Arizona Dumping Redflex Cameras... But Giving Redflex An Award For Innovation?
from the and-what-kind-of-innovation-is-that? dept
Arizona has become ground zero with the backlash against redlight cameras, with plans to get rid of them across the state. And yet... Dave Records alerts us to the news that the annual "Governor's Celebration of Innovation" includes a variety of companies nominated for awards... including Redflex, the redlight camera maker who was just complaining that its revenue was dropping due to public opposition to such cameras. Oops.
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: arizona, innovation, redlight cameras
Companies: redflex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/09/valley_monkey_has_37_unpaid_ph.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This discussion is demagogy in its best
It must be noted, that it's extremely bad idea to cross an intersection on a red light. In fact, it is very deadly idea. People doing that should be caught and punished.
Now, if one who catch the offenders also making small fortune of this enterprise, good for him. Once upon a time, it was OK to make prisoners work on all kinds of not-very-pleasant works to compensate the state/society for their crimes. It is not such a bad idea.
Think about it: crossing on a red light is often equal to murder (i.e. someone dies in consequent t-bone collision). If it was possible to automate prosecution of other kinds of violent crimes (given due process) - would you oppose it? Of cause not.
It's not like you're punished on baseless accusation - there's actual due process in place. So, what do you mad at - that someone making profit of the crime? It was always the case.
Moral of the story - don't run to red light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
If that is the case, and is widely known, it would be hard to defend the reasoning for using them, wouldn't it? This can be seen in the positive conclusions made from research--which ONLY seem to focus on economic benefit and reduction in violations (which does not necessarily correlate with reductions in injury and death).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-14-redlightcameras_x.htm
http://www.tfhrc.go v/safety/pubs/05049/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
I have done technical consulting for a photo enforcement company so I understand the technology and methodology. Sensors detect a car running a red light, take photos (and in some cases video), hired hands look through the data for offenses, THEN, an OFFICER of the law/court/government reviews evidence and issues the ticket.
A person can still fight the ticket though the practive differs by locale. In some places, a photo showing the driver MUST be taken in addition to the red-light running evidence, to ensure who was driving. In other cases, video must be acquired to ensure that the red-light running wasn't done to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle. A person can still have their day in court if their locale allows it. If not, they should move:)
Long, long story short, it's technology being used (or misused) for better safety. It's no different than lasers or radar guns for speed enforcement; both can be used or misused depending on the will of the "legislators" or law men.
Again, don't blame the technology, blame the people who misuse the technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
It no longer brings a profit in that case though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
this involves catching not just the problem people, but also people caught out by the system being mucked around with.
also, it might be my imagination, but wouldn't, typically, if you ran a red light and had a T bone collision, the car running the light normally take the worse hit?
not always, mind you, but in most cases...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
Your argument might be more persuasive if that was the true goal of red light cameras. There have been many districts who implement the cameras not for safety, but for revenue. They have been caught reducing the yellow light time below a legal limit. This leads drivers to slam on their brakes when they see yellow, often resulting in rear end collisions. So, the red light cameras more often end up increasing accidents than decreasing.
Here are some examples of other stories this site has discussed that show that cities only use the lights for revenue and not for safety:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
If it were not for so many examples to the opposite, I would agree with your argument. However, I just do not believe that red light cameras are for safety. The safety of the people could easily be increased then by increasing the time of yellow lights. This would give people more time to stop safely before it is red.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
Either you believe that crime should be punished, or not. And running into red light is a crime no matter how you look at it.
If I force prisoners to work for profit, does this mean that "jail is bad idea because true goal is profit"? Answer is no. It has been tested numerous times in history.
Increasing length of yellow is similar to telling that stealing less than $100 is OK. Try this in your local store and see what happen.
Now, it doesn't matter whatever crap you believe. Run to red light, hit someone and THAN tell your bullshit about "true goal" to survivors. I'd like to see that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
"Increasing length of yellow is similar to telling that stealing less than $100 is OK."
