Find Reviews by Make:
From the Orlando Sentinel, [via TTAC commentator asickmf]:
A Sanford homicide suspect was arrested around midnight on Saturday when he ran a red light in Orlando.
Sanford police had been searching for Sergio Henderson after Robert J. Johnson, 37, was found dead near West 10th Street and Olive Avenue on Monday. Police believe there was a fight outside when the shooting occurred.
Henderson, 22, had just been released from prison on June 3. Since May of 2006 he had been serving time on offenses including battery on a law enforcement officer, burglary and vehicle theft.
22 Comments on “Another Reason Not to Have Red Light Cameras?...”
Read all comments
Scameras don’t catch fugitives, DWI drivers, or the unlicensed. They are not about law enforcement-moreso revenue. D’oH !
I don’t see the reference to a red light camera in the story itself…. did I miss it? I wasn’t aware that camera’s search license plate numbers in real time …..yet.
Given that and the fact that the guy caught was a murder suspect, I’m not sure that he makes a good poster child for those of us against red light cameras.
Edit….. OK, I get it now …. Had there been a camera replacing our cops. there would have been no arrest.
I think the point is that if the municipality in question had been using red light cameras instead of patrol cars to pull over light-runners, the guy would’ve just gotten a ticket in the mail, not pulled over and ultimately arrested.
Since TTAC has tilted against red light cameras in the pst, I’m assuming that this post is slightly sarcastic?
If fighting crime is a reason for red light camera, then why not have a camera at every intersection and in front of your house so that you wouldn’t have to dial 911.
And since speeding is illegal as well….let’s tie-in all the cameras with speed sensors and catch every speeder as well and everyone who doesn’t use their blinkers to signal a lane change or turn.
I think the point is that if the municipality in question had been using red light cameras instead of patrol cars to pull over light-runners, the guy would’ve just gotten a ticket in the mail, not pulled over and ultimately arrested.
And we have a winner! Red light cameras produce revenue, cops in patrol cars produce results.
And we have a winner! Red light cameras produce revenue, cops in patrol cars produce results.
What’s wrong with both?
The assumption that red light cameras and patrol cars are mutually exclusive is misguided, at best. It’s not an either/or situation.
And the winner is: the State.
While camera enforcement has its legitimate place it can also be easily abused.
Here in Germany there are cameras practically everywhere and the states rake in the Euros with them – a hidden taxation and another expense for vehicle owners.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/auto/2009/07/bussgeld-laendervergleich/wer-kassiert-wieviel.html
This is a silly angle. Obviously there is no way to afford as many police officers as there could be red light cameras. What’s next? Shall we suggest that all bugler alarms be replaced one-for-one with human officers?
There is nothing wrong with red light cameras as long as the yellow times are set to reasonable intervals instead of being gamed to maximize revenue.
I completely don’t understand the subject vs. the body of this article.
There is nothing wrong with red light cameras as long as the yellow times are set to reasonable intervals instead of being gamed to maximize revenue.
Agreed, but that proviso is contrary to what we have seen municipalities do. It isn’t in their nature to be ethical.
And if we implant a chip with a tiny GPS at birth, then we can track every citizen 24/7…
While a community could in theory roll out many red light cameras and at the same time keep all of its patrol officers, in these days of shrinking local revenues, I think it is a longshot. The city council will use evidence of increased tickets via the red light cams as proof of their efficacy in reducing moving violations, and as a reason to cut the budget for actual men and women on the street.
That being said, I am against red light cameras and speed cameras 100%. In most of these systems there is no way to prove who was driving the car, and you have to go to court, which is a monumental hassle, to argue your case if your plate is caught by one. The system assumes guilt, and thus IMO should be ruled unconstitutional.
TZ :
July 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am
The assumption that red light cameras and patrol cars are mutually exclusive is misguided, at best. It’s not an either/or situation.
———————————————-
Very true.
Another classical way to misguide people is to use an example of low probability and imply it as a common occurrence.
Exactly how many murders take place in our cities? For my city of 750,000, there are about 30 murders per year, or 0.004% per year. Out of the 0.004%, how many are solved? Out of the solved ones, how many are caught on the road by an officer and could not have been caught by the red light camera?
I am not saying red light camera is good or bad. I am saying the above story only provides an inconsequential story and really isn’t an evidence either for or against the case.
I’m surprised any cop in Central Florida actually pulled over somebody for running a red light.
I see this violation all the time, along with dangerous lane changes and other erratic behavior. Often there’s a cop within line-of-sight of the infraction, but RARELY will the light rack be activated.
I’ll buy the argument that cops are better than cameras, although not exclusively because of anecdotal stories like this.
I’ll buy it because human interaction is always better than the Big Brother, high-tech approach to law enforcement. Human interaction helps prevent crime, rather than merely document it. Humans can not only spot potential trouble before it happens, but they also put a real face on the law which is more difficult to scoff.
We lost something when we replaced beat cops with Crown Vics, and we lose even more when we replace Crown Vics with cameras.
And the winner is: the State.
While camera enforcement has its legitimate place it can also be easily abused.
Here in Germany there are cameras practically everywhere and the states rake in the Euros with them – a hidden taxation and another expense for vehicle owners.
http://www.bild.de/BILD/auto/2009/07/bussgeld-laendervergleich/wer-kassiert-wieviel.html
Wie spricht ein I, das dieses lesen soll, wenn ich nicht tun, Deutsches?
Too many red light/speed cameras? Two words: RAW EGGS!
Twotone
Lieber Herr Fritz,
Wie spricht ein I, das dieses lesen soll, wenn ich nicht tun, Deutsches?
For not speaking German your writing isn’t half bad!
I believe that most of this forum’s readers have enough grey matter to be able to click on the article link and figure out from numbers and German state names how much some states earned from photo radar in 2008.
Perhaps you might try a handy internet tool like a German dictionary or translator? Examples:
http://www.leo.org/
http://www.freetranslation.com/
Alles Gute!
We lost something when we replaced beat cops with Crown Vics, and we lose even more when we replace Crown Vics with cameras.
Amen.
Policemen are part of our communities. We need to have police officers more visible and present among us so that their role in society becomes more valued and appreciated.
When hiding in their police cars behind radar guns, our policemen are no longer one of “us” but become “them”.
As much as I dislike cameras, I have to agree that the issues of cameras and of using traffic stops to catch criminals are separate.
One reason that we have so many traffic laws, including some rules that don’t seem to make much sense, is because cops want legally valid excuses to have probable cause to stop us (including some constitutionally debatable ones.) The law basically requires that we be left alone unless we have been suspected of doing something, and this plethora of laws gives them something for which we can be suspected.
While most traffic stops don’t result in serious criminals being caught, most of the criminals who are caught are caught because of traffic stops. I’m supposing that this guy would have been pulled over, anyway, camera or not.
One reason that we have so many traffic laws, including some rules that don’t seem to make much sense, is because cops want legally valid excuses to have probable cause to stop us (including some constitutionally debatable ones.)
Not sure I’d agree that traffic laws were created specifically as an excuse to stop people, but I do lament the fact that this is the only way cops generally get to talk to people; after they have been branded as lawbreakers.
Once again, the cop-behind-a-camera mentality creates more technical violations while doing nothing to prevent real crimes from happening.