25 Responses

1. Instead of ”tipping” people off where to avoid a ticket, why not encourage everyone to not go through a red light or engage in any other dangerous driving behaviour?

   That is the most full-proof method to avoiding any tickets. It is the only safe thing to do. And it is the only ”right way.”

2. All over America and England, and, no doubt, in a great many other countries all over the world, a growing number of local police departments have begun relying upon high-tech surveillance cameras to not only monitor traffic conditions and protect homeland security, but also to “catch” automobile drivers who drive too fast or go through red lights. (According to some estimates, defense contractor Lockheed Martin installed and operates approximately 80 percent of these cameras, and receives as much as 50 percent of each ticket as payment.)

   One rarely hears or reads about strenuous opposition to the proliferation of these so-called traffic or red-light cameras, which are very popular among police officers and politicians, of course, but also among some self-avowed community activists. Nevertheless, traffic cameras should be opposed, and not simply because they enlarge even further the number and types of surveillance cameras that the police are being allowed to operate in public places (even though this is a very good reason indeed). Traffic cameras should also be opposed because —

   1. These cameras do not simply photograph license plate numbers. They also capture (“search and seize”) large quantities of visual information that is totally unrelated to the matter at hand (which car, owned by whom, did what, where and when). Namely: the face and thus the personal identity of the driver; the face(s) of the passenger(s), if any; the contents of unoccupied seats, especially if used to transport large objects; and the faces of pedestrians, bicyclists or motorists who were also within sight when the photograph was taken. All of this “excess” information is irrelevant and yet highly personal; it is certainly covered by Fourth Amendment protections. None of this excess information should be stored, used for any purposes whatsover or disclosed.

   2. These cameras cannot be used to monitor the automotive behavior of people who drive motorcycles or motor bikes, neither of which bear upon them license plates large enough to be photographed, or motor scooters or bicycles, neither of which require license plates. Unless every single vehicle is both licensed and rendered fully transparent or “readable” to the mechanical eye, then such surveillance cameras cannot help but discriminate against some vehicles and favor others.

   3. These cameras are very expensive. Most cost $60,000 each; some cost as much as $90,000 each. In New York City, there are already 150 traffic cameras in operation. That is to say, $9 million has already been spent on creating an infrastructure for the video surveillance of automobile traffic. It is obvious that the interests of the people of the City of New York would have been much better served if this money had been used to employ sufficient numbers of decently-paid police officers to monitor the circulation of traffic in New York City. (Nine million dollars translates into yearly salaries of $50,000 each for 180 police officers.)

   4. The traffic engineers who install these cameras are all-too-frequently tempted to reduce the amount of time that the traffic light stays “yellow” before turning “red.” Precisely because it will likely increase the number of drivers who run red lights, this alteration allows the surveillance system attached to the traffic light to catch more red-light runners, and thus generate more revenues for the state (see below). Unfortunately, indeed, tragically, altering the timing of the traffic light also causes more rear-end collisions, and thus more injuries to drivers and their passenegers.

   5. These cameras result in A) the issuance of more tickets, and B) the issuance of tickets that — unless one has access to an attorney — are virtually impossible to contest in court. Unlike police officers, surveillance cameras don’t get tired, fall asleep on the job, or even need to blink, rub or rest their eyes for a minute. Cameras will never be influenced by a motorist’s race, gender and manner of dress, nor will they unionize, agitate for higher wages or call in sick or engage in work slow-downs if they don’t get what they want. But surveillance cameras aren’t infallible.

   Note well the observations of David Schwartz:

   [In New York] one photograph is provided with the car in the intersection, the light showing red, and a numerical indicator of the number of seconds (and tenths of a second) [that] the light was red. However, this does not provide sufficient information to establish the color of the light at the time the car entered the intersection. Without knowing the speed the car was travelling and with no accurate way to judge distances (or often even tell where the actual threshold of the intersection is), all you can do is trust that the camera would not have taken the picture if the person didn’t run the light. Generally, a sensor is placed at or very near the threshold. But there’s no good way to know which part of the car the sensor tripped on. It’s always possible that the front of the car entered the intersection [when the light was] green and [that] a second later, the rear of the car entered the intersection on [when the light was] red and tripped the sensor. There is no way for anyone (human or machine) to know what color the light was when the front of the car entered the intersection.
   If the sensors upon which they depend are badly positioned or moved from their original positions, the integrity of the entire system is compromised. Quite obviously, only those with sufficient money to hire an attorney will be able to effectively contest the ticket that these automated systems dispense.

   6. Unlike police officers, photographs or videotapes taken by surveillance cameras can be relied upon to attend each and every court date, to remember the exact time and place of the traffic violation, to positively identify the license plate number of the car that committed it, and to never change its testimony. And yet, the actual cameras that took the pictures cannot be brought before the court and asked to testify. As a result, the right to confront one’s accuser (habeas corpus) is violated.

