He wants cameras at intersections
By adamg - 3/15/07 - 7:37 am
David Guarino is happy that Salem is moving toward installing cameras at intersections to try to catch people who run red lights and do other Massholish things:
... Like most folks, I wasn't so militant about this until I had kids. Now, every idiot on the road is a potential killer of my little boys. If a ticket from a camera stops some moron from running a red and slamming into my Jetta while Owen is pointing out the birds in the sky and Jake is quietly trying to scratch his brain through his nose – more power to 'em. ...
Comments
I Kindly Disagree
While I appreciate where he's coming from, the less cameras on me, the better I like it. As the years drag on, and I find that real privacy becomes more and more of a scarce commodity, I will never be in favor of anything that lessens mine.
The cameras only activate if
The cameras only activate if you enter the intersection after the light has turned red. Therefore, there is no privacy issue to be concerned about, as the cameras aren't recording anything unless a vehicle is running the red.
If you are running the red, then you really shouldn't have any expectation of privacy.
I rudely disagree ...
Cameras do nothing to improve safety at traffic lights. It's technology in search of a use.
It's nothing more than an infringement on our right to privacy.
How is it "technology in
How is it "technology in search of a use" when anyone who travels Massachusetts roads on foot or in a vehicle can tell you that red light running is a very real, and very widespread danger.
Somehow people are all for law enforcement, except when it comes to driving, and any proposed regulation suddenly has no legitimate value whatsoever in the minds of many, even if there is a clear problem in need of a remedy. The only other alternative is to pull more cops off of even more vital work to monitor intersections. Even then, there simply are not enough to match the abilities of a camera system.
I'm all for installing them at as many intersections as possible with one caveat...several communities have passed laws dictating that the yellow signal timing cannot be adjusted downward once cameras have been installed, and I believe the same thing would be essential in Massachusetts. The rampant corruption in state government could easily blow the opportunity to use intersection cameras to save lives, and instead milk them for revenue generation by creating situations where you have virtually no time to stop once the lights have begun to change.
If this latter issue is addressed, then I really don't see any reason why they couldn't be a useful addition to Massachusetts roads.
is there really a problem that needs to be solved here?
Massachusetts already has the lowest motor vehicle fatality rate in the country.
I think traffic flow would slow to a crawl in some places if you didn't allow 3-4 cars to turn left after the light turns red.
Mortality versus morbidity
Lowest fatality rate. Usually one of the highest accident rates. One of the highest for injury accidents too - lots of hospitals and dense population and high congestion=lower speeds means fewer die. Takes turns with RI and DC for least knowledgeable drivers.
Death isn't the only endpoint of concern here - injuries cost big money and that isn't even factoring in the very high rate of pedestrian injuries in MA.
A Suggestion
Instead of watching your the birds or boogers your kids are busy with, a better awareness of your surroundings would probably serve you better.
Awareness only goes so far
Awareness only goes so far when someone else is running a red light though. A friend and I once nearly got obliterated when a van flew through a red light at probably about 50 MPH, and while it wouldn't have been our fault at all, we also wouldn't have been around to be vindicated.
Nowhere does the OP say he's paying more attention to kids than road.
Any preventative effect or just revenue enhancement?
Do cameras like this have ANY proven deterrent effect?
Have there been any studies that show fewer people run red lights at intersections with cameras?
Or do these merely notice who ran the light and mail out tickets after-the-fact? Tickets which can't even determine who was driving (if multiple people in a family share a car).
If an intersection's really dangerous, better to put a live cop there. If somebody's actually driving recklessly, a cop can stop them immediately, rather than just snapping a photo and sending them a fine days or weeks later.
Lisa Nails It!
This is the key issue: do they work.
Massachusetts governments do way too many feel good things - passing laws that are not enforced - and way to many grandstanding things. Massachusetts cities, towns, and state agencies do way too little looking around at what has worked elsewhere and what has not.
We would all be better served by a best-practices mentality in government and in roadway and intersection design. These cameras have been used all over the country. There should be plenty of data to determine if they work or if they do not and WHERE they work and where they do not.
Tickets which can't even
The cameras take a picture of the front and rear license plate's as well as the driver's face.
facial pics don't hold up though
There was something about this in Car and Driver several years back. Apparently the cameras are perfectly legal for infractions for which the owner is responsible, such as running a toll, because cameras are sufficient for identifying a vehicle if they get a clear plate shot.
But they're not sufficient for identifying a person's face. Sure, you could look at a pic of my car with a blonde female driver and reasonably conclude that it's me, especially since I can't readily find you someone who looks enough like me and would admit to having driven my car.
But in order to convict me based on this, you'd actually need forensic scientists to measure angles of the picture and whatnot and give an expert determination that it was in fact me. I'm not certain, but I believe you might also need a jury, or at least a judge, involved. The forensic stuff is done for photo evidence in situations such as robberies, but they're not going to spend that kind of money for red light tickets. They get their money because most people pay the ticket without fighting it, but the C&D article was saying that they actually have no grounds for presuming guilt based on a photo.
NPR story: Court Hears Case Against Red-Light Cameras
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7859094
the same technology is used
the same technology is used at the toll booths to prevent people from jumping the fast lane. i am totally opposed to using these intersection cameras, though.