Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#41

Post by TulliusCicero »

jakobegger wrote: post #32
cwyers wrote: post #16

The moral hazard that comes from cities using fines for offenses to generate revenue is awful and despicable, and it causes all sorts of injustices, big and small. Red light cameras are a part of this, and they're awful.

How is it an injustice to make people pay when they make our roads unsafe? People drive reckless, ignore speed limits, race over intersections in the last possible moment, ... ... and then it's an injustice when someone fines them?

It's not an injustice inherently, it's just a moral hazard that may lead to injustice (or other poor behavior). E.g. I remember hearing about a city that, after implementing red light cameras, shortened the yellow time, thus technically increasing the number of people who ran reds and gaining revenue (at the expense of actual safety since short yellows are more dangerous).

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#42

Post by Karunamon »

jakobegger wrote: post #32
cwyers wrote: post #16

The moral hazard that comes from cities using fines for offenses to generate revenue is awful and despicable, and it causes all sorts of injustices, big and small. Red light cameras are a part of this, and they're awful.

How is it an injustice to make people pay when they make our roads unsafe? People drive reckless, ignore speed limits, race over intersections in the last possible moment, ... ... and then it's an injustice when someone fines them?

You're taking the same logical leap that the RLC companies are. Sometimes running lights and ignoring speed limits is more safe than the alternative, depending on circumstances.

The cameras don't care about your circumstances or safety, they only care whether you're over a line or not. Safety is just a sorta-value-added benefit that may or may not come with installation.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#43

Post by vlan0 »

jakobegger wrote: post #34
rl3 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I've only ever received one red light violation, and that was because I intentionally rolled through a red light at low speed on a three-way intersection making a right turn. It was early Sunday morning in clear conditions, with clear visibility in all directions for about a quarter mile, not a car in sight. My trusty crapmobile had been stalling while resting at complete stops, and the destination was my me…

If your car can't stop safely at an intersection, you should have had it towed in the first place, instead of endangering everyone else on the road. The way you tell this story, those $100 were absolutely justified.

Huh, I didn't interpret stalling while idling at a stop as a danger to others on the road. Especially when the car can be started again. The same principle applies if I accidently stall my manual vehicle.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#44

Post by draw_down »

mbroshi wrote: post #25

A big plus of automating tickets is that it's no longer biased. You're not more likely to get a ticket in a poorer, more high crime neighborhood, just because there happen to be more police there. This way, rich white people in the Loop are just as likely to get tickets as poor black people in Woodlawn. To me this democratization seems like a big plus.

Mmm, where they're placed (and more to the point, where they're not placed) is still a political decision.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#45

Post by draw_down »

omegaworks wrote: post #36
mbroshi wrote: post #25

A big plus of automating tickets is that it's no longer biased. You're not more likely to get a ticket in a poorer, more high crime neighborhood, just because there happen to be more police there. This way, rich white people in the Loop are just as likely to get tickets as poor black people in Woodlawn. To me this democratization seems like a big plus.

The red light cameras are not distributed equally. You'll find more of them in minority neighborhoods. Look at what redlining hath wrought: http://www.radicalcartography.net/chicagodots_race_big.jpg http://www.photoenforced.com/chicago.html#.WNKlsxLyufc

Bingo.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#46

Post by Karunamon »

whafro wrote: post #30
aggie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious to hear why you think it's unconstitutional. It's unobtrusive surveillance in a public setting, so there's no expectation of privacy. It's punishing people for breaking a public-safety law. In most cases they even have signs alerting you to the presence of an enforcement camera. Now I can definitely see how automated enforcement ripe for abuse when there are revenues to be had, and it's concerning when op…

Perhaps not the strongest possible, but I've heard the argument in the past that it violates the confrontation clause of the 6th amendment – that you are unable to face your accuser, since your accuser is simply a timed camera. OTOH, since you can sue property (for example in asset forfeiture cases), that might not hold any water.

The camera isn't your accuser. The municipality is your accuser, using the evidence from the camera as proof of the law being broken.

If you break into a building and get busted by an automated silent alarm, the alarm isn't the one accusing you.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#47

Post by LeifCarrotson »

jakobegger wrote: post #34
rl3 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I've only ever received one red light violation, and that was because I intentionally rolled through a red light at low speed on a three-way intersection making a right turn. It was early Sunday morning in clear conditions, with clear visibility in all directions for about a quarter mile, not a car in sight. My trusty crapmobile had been stalling while resting at complete stops, and the destination was my me…

If your car can't stop safely at an intersection, you should have had it towed in the first place, instead of endangering everyone else on the road. The way you tell this story, those $100 were absolutely justified.

The car could safely stop at the intersection, but it would have stalled if he did so.

He made a human decision, a judgement call, to roll through the stoplight: one that would have been supported by a police officer, who could also apply common sense to the situation. The traffic camera and bureaucracy, unable to apply any decision-making or judgement or common sense, is in the wrong here.

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#49

Post by passivepinetree »

djsumdog wrote: post #33
mbroshi wrote: post #25

A big plus of automating tickets is that it's no longer biased. You're not more likely to get a ticket in a poorer, more high crime neighborhood, just because there happen to be more police there. This way, rich white people in the Loop are just as likely to get tickets as poor black people in Woodlawn. To me this democratization seems like a big plus.

Except the companies are for profit. The red light cameras increase rear ending accidents: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/major-chicago-st... ..because most people don't want to intentionally run red lights. Furthermore, most cities run these as civil violations, but if you take them to court, the courts run them under criminal procedures. IANAL, but there was an excellent post someone shared on HN a few…

The article you're referring to is here:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/op-ed-how-i-turn...

Re: Red-light camera grace period goes from 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, Chicago to lose $17M

#50

Post by matt4077 »

cwyers wrote: post #16

The moral hazard that comes from cities using fines for offenses to generate revenue is awful and despicable, and it causes all sorts of injustices, big and small. Red light cameras are a part of this, and they're awful.

The solution is rather simple: decouple traffic enforcement and rule-making from the revenue stream they generate.

(Not that I'm convinced that these "injustices" people claim are more than anecdotes, or that there is an alternative to red light cameras that doesn't involve actual cops stopping people and the very real injustices of racial profiling and just-shooting-people we've recently seen in that practice.)

Post reply on HN