Red Light Camera Vendor Not Doing So Well With Public Opposition Driving Down Its Revenue
from the awww...-too-bad dept
There's been significant growing opposition to red light camera programs, which have a long history of showing absolutely no safety benefit, and are often run for-profit by local governments in combination with private companies. That opposition is leading more and more cities and towns to dump the red light cameras -- while some operators are getting caught illegally decreasing the time of the yellow or amber lights to try to issue more fines.Jeff Nolan alerts us to the news that one of the biggest players in the space, Redflex, has announced that public opposition to its cameras has created a real drain on revenue, and its profits were down significantly. This would be the same Redflex that just so happened to fail to live up to its contract in Denver to deliver data that could be used to determine whether or not the cameras were really effective.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: profits, red light cameras
Companies: redflex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fines as revenue = Bad practice
Still, fines as income is a very popular concept politically because the perception is that it is a way to make someone else, or some unpopular group, to pay faux-taxes. However, when fines are seen as a major revenue source the government will inevitably try to broaden the base of those paying fines, or they will begin over-enforcement of fine producing activities to the detriment of effective enforcement mechanisms.
The effect is especially bad when the revenue goes to the ones enforcing policy. We had a classic example of this locally. Our "drug strike force" is financed mostly by drug seizures. The strike force announced that it was shifting more of its resources to "revenue generating" enforcement activities. This meant backing away from highly effective activities such as education and treatment programs. As it turned out, they were also watching drug transactions, and letting them pass if the purchaser was driving a clunker, but swooping in on anyone in a fancy car with good resale value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fines as revenue = Bad practice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fines as revenue = Bad practice
Poor for whom? It seems to work out pretty well for those collecting the fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They might work
Since the city is enforcing the law with the cameras, the company that installed them shouldn't get a cut of any money made. They should be paid in full, or the city allots a payment from the city budget each year. If the money from the cameras isn't working, that means the cameras are doing their jobs.
Honestly, it's the company that put them cameras in that made the poor decisions here. Their product does exactly one thing: stop people from running red lights. When everyone is trained, the money stops coming in. Plain and simple.
But since money is the root of all evil here... *shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They might work
Their product does one thing: Take pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They might work
Their product does one thing: Take pictures
Same way that security posts at a store's exit stop a shoplifter: Deterrent. If you faced an $80 ticket, would you run through a red light? It keeps the people abiding by the law honest, and punishes the red light runners.
If someone with car insurance runs a red light and causes an accident, they pay the $500 deductible, and the insurance company picks up the rest. That turns into higher rates, even for those who don't have any accidents. If nobody ran red lights (or even yellow ones), how many intersection accidents would there be compared to everyone running red lights? Given, this shows both limits and somewhere in between is what is happening now. 1%, 5%, 8% of drivers run red lights? Either way you look at it, running a red light can and will eventually cause an accident which might also kill someone.
Your wife, children, mother or father could be killed by a red light runner who might've slowed down and stopped if he/she knew they were going to be caught. It's the same way DUI checkpoints deter drunk driving. If nobody got caught for DUI or DWI, then most likely more people would do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They might work
This is an important difference.
In Europe they've started with small fees for traffic infractions. A couple of euros (dollars if you will) for speeding 5km over the limit, staying in the left lane for too long (seconds)... It's a huge revenue generator. It has also created a lot more nervous drivers.
If the punishment is so important as a deterrent, then I would propose this: anyone who runs a red light is to be sentenced to 40 hours community service. Now you have the financial deterrent (people would have to take time off work), without anyone government body getting rewarded for citizens' bad behaviour.
You can even make it progressive. First offense: 10 hours, second offense: 20 hours, third offense: 40 hours.
There are lots of soup kitchens that can use the assistance.
--GJ--
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They might work
Since the "victim" is the community, the government should not receive financial compensation, but the community receiving service for the danger the driver posed is far more palpable.
"Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They might work
It seems to me that the possibility of being injured or killed would be much greater deterrent than the possibility of an $80 fine, so that logic just doesn't hold. No, the main purpose I see for red-light cameras is just to take people's money.
Oh, and I've got news for you: stores still have shoplifters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the real problem is...
Things like that happen. You gotta to draw your priorities, man.
You know, we shouldn't have to keep talking about this, children. But someone has to stick the CEO of RedFlex (Karen Finley) in the corner and pull her pants down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good reason for driving rental cars out of town too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I may stop in the middle of the intersection but if anything I clearly have evidence that I could have stopped but someone was tailgating me thus they should be the ones having the ticket.
Almost had someone rearend me once on a light. Stopped 2/5 into the intersection with them honking behind me. Guess who got the ticket?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, no you don't. That's the thing about red-light cameras, they don't show what led up to the situation like a cop watching the intersection would have seen. They're zero tolerance.
Almost had someone rearend me once on a light. Stopped 2/5 into the intersection with them honking behind me. Guess who got the ticket?
If it was from a red-light camera, that would have been you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead, I gunned it to make sure I made it through the yellow in time.
How is that safer, St. Louis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the plan is to have enough violent accidents that the entire population of St. Louis drops sufficiently so that there is no longer significant traffic on the streets, ergo no or nearly no traffic accidents.
Having spent time in St. Louis to watch the Cubs, I wholeheartedly endorse this fantastic St. Louis plan....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you just managed to quote someone in another story which has no bearing in this story and then write something from this story about St. Louis and try to tie it to baseball.
I think your helmet is severely affecting blood circulation to your brain, Dark Helmet. You may need to get that checked out. To make it easy, I found you a doctor with some things on their website you can read prior to your first visit:
http://www.chicagopsychiatry.yourmd.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red light camers
People either stop on green or slam on the breaks when the light has turned yellow to avoid getting a ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
never about safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camera Timing
Of course, what this really means is that anyone caught out by the camera has either made a conscious decision to run the red, or is so inattentive they shouldn't be driving anyway.
Is that really so hard to handle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Camera Timing
It's generally not that way in the US, which is what is being discussed. Is that really so hard to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intersection Cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]