   7. It seems very likely that the real reward for the increasing use of traffic cameras is not better safety on the streets, but higher revenues for the state. Though expensive to purchase, these traffic systems generate so many apparently uncontestable tickets so quickly that they (the systems) virtually pay for themselves in the first year of operation. After that, it’s pure profit for the government. In October 2002, when the Mayor of Washington DC admitted that his city’s traffic cameras produced “money and safety,” the Automobile Association of America withdrew its support for them.

   8. But the municipal authortites aren’t the only ones getting rich off of these cameras: so is Automated Computer Systems (ACS), a subsidiary of the immense military contractor Lockheed-Martin. In Washington, DC, ACS receives 40 percent of the revenues brought in by its cameras systems. In the words of an April 2003 class action lawsuit against the District of Columbia, this fact “renders the […] process impermissibly partial towards a verdict against automobile owners,” and thereby violates their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

   9. These cameras are already being used to justify reductions in the number of police officers assigned to patrol the highways and streets, and further reductions seem likely. But what we need isn’t fewer cops equipped with increasingly sophisticated surveillance cameras and computerized databases. What we need are fewer cars, better mass transportation, and more human beings (in this case, police officers) who are from and integrated into the communities they are hired to serve and protect.

3. It should be noted that this posting in NOT intended to be used as a means for abusing the traffic laws, rules and regulations. THere is no posek that will give one a heter to beat a red light.
   Understand that when behind the wheel, you are in essence operating a 4-5 ton potentially lethal weapon.

   It is important to take note of this, especially as we enter the summer months when all too often, traffic tragedies, r”l increase significantly.

   We may all, drivers and non-drivers alike, be zocheh to a safe and enjoyable summer.

4. How about if we stop whining and focus on saving lives and serious injuries.

   If ONE person doesn’t go through a red light because of the camera and ONE LIFE is potentially saved, dayenu.

   I know some people are worried more about privacy or having to pay for tickets (deserved or not), but lets get real. “Ani, v’afsi ein” is not quite as laudable as “U’shertem L’nafshosaichem”.

   Kol Tuv

5. Somehow this appears to me to be a place to raise revenue for the Greater City of New York.

6. Every traffic light ought to have a red-light camera. It would cause motorists to be more cautious when going through intersections.

   Safety is a greater concern than ”too many tickets.”

7. @Joseph – the point of traffic cameras, and law enforcement in general, is to keep people safe. Telling them to slow down because there is a red light camera will achieve that objective – it will cause people not to go through the red light.

   Incidentally, I saw a study quoted by the AAA that red light cameras actually cause an increase in accidents by an intersection. People know about the camera and are so afraid about going though it that they slam on their braked when the light turns yellow, and the car behind them goes right into them.

8. They are technically illegal as one has the right to challenge your “accuser” therefore a city employee that testifies to the accuracy and evidence of the camera may be objected to as “heresay” and should dismiss the ticket.. hatzlocha

9. emesvyatziv – wow!

   Opposition to red-light cameras is not for the benefit of law-breakers – it hurts law-abiding drivers as well.

   Very often, one thinks he has a yellow light as he is entering the intersection, and, instead, the light turns red too quickly.

   The difference in time between yellow and red in NYC vs. Nassau County is significant. So, for example, at the Northern Blvd camera in Douglaston, you may be used to the three seconds or so from a typical Nassau light, but, instead, you get nailed by the camera after a half-second of yellow.

   That’s unfair.

   Also, not that anyone should count on it, but if traffic conditions necessitate it, a cop may let it go and not even pull the driver over, whereas the camera will always catch and “ticket” the offending driver, regardless of other safety considerations, as above, and such as an ambulance needing to get through, etc.

10. there is also a camera on north gannon and bradley avenue in staten island

11. emes How about publishing a phamplet about traffic cameras?
    Quite interesting and gives you alot to think about, the only ones who receive these camera summons are those who PASS the red light (believe me!). It is preventive safety, and causes you to slow down and stop the next time around.

12. I wonder what happens if you cross one of the gas stations or if you do curbside at Sub

13. NonKollelMan – Well said!

14. Do Red-Light Traffic Cameras Help?
    Are Cameras at Traffic Signals the Answer to Dangerous Intersections, or Part of the Problem?
    By JONATHAN SILVERSTEIN
    Feb. 19, 2005 —

    As red-light traffic cameras spring up at intersections across the country, critics are raising questions about whether the devices actually deter red-light running, or are just a way for local authorities to make a quick buck.

    The cameras snap pictures of vehicles that run red lights. The violator then receives a summons in the mail for the infraction.

