove through the light isn't the one being punished and the 'punishment' is seen as more for revenue than for enforcement. Some studies have even shown a slower speed, but increased traffic accidents as the drivers pull up short when the light changes to yellow, leading to increased rear-end collisions - at least for the short term. Bottom line is people don't like getting punished by machines.

Quietman, I'll take the hit for not specifying that the driver's face is usually visible in those photographs. In the case that the driver's face is obscured for whatever reason, in that case, the burden of proof would seem to be on the prosecution. As far as "rear-enders" is concerned, in the state of Nevada, for example, the rear-ender is at fault, regardless of what the rear-endee has done, the rationale being that the rear-ender is not paying attention or following too closely. There would appear to be some sort of balancing mechanism at work in this case.

Andy
That last post was from Fatesrider, not me. I know that what you said is true, at least in Los Angeles, but you still have the burden of proof issue. The owner is the one wasting time in court.

I guess all of the furor over the use of cameras in public places has to do with the "expectation of privacy" we have, which, in public, is not much. Chicago has been installing red-light cameras at busy intersections where drivers are likely to run yellow-changing-into-red lights, and the Chicago Dept. of Revenue has been enjoying a windfall from the people who continue to run those lights.

Quietman, just to set the record straight, I was, in fact, replying to your post, not Fatesrider's. That the owner must waste time in court is an unfortunate concomitant of the system. There was once an episode of a TV crime drama, where an ally of the antagonist wore a mask, with the bad guy's face on the mask. The object was to establish an alibi for the bad guy by using the photograph of the guy running the light for the express purpose of generating the photo and the time. Clever, what? A simple way to abuse the system, but effective to put some one in hot water or to get him out of same.

Re: (in the article) “A camera’s no different than a person. A police officer can be in a public place and watch what you do, but somehow if you use a camera instead of a police officer, people start getting really weirded out.”
Humans hire humans to protect them and accept a human determination because the human witnessed the entire event.
A camera does not. Cases that a human would overlook due to circumstances a camera can't. We trust the people we hire but we do not trust machines.

Good point, Quietman. There's yet another wrinkle to it: If a cop sees you and knows you're going to commit a crime, he may make the error of arresting you before you actually do the deed. He may also misinterpret your actions. A camera, on the other hand can't make that error, but it can catch you in the act.

Andy
Exactly - the cop may stop the crime from happening, a machine can't. But a simple sign can. Intersections with just a large sign saying that you would be photographed would have a similar, albeit lesser, effect. Some police departments park patrol cars on roads with no officers in them. Seeing the car makes you look down at the speedometer and raise your right foot.

Well, the easiest answer to all of this is to just not run red lights. You see a yellow, slow down. If someone else is driving your car and does it, too bad, you've got to go into court and contest it. If your car was stolen, then one of two things can happen. 1.) If you filed the stolen car claim prior to the photo being taken, then you are in the clear, and all you need to do is make a phone call.
2.) Now the police have a picture of the car thief, making it easier for them to find your car or what's left of it, and capture the thief.

Plain and simple, follow the law and you have nothing to worry about. Don't follow the law, then you deserve to be caught. I feel the same way about the new Virginia speeding fines.

Thats right Quiet man ! Follow the law! Now, would you please tell G W Bush that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The real thiefs are in Washington!!!!! They are steeling our freedom!!!!!!!!!!!Law BY LAW.