Your town wants to install red light cameras

...if it hasn't already. Times are tough, no one wants to pay more taxes...so who cares if we take a few Benjamins out of the bad guys' pockets to help our town make up its deficit?

Here's why:

Those who think red light cameras are a Good Thing are missing a few facts, which leads to people who consider themselves moral taking what turns out to be an immoral position—in the name of morality no less.

Any facts I cite can be independently verified by going to www.highwayrobbery.net and using its links to go to the original sources. The website is opposed to red light cameras, but the links go to things like the Virginian and Texas departments of transportation and other such relatively objective sites.

Argument 1: The law is the law. Don’t try to beat the yellow light and you won’t get a ticket.

Um, the cameras aren’t red light cameras. They’re yellow light cameras, because they’re only profitable when used in conjunctions with the shortest yellow light timing state law allows. There have been cases—including ones here in California—where the yellow light timing was actually illegal, and numerous fines had to be refunded.

The shortest timing that’s legal is 3.0 seconds. When that’s increased to 4 seconds, the number of infractions drops by 80% and pretty much stays there. It stays there because those who miss the yellow by less than a second aren’t trying to “push the envelope.” It just takes them that long to make the go/no go decision once the light turns yellow and to actually stop. It this were not so, the level of infractions would be the same as for 3 second timing after a short period of adjustment. But that’s not what happens.

You don’t have to believe me, though. Try it. Have the yellow light set to 4 seconds and see what happens. Only you won’t get to, because Redflex (the Australian company that makes and operates the camera systems) will refuse to allow their systems to be installed unless you time the yellow light as short as is legally permitted.

Locally, some of the most “productive” cameras exploit a special loophole in California state yellow light timing standards: it lets you use the minimal 3.0 second yellow light on the left turns from expressways onto city streets. There’s reason to believe that turn lights from high speed roads are the biggest moneymakers among so-called red light camera setups.

Worst yet, few accidents are caused by drivers turning through intersections in the first place. They’re caused primarily by drivers barreling through intersections, going straight, around 5 seconds after the light has changed. They aren’t trying to beat the yellow. They don’t even know the light is there, either because they’re drunk, or stoned, or distracted, or being chased by the cops, or chasing someone else. Red light cameras mean nothing to such people.

Just such a driver nearly killed my spouse and me a few months ago, so I’ve seen what I’m talking about. And a few years ago I was nearly killed on my bicycle by a teenage girl running a stop sign on a residential cross street. She never saw the sign, judging from her behavior as she tore across a thoroughfare at 35mph. Luckily she did so during a lull in the traffic. Only I would have been killed if I hadn’t stood on my brakes. Otherwise it would have been carnage.

And sometimes the law isn’t legal. For example, dozens of California cities have illegal contracts with Redflex that indemnify Redflex if the ticket count goes below a certain level. This is unconstitutional, under the “fruit of the poison tree” principle explicitly stated in the Constitution. And appellate judges are finding this to be the case in one jurisdiction after another. But these cases only become a binding precedent if they’re “published,” and California’s municipal governments have been successful at preventingt this to date.

At some point someone who gets a ticket will have the resources to take a case to the state Supreme Court, and then we might see many millions of dollars of tickets being refunded by cities. Every one of these illegal contracts state that they aren’t illegal, by the way, just before the illegal clause. And no “traffic commissioner” is going to overturn a ticket on these grounds. And no appeal will have a prayer of success unless you spend a lot on a lawyer or are one yourself. This makes the local traffic courts conviction machines, and everyone associated with them knows it.

All this parallels what happened half a century ago when many cities ran speed traps—abnormally low speed limits with half-hidden signage and a cop permanently stationed there. But the state legislature banned speed traps. What we need today is an update banning time traps, forcing cities to use reasonable yellow light timing. That will eliminate red light cameras, but it shouldn’t. It only removes them as a source of profits. They still work fine at helping police track down dangerous red light runners. Which leads me to:

Argument 2: Besides catching bad guys, red light cameras help fill city coffers.

The problem with this is that it’s blatantly immoral. But let’s start on a practical level. Half the money leaves not just our city but our state, going to an Australian company. What’s left goes to fill in the gap between what most of us earn and the 40% or so more than us that employees in the public sector get for comparable work. But all of that money moves out of residents’ discretionary income.

So these fines succeed in moving over half the money away from the local economy--Starbucks and Mike’s Bikes and Shady Lane and Safeway--all of which surely need our business. It's income redistribution from private sector employees to public sector employees plus a foreign country.

