Full stop!

Previously, it was reported that while the red light cameras do take pictures of cars that fail to come to a complete stop before making a right on red (or left, for intersections where that's allowed), the drivers are not cited for this. That earlier story made it sound like this was a judgment call, but it seems that it's a legal matter, one that may soon be addressed.

"The way the current city ordinance is written, turns are excluded, even if they are illegal turns," said Houston police Sgt. Michael Muench.

Traffic officers reviewed more than 1,000 violations caught on camera during the first two weeks of the program, the police department reported. A third were thrown out, many because the driver was making a right or left turn while running the light, Muench said.

Muench was unable to provide data on exactly how many violations were thrown out because the vehicle turned. Officials said officials would review the statistics before deciding whether to press for a change in the ordinance.

Councilman Adrian Garcia, chairman of the public safety committee that vetted the ordinance before approving it in late 2004, said he and his colleagues did not intend to exempt turning violators from the $75 civil citation.

The sticky part of the ordinance reads: "The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for a civil penalty of $75 if the motor vehicle proceeds into a system location without turning when the traffic control signal for that motor vehicle's direction of travel is emitting a steady red signal."

City Attorney Arturo Michel said the language was included to avoid ticketing vehicles that entered intersections legally but were caught there when the light turned red.

Councilwoman Pam Holm said the panel should consider amending the ordinance, and a spokesman for Mayor Bill White agreed that may be an option. "As with any new ordinance, we would always look for ways to make improvements, particularly if it involves public safety," spokesman Frank Michel said.

If the law is amended, it will come as a rude shock to the people who will get cited for doing something they're sure is legal. Last time I checked, though, ignorance of the law was no excuse, so now would be a good time to contemplate a modification of one's driving habits.

Now then. I'm going to take a moment here to review the things about red light cameras that do and do not concern me.

Things that concern me about red light cameras

1. Privacy - How long will the photos taken by these cameras be kept? Are there backups of the data, and if so how long are they kept? Who has access to these photos as a matter of course, and who can get access to them via an ad hoc request? What safeguards exist to keep people out of the data who don't belong there, and to prevent those who do belong there from sharing it with someone who doesn't? What remedies exist for when those safeguards are breached?

2. Impact on public safety - Do these things actually accomplish their stated goal, which is reducing accidents at the intersections where they are installed? Note that the type of accident matters greatly - even an increase in relatively minor rear-end accidents is acceptible if there is an accompanying dropoff in major T-bone wrecks. We've been promised data. I want to see it, and not just as a one-off. It should be done regularly, and it should be publicly available.

3. Revenue - I do not believe that red light cameras are "all about revenue". I will not be concerned if they turn into a decent revenue stream for the city, because frankly I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the folks who are running the red lights. What does concern me is the city coming to depend on this revenue as a means of funding ongoing, especially unrelated, budget items. In theory, over time these cameras should generate less cash each year, as people adapt to their presence. The fear is that the city will be incentivized to tweak things to maintain the stability of that revenue. Any temptation to muck with the length of the yellow light cycle at these intersections, as a for instance, should be resisted in the strongest possible fashion. Go back and review what this Dallas City Council member says about their cameras.

4. Due process - I don't like the fact that you as the owner of the car can be cited for the action of somebody else who happens to be driving it at the time. I'm not sure if I dislike that more than the idea of cameras that can record the face of the driver, however, since that raises the bar on the privacy concerns. I think this will be a relatively small thing overall, but we'll see. I will say this - if a person to whom I've loaned my car causes me to get a red light citation in the mail, and then does not immediately offer to pay the fine, well, at the very least that person will never be allowed to use my car again.

Things that do not concern me about red light cameras

1. The lack of signage at intersections where the cameras are installed warning of their presence. Sorry, but anyone who needs a sign reminding them that running red lights is against the law and may result in negative consequences gets no sympathy from me.

I think that about covers it.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on September 21, 2006 to Planes, Trains, and Automobiles | TrackBack