Uhhh, what??? Those two things aren't remotely similar. Increasing the length of the yellow is increasing a safety margin and benefits everybody. What you said is like saying that making seatbelts more effective is similar to saying that stealing less than $100 is OK. It's a total non sequitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
And, the issue can't stop with a desire to punish. Punishments exist to create incentives for people to engage in safe behavior. Why? To reduce crashes and injury. If a method of enforcement increases or does not reduce injury, why would we not look for another solution?
Places of business have very strict policies that their typical (not security staff) employees do not ever pursue or attempt to detain criminals that have stolen their merchandise. These businesses still believe shoplifting and theft should be punished and realize that this policy may make that harder. The reason they do it is that it is likely to result in injury to the employee and liability for the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
"Either you believe that crime should be punished, or not"
Not true. I believe criminals should pay restitution to the victim or the community, and in the event someone is truly anti-social (not shy, which is unsocial, but truly sociopath anti-social) then they should be removed from society with an attempt at rehabilitation. Not simply lock them up for preset amount of time, and then let them go as they were.
I also believe the first form of retribution should be community service, not prison. I believe prison should be used for only the most violent and anti-social people.
I do not believe fines to a government are at all acceptable. I don't believe putting non-violent drug offenders in prison is at all acceptable. And I don't believe "punishing" "criminals" is at all acceptable. But I believe restitution to victims, community service for community endangerment, and rehabilitation when possible. And in extreme cases where the person cannot play nice with others, move them to an isolated community where they aren't a danger to society at large anymore.
"Increasing length of yellow is similar to telling that stealing less than $100 is OK."
How?!? NO IT'S NOT!
"If I force prisoners to work for profit, does this mean that "jail is bad idea because true goal is profit"?"
Actually, yes. Because jail is not a job. What you are talking about here is slavery, or at the very least indentured servitude. Because now, the prisons need to be filled in order for the prison to keep its profits up. If people aren't arrested & thrown in prison, then the prison can't afford to operate, so people need to be made into criminals so that they can become prisoners so that the prison can gets its "employees". Try putting an ad on Craigslist's job section for "Need Prisoners. Apply TODAY!" and see if that business model holds on its own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
If you force prisoners to work for profits, that DOES mean that prison is bad. Perhaps not from the perspective of those not in the prison, but certainly from the perspective of the prisoners and from the grander perspective of justice.
You concentrate on only the perspective of those outside the prison, which limits the power of your argument, in my opinion, to the point of irrelevance.
As others have said, I don't understand what you mean by saying yellow lights are like $100. You really have to explain that one better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
Sorry but I cannot correlate an automated justice dispensing mechanism to the 5th or 6th Amendments of the U.S. constitution. Where are you from?
I could not comprehend the rest of your post as I have been completely desensitized to children, atrocities, corporate greed and blood on the highways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
Than, on trial, evidence (photo of your car) is examined by judge.
Looks like due process to me.
P.S.
US Constitution doesn't apply for some places in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
Also, IME, some people drive far too crazy - where are the cameras mounted on my car to catch that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note to readers: Sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article is Wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article is Wrong! (Continued)
On another note, I have heard the argument that these cameras invade your privacy. Hehe, this is the most humorous of them all. It's a public road. DUH!!!
Basically, the uproar over the system as a whole is that people are pissed off that law enforcement has finally acquired the tools to help them do their job more efficiently and more people are getting caught!!! It just infuriates some that now they can't break the law as much as they used to without getting caught. What is the world coming to????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article is Wrong! (Continued)
Maybe in AZ, but for my part -- automated speed cameras and, to a lesser extent, automated red light cameras, really bother me a great deal. So much so that I avoid areas where they exist.
However, I do not speed nor run red lights. I have never been cited for either in my 30 years of driving. My objection to them has absolutely nothing to do with some kind of fear that I'm going to get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Article is Wrong! (Continued)
So you actually mean that your objection are actually not based on anything.
Since highway is not only public place, but place is supposed to be monitored, "privacy!" doesn't apply here. What's left? The fear to get caught.