And on a moral level…suppose a the fine for a crime should be $100, just to pull a number out of the air. Only you make the fine $400—which is about what a red light camera ticket runs. Assuming the crime was committed, and the law was legal, and you got the right perp, then that $100 is perfectly justifiable. The other $300 is theft, no different than the last time I was in La Paz, Mexico, and a couple of local cops tried to shake me down. If you read that local cops robbed people they caught committing crimes, you'd demand that they be fired, wouldn't you? How is this any different?

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

So I’m appalled that our town's mayor actually brags about all the money he hopes to make off people he regards as criminals—except, as I’ve shown here, many of them will be manufactured criminals.

Speed traps are immoral. Time traps are immoral. Stealing from criminals is still stealing, and, yes, it’s immoral.

And if you advocate soaking lawbreakers for far more than the gravity of the crime justifies—you’re immoral.

---------------------------------------

But then I thought of a Plan B:

---------------------------------------

Personally I think we should have red light cameras, and ticket drivers who miss the light.

But they will be a cost item, not a profit item, because they'd be for missing four second yellows instead of three second yellows, and the fine would be $100 instead of $400. $100 is a deterrent for anyone with limited income, while $400 isn't a deterrent for the affluent, while a point on your driver's record probably is.

If my town's poobahs really think people missing yellow lights is a significant safety hazard, they should be willing to spend money to reduce it. And if they want to avoid the moral hazard of fining-for-profit instead of fining-for-prevention, they'll be happy with the least amount that deters instead of the greatest amount they can get away with.

Note that nearly all other states have red light fines in the $25-$125 range.

As for rolling right turns--those aren't a hazard for hitting other cars, but they do present a hazard for bicylists who are themselves running a red light. I'm a bicyclist myself but I don't approve of cyclists interfering with others' right of way. OTOH a rolling right turn isn't the driver's right of way either.

I think my compromise would be to ticket rolling rights but for, say, $50 instead of $400+. That's a deterrent but it isn't exorbitant.

Remember, exorbitant fines make ordinary citizens resentful of the law. We all keep a little record book in our heads of every time we think we were victimized--particularly by those with the power of the state held over our heads. The result is a citizenry actively looking for ways to evade the law, and, among the more juvenile, for opportunites to vandalize state property or even private property.

State lawlessness begets personal lawlessness.

Using the cameras the way I described here would strike most people as reasonable and fair, even when they did get caught. The current system has the opposite effect.

Red light cameras -- scams or safety devices?

I just had my day in court after getting a red light camera ticket. Here's the sort-of brief I handed the judge, along with copies of several judgments justifying my position:

Re: Case No. XXXXXX  in Superior Court of San Mateo, Southern Branch

People of the State of California vs. Ehkzu

 

I plead not guilty. I decline to testify. Acting in pro per, however, this is my case:

The city's case against me is based entirely on evidence obtained illegally, because the city's contract with Redflex violates state law by giving Redflex financial incentive to issue more tickets; and while the state law doesn't specify the remedy to this, the U.S. Supreme Court has supported the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle on several occasions as a fundamental feature of American jurisprudence, obviating the necessity of invoking it explicitly in every law.

While no published appellate ruling currently supports this interpretation of state law vis-à-vis the Redflex contract, several unpublished rulings (appellate and otherwise) support this interpretation and the logic of those rulings could certainly be used by the commissioner in this case. Also, several adverse appellate rulings either do not apply or contravene the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle, thus running a considerable likelihood of being overturned on appeal. 

Specifics: 

California vs. Nagai (case # LA007022PE), Superior Court, Orange County, January 23, 2007 [involving a comparable Redflex contract]:

"In interpreting other statutory language of Vehicle Code Section 21455.5, it has been held that the statute must be construed to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent; and to give the words of the statute their usual and ordinary meaning….Notwithstanding any facts to the contrary, this is a revenue driven pricing system, in direct violation of Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g)(1).

            "Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 is to be strictly construed. The statutory requirements are intended to provide protection to the motorist public, and a conviction cannot result from a violation of its statutory provisions. Accordingly, the defendant in case number LA007022PE must be found not guilty." 

California vs. Franco (case # 30-2008-93057), Appellate Division, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, November 21, 2008:

"Appellant contends evidence from the City of Fullerton's Automated Enforcement System was inadmissible because the City's contract with the camera operator contains a provision tying payment to the operator to revenue generated by the system. This court agrees, and the judgment is reversed…The contract at issue provides for a payment of a flat monthly fee, but also provides that service fees can be negotiated 'down or up, but not to exceed' the monthly rate…NTS has an incentive to ensure sufficient revenue are generated to cover the monthly fee…Because the City's contract with NTZS violated Vehicle Code section 21455.5(g), the trial court erred in admitting evidence from the automated enforcement system." 