    There’s no exact count of how many cameras are being used, but one recent study shows that they are currently used in more than a dozen states and more than 70 cities across the country.

    Proponents say the cameras make roads safer by deterring red-light runners from breaking the rules, but detractors say dangerous intersections are the result of engineering deficiencies and the cameras are just a way to increase revenue on the backs of unsuspecting drivers.

    Do We Need Them?
    “Red-light cameras just reward cities for bad engineering,” said Eric Skrum, spokesman for the National Motorists Association, a motorist advocacy group that has been arguing against the use of red-light cameras nationwide.

    The group contends that the best remedies for dangerous intersections are engineering improvements like longer yellow lights and shielding signals to prevent glare and make the lights more visible as the sun sets.

    According to the group’s Web site, the organization believes that “with properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for camera-based traffic law enforcement devices.”

    NMA points to studies of red-light cameras that show that while there is generally a decrease in side-impact collisions, there is an increase in rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid running a red light.

    Robert Sinclair, a spokesman for AAA’s New York office, says the risks are too great not to have the cameras in certain areas.

    “The nature of the collision that takes place when someone runs a red light is a very dangerous one, the so-called ‘T-bone,’ ” he said. “The weakest part of a vehicle is its side. So someone runs a red light and smashes into the side of a vehicle and lots of bad things can happen.”

    But Skrum argues that the cameras are not the only way to deal with dangerous intersections.

    “Most drivers don’t want to run red lights,” said Skrum, “but due to engineering flaws at some intersections, they sometimes have no choice.”

    Speed Up or Slow down?
    A number of studies have shown that by simply increasing the length of “amber” or “yellow” lights, dangerous intersections can be made safe.

    “By increasing the length of yellow lights,” Skrum explained, “you can cut down on the amount of violations and accidents at an intersection.”

    It’s the moment for a driver when he must make a choice. As a light turns yellow, he has to decide between speeding up to get through an intersection or trying to stop in time to keep from running a red light.

    Sinclair said that time of dilemma is shortened if a yellow light is too quick. “It might actually encourage people to try and run the yellow,” he said. “It’s that go, no-go decision time we worry about.”

    Studies show that lengthening the amber light gives drivers more time to make that choice and more time to brake.

    But in some cash-strapped communities, shorter yellow lights at intersections equipped with red-light cameras means more tickets — and that means more money.

    The AAA supports the use of the cameras, but Sinclair agrees that their use needs to be monitored so drivers aren’t taken advantage of.

    “We’ve seen ambers as short as a second in those areas where they might be wanting to, let’s say, enhance revenue,” he said. “There needs to be a national standard for the length of amber lights.”

    A study released in January by the Texas Transportation Institute concluded that extending a yellow light by 1.5 seconds would decrease red-light-running by at least 50 percent.

    The institute also found that cameras do have a positive impact: that intersections equipped with the devices saw a 40 percent decrease in violations on average. They also found that the cameras had a kind of “halo” effect, where nearby intersections also saw a drop in violations.

    Who’s Profiting?
    The NMA says that towns and cities that want to use red-light cameras disregard studies that question the cameras’ effectiveness, instead turning to studies quoted by groups like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is supported by many of the nation’s insurance providers.

    The insurance institute’s Web site shows that it believes in the cameras and sees them as a powerful weapon against red-light runners.

    Skrum argues that insurance companies have a vested interest in the success of the cameras.

    “The insurance industry is going to profit from the cameras,” he said, “because more cameras means more tickets being issued and then they can raise the drivers’ insurance rates.”

    In addition, the companies that manufacture, install and maintain the cameras generally make their profit from a portion of the ticket revenue the devices generate.

    Because of this, Skrum says, anything that might cause a decrease in tickets generated by the cameras would mean a decrease in profits for the camera manufacturers, the insurance companies and local municipalities.

    “In many instances, engineering is being ignored because it’s easier to put up a camera,” Skrum said. “It’s more lucrative to put up a camera.”

    Motorists’ Group Offers $10,000 Challenge
    In a “prove us wrong” type move, NMA is offering a cash prize for proof that dangerous intersections can’t be improved through engineering.

    In certain parts of the country, NMA is offering to bring in its own engineer to study any intersection equipped with a camera and to make recommendations on how the intersection could be made safer through improved engineering.

    The group says that if its recommendations are implemented in place of the camera, the intersection will see at least a 50 percent decline in red-light violations. If not, a $10,000 donation will be made toward a road safety or road improvement program of that community’s choosing.

    “We’re putting our money where our mouth is,” Skrum explained. “We’re saying if you address the problem with an engineering solution, you won’t need a camera.”

    So far, no one has taken the challenge.

    Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

15. thank u e/b 4 the tips! mi keamcha yisroel! I FEEL LIKE DANCING CUSZ IM SO HAPPY 2 B A JEW!

16. Emes, sorry to say that I got through numbers 1 and 2 of your post and then simply couldn’t believe that I needed to scroll down, and scroll down, and scroll down, and scroll down, and scroll down…. 🙂 and keep scrolling until the end of your Megillah. I’m sure you make some good points, but who has the time to read all of that?!

17. License-plate spray foils traffic cameras
    By Steve Sexton

    Motorists have litigated against them, fired bullets at them and thrown garbage on them — all to get back at the traffic cameras that have caught them in the act of running a red light or speeding.
    Now they have a new weapon in their arsenal, and it comes in a can for $29.99. A clear spray called Photoblocker can be applied to license plates to make them hyper-reflective and unreadable when the camera flashes.
    The product, marketed by online merchant Phantom Plate (www.phantomplate.com), defies laws that preclude motorists from placing covers over their license plates but have no provisions for a clear spray.
    Joe Scott, the marketing director for Photoblocker, said he knows of no jurisdictions that ban the spray. Most states have laws against obscuring or distorting license plates, but Photoblocker obscures the license plate only in a photo, Mr. Scott said, making it legal or at least difficult for police to detect with the naked eye.
    Capt. John Lamb of the Denver Police Department said a test of the spray proved effective at producing a glare over the license plate.
    The District, Maryland and Virginia all have laws permitting the use of red-light cameras, and the Federal Highway Administration says 21 states have red-light or speed-detection cameras in place or are considering installing the devices.
    Lt. Patrick Burke of the Metropolitan Police Department said the spray isn’t banned by any laws in the District, but he has yet to see a spray that is effective.
    The spray might slip through a loophole in state law, said Steve Kholer, a spokesman for the California Highway Patrol, who said he had not heard of the product. Citations in California can cost up to $275.
    If the spray becomes a problem, Mr. Kholer said, the law will catch up with it.
    Critics of traffic cameras say the devices violate privacy and enforce unfairly.
    Mr. Scott says use of the cameras constitutes entrapment.
    “Decent folks — law-abiding citizens — are getting penalized left and right for clearing intersections a little too late, or entering and then backing up,” he said, adding that one client reported being ticketed for a red-light violation when he was part of a police-escorted funeral procession.
    He said thousands of cans of Photoblocker have been sold.
    “The cameras were put in place just to raise revenue and not to make things safer,” Mr. Scott said.
    The District has collected $21.6 million in fines since August 1999 from its 39 red-light cameras. An additional $29 million has been collected from speed cameras since their installation in August 2001.
    Roy Reyer, a former police officer, operates PhotoBuster.com, a Web site that distributes a product similar to Photoblocker called Photo Fog. He said anger with the “Big Brother attitude” of governments has fueled the innovation.
    Clear license plate covers preceded the spray. They deflect light to make plates unreadable from the side and from above, but not from directly behind a car. Some jurisdictions that employ the camera-enforcement technology have banned these products.
    That hasn’t stopped Phantom Plate and other distributors from selling the covers. Clear Covers advertises them online as a “great way to protect your front license plate from dust, dirt and bugs.”
    In a game of innovation to stay ahead of traffic enforcement, the market has produced radar detectors and radar jammers — now banned in some states — as well as a license plate cover that deflects police radar.
    Motorists aren’t the only ones with clever tricks. Paradise Valley, Ariz., considered hiding its radar cameras in cactus plants along roadways, the Weekly Standard reported. Outrage from residents forced officials to reconsider.

18. l’elu shechaviv alehem mimonam yoser migufam

19. does anyone know if a person can be ticket if he is travelling s/b on
    coney island when he get to ave p he goes into the turning lane to make
    a left on to ave p would the camera catch him if he makes a turn on a red light??

20. emesvyatziv – maybe it is time to get your own blog. 🙂

21. The cameras can not monitor driving conditions, how can they
    give a fair Simmons?
    2.6 million summons @ an average of $100.00=$260,000,000.00
    Now that’s an incentive for the city.

22. Listen Rabbosai you, as responsible drivers, know that cameras are not human, therefore you must take that into consideration when driving. The benefits of cautious driving, out weigh any tickets generated by mistake, due to the failings of an inanimite camera

23. I wish we had them in Monsey –

    I’d put them on Traffic Lights AND Stop Signs.

24. I am from the UK, and live now in the US, from what I hear everyones lives is a misery over there, if you go on a highway you are sure to get flashed, I read that on average every person gets photographed 9 times a day in the UK, there are cameras wherever you go.
    read this

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A622487

25. i agree i not wasting my time reading all of this. just obey the law and stop making a chillel h”