Stop the bullshit and argue reasonably. "really bother me" is not a reasonable argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Article is Wrong! (Continued)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article is Wrong! (Continued)
In 1791(or 1792 I forget now) the 6th amendment to the U.S. constitution was ratified, which grants the right of the accused to face one's accuser in a court of law.
I do not think that just because the technology is there, that we necessarily need to toss out the adversarial system of justice.
Curtailing unequivocable and explicit rights for the sake of safety or for budgetary concerns of law enforement organizations is an easy road to tyranny that many people seem to think is OK. I do not think this is OK any more than I think it is OK for people to drive wrecklessly.
I'm sick of the "its too old to be relevant" arguments about the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article is Wrong! (Continued)
Also, "do their job more efficiently." That requires the question of what their job is. Is their job to simply catch people breaking the law? I thought it was to serve and protect. If that's the case, stopping speeders is protecting non-speeders. But that would require the argument that speed is in itself dangerous, and that's incorrect. Along with studies, common sense arguments can be made showing that fewer accidents occur on the highway, and that autobahn in Germany, with no speed limit in large sections, has a significantly lower number of accidents per miles driven.
I do not consider cameras an impingement on my privacy, per se. I see them as an impingement to freely live my life without constant monitoring. You liken cameras to legitimate officers, so shall I. If I was being followed and watched by a cop of every minute of my shopping trip (a la London), or drove past a cop every mile and a half (a la speed cameras), I'd start to get nervous and weirded out.
It's because systems like that are by their very nature accusatory. The argument "if I'm doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to worry about" is patently absurd. We all do something wrong. If I just drift over the speed limit one day, I don't want seas of cameras just waiting and salivating to nab me.
If the government is set up in such a way as to make us act differently than we would, we are not truly free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So who cares
Works for me. Never been nabbed yet and they're all over L.A. CA. So wash your car not your license plate. Special Detail Service for your car.
The more you squeeze, the more will slip from your grip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, a lot of people commenting here are working under the assumption that the technology in the cameras is infallible. This is far from the truth. VERY regularly there are stories of them malfunctioning; people with junker cars getting tickets for allegedly going 170mph, etc. Just two days ago I saw a news report about how the camera at ASU had a panel removed, and was suspected of being tampered with, so lots of people that had received tickets from it were fighting back.
If these technologies were flawless and error-free I would be much more accepting of them; yesterday I was driving through a SOLID GREEN (the red "don't walk" hand wasn't even blinking) at Southern and Mill Ave, and three people got flashed by it. It's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Y'all need to think a second.
To address a few concerns:
You still have to right to face your accuser. No where does it say you must face the accuser at the time of incident. That is why the court system mails you a court date AFTER you receive a ticket from an officer. Same goes with an auto-mated system.
Regardless of the end-goal, the actions of the individual receiving the citation are not swayed (the individual still controls the his own actions).
Now, on to my point(s).
I've stated this before. And I will do so till we stop fighting over this BS.
WE are the cause of accidents. Not the cameras. Who chooses the following distance? The speed? The use of the brakes? I know a camera doesn't control any of that in my vehicle. If we drive like a we cared about other people, like we cared about our own safety. Followed the laws, and used common courtesy, while driving, we wouldn't be in this situation. Yes, people are now slamming on their brakes to avoid the ticket, but anyone behind that vehicle SHOULD have enough stopping distance to not rear-end them. If they don't, it's not the camera's fault, it's the driver.
I can see the flip side. The cameras probably have caused more accidents, but how many, in comparison, are as "severe"? Kinda hard to T-Bone someone from behind the vehicle.
Simple way to stop the accidents. Stop thinking you own the road, stop driving while distracted (or even intoxicated), and follow the laws. Stop at red, slow at yellow. Don't follow so closely you can't avoid an accident. Things happen, other than a camera that causes people to slam on their brakes. And don't take unnecessary risks (like running the red/yellow because the guy ahead of you is pushing it close).
We are in control, not the cameras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crime with Monetary Punishment
Of course, when I finally get in a serious accident and someone dies, everyone will ask how I was still on the road after running 122 red lights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]