Two contrary appellant decisions are often cited in finding against defendants in comparable cases. These are California vs. Brandel (case # CR.A.4548 [Trial Court: 014554 SAGB]), June 3, 2008; and California vs. McDonald (case # BR 04561, No. LC04465), February 23, 2009. 

Neither of these judgments find that the red light camera contracts of the cities involved were legal. They sidestep that issue. Instead, both judgments claim that the legality of the contracts is irrelevant to the cases being considered. 

Such findings flout the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" principle first confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307 (1939), and then further in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963). 

The "Fruit of the Poisonous" tree doctrine holds that evidence discovered through illegal search or other unconstitutional means may not be introduced by a prosecutor. An illegal contract between a city and a red light camera operator that incentivizes the private, for-profit operator to write more tickets is just such a poison tree. 

Both of these appellate judgments, by excusing governments' illegal conduct, foster disrespect for the law, which has far-reaching effects. I have traveled in countries where the law is for sale and no one in their right mind would go to the police for help unless they belonged to the ruling elite. I don't want that to happen here. Yet red light camera operations are starting to be seen as a sophisticated update of the good old speed trap, due in part to illegal contracts like Menlo Park's one with Redflex systems, compounded by some judicial authorities failing to hold cities accountable for such behavior. In a just system the perpetrator must not be allowed to retain the profits of his illegal conduct. Allowing cities to retain the monies collected from such modern-day "speed traps" violates this principle. 

In the case at hand, the city of Menlo Park was warned prior to signing the contract that its financial provisions contravened state law. It went ahead and signed that contract anyway. So it cannot plead ignorance. 

And in putting a red light camera on a left turn such as the one at Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road, the city perpetrates the image of doing this not for safety but for revenue enhancement. 

Studies conducted by impartial institutions (as opposed to those by the insurance industry, which has a powerful financial incentive involved) show that nearly all accidents caused by red light runners are caused by drivers barreling straight through an intersection—not turning. In fact, installing red light cameras on left turns increases rear end crashes substantially while doing little or nothing to reduce other crashes, since those are caused by drivers going straight through the intersection. 

[I have brought copies of legitimate studies substantiating my assertions, which I’d be glad to provide the court; and I could show in detail why the insurance and red light camera studies are bogus. I have a BA in Sociology from UCLA and am trained in assessing such studies.] 

Moreover, when red light cameras are installed on turns, they're almost always coupled with timing the yellow lights to the state minimum of 3.0 seconds, as is the case for the left turn at Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road. Impartial studies have also proven that increasing the yellow light timing by up to a second or so (depending on the specifics of the intersection) greatly reduces red light infractions, and claims by the insurance industry and the red light camera industry that drivers soon habituate have proven to be wildly exaggerated. Red light running goes up a little over time, but the number of infractions is still several hundred percent lower than when the light timing is set to the shortest time the city can get away with.

 There is no safety justification for using red light cameras on turns coupled with as-short-as-legally-possible yellow light timing. The only justification is revenue. And using law enforcement as a profit center is exactly what the moral hazard of incentivized red light camera contracts leads to.

Moreover, nearly half the monies collected from such red light camera traps goes out of state, and much of that out of country (since Redflex is an Australian company0. City government profits immediately, but that money comes out of citizens' discretionary income, and will not be spent on local businesses. This in turn decreases taxes paid to city government.

 Red light cameras used to improve safety, applied to drivers going straight through intersections, coupled with reasonable yellow light timing—not "what can I get away with" timing—is probably a good thing, as long as the operation is conducted above reproach—starting with using legal contracts. 

But using red light cameras primarily for revenue is immoral, corrupting, and ultimately self-defeating. There's a reason why California bans speed traps. I predict that eventually we'll get state Supreme Court rulings that will prove extremely costly for the 20 cities using illegal contracts—and we'll get state laws that force cities to use red light cameras for safety enhancement instead of as a hidden tax on motorists. 

Two additional points: researchers in Florida found that red light cameras coupled with short yellow light timing were particularly difficult for elderly drivers, causing an inordinate amount of infractions and accidents instead of improving safety. Their reflexes aren't up to the demands placed on them by short yellow lights. 

And I have found that as a reasonably fit bicyclist I often find myself facing oncoming traffic that has a green light while I'm still crossing an intersection, even when I start across promptly when the light turns green. Stoplight timings are based on the reflexes and mobility of a 30 year old driver in a late-model car. Bicyclists and the elderly are on their own. 

Instead of churning innumerable citizens through a red light camera operation for money, Menlo Park should be focusing on improving road safety and getting its revenue through legitimate means.