In keeping with that very modern desire to find complex solutions to problems that don’t exist, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg expressed his desire on Monday to put cameras on “every corner of the city” to enforce observance of red lights and, eventually perhaps, speed limits. And so, in the same year that the Los Angeles City Council considered the evidence from its trial run and unanimously voted to do away with L.A.’s camera system, explaining bluntly that the “program did not work as anticipated,” Mayor Bloomberg is blithely seeking to expand New York’s camera network.
Advertisement
As the Los Angeles experience demonstrates, Bloomberg is swimming against the tide. There is no electoral mandate for the introduction of so-called “safety” cameras in the United States. In fact, the opposite is the case: Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote in America. This looks unlikely to change any time soon: In response to the panoply of attempts to institute camera regimes in a variety of cities over the last 20 years, 15 states and countless cities have passed measures that expressly prohibit ticketing based on camera evidence. Perhaps most famously, Arizona recently declined to renew its flagship speed-enforcement program after just two years of operation, during which time motorists had revolted against the measure to such an extent that they paid only 30 percent of all tickets issued, and even rendered cameras inoperative with Silly String, Post-It notes, pickaxes, and bullets.
Such contempt is not new. Americans have been uncomfortable with the intrusion from the outset. The first speed-camera systems installed in the United States were in Friendswood, Texas, in 1986 and La Marque, Texas, in 1987, and both programs elicited such vehement public opposition that they were dropped within a matter of months. Americans are wise to react in this way: Traffic cameras have no place in a free society.
The issue touches on first principles. There is a strong constitutional case against enforcement cameras, and it is one we should not be afraid to make, despite the condescending way in which such talk is peremptorily dismissed by camera advocates. Laws are contracts between people: They are passed by people, enforced by people, and adjudicated by people. It should be no other way in a country whose Constitution starts with the words “We the people.” Specifically, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of the accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Clearly this is impossible when the witness is a camera. The social compact — like a skyscraper, which must be designed to be able to sway slightly in the wind — needs a certain pliancy to survive. There is an important space between the spirit and the letter of the law, one that a machine cannot navigate.
Driving is complex. We do not passively hitch our vehicles to a regulated monorail and sit back with folded arms. Rather, we enjoy the autonomy of employing our judgment and reacting to the conditions around us. It is sensible, of course, to set rules governing drivers’ conduct on the public roads, but not to divorce these rules from reality, or enforce them blindly out of context.
A police officer is capable of making necessary judgment calls and taking the driving environment into account. There are certain questions that are germane to establishing the severity of an offense: Was the accused keeping up with traffic? Were the roads wet? Was the speeder reacting to a dangerous or reckless driver? And what about those who endanger others by, say, driving too slowly? Machines cannot answer these questions, only people can. Only people should.
In a preemptive response to such criticisms, Mayor Bloomberg contended that there is an economic advantage to enforcement cameras, as they are cheaper than employing more people. This is undoubtedly true. But leaving aside cameras’ lack of capacity for common sense and discretion, there is a real cost to reliance on technology. Although serious, speeding and running red lights are not the only issues on America’s roads. Dumb cameras can do very little to detect other problems, such as drunk or dangerous driving. More problematic in camera-heavy areas, particularly in rural locations, is the temptation to fall into a false sense of security and reduce the number of police and patrol officers. This can have the unfortunate side-effect of encouraging other dangerous behavior, which cameras cannot catch.
Further, the experience of Europe teaches us that programs that start with relatively innocuous red-light cameras rarely end there. To see where this road leads, one needs to look no further than the United Kingdom. The Scepter’d Isle is now enveloped by a sordid web of almost two million surveillance cameras, which are incessantly taking photographs and videos of its citizens, the vast majority of whom are innocent. The average Briton is caught on camera 70 times per day — more frequently in London and other major cities. On the road, ubiquitous “average speed check” cameras, which photograph every car at least twice along a given stretch of road and then calculate the average speed it was going, do not — cannot — distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. The upshot is that in the U.K., Orwell’s Telescreens may be not in our bedrooms, but they are everywhere else.
In some boroughs of London there are even cameras that regulate parking. Unsurprisingly, stories abound in which fines have been issued to those who were merely unloading their vehicles or dropping off passengers, but who were caught by a camera inherently incapable of making a reasonable distinction. Indeed, so surveillance happy is the British government that, with a straight face, it has proposed installing state GPS trackers in every car and taxing drivers by the mile. With such a clear example of the endgame across the pond, there is no excuse for anyone in America to claim that he cannot see where the camera culture inevitably leads.
If the citizenry nonetheless accepts the imposition — something Americans have been admirably steadfast in refusing to do — the revenues from a camera culture can be considerable. Last year, the city of New York took in $52 million from its 150 existing red-light cameras. If his purpose is to increase revenues, Mayor Bloomberg is sensible to advocate an expansion of the program, but he could at least be honest with his constituents as to why he thinks the proposition so necessary. And then, as elsewhere in the country, it should be put to a vote.
— Charlie Cooke is an editorial intern at National Review.
Pennsylvania is considering making the red light cameras legal statewide. Currently they are only legal in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. I smell revenue enhancement over safety already having lived in Germany years ago and familiar with their speed cameras.
"In a preemptive response to such criticisms, Mayor Bloomberg contended that there is an economic advantage to enforcement cameras, as they are cheaper than employing more people. This is undoubtedly true. But leaving aside cameras’ lack of capacity for common sense and discretion, there is a real cost to reliance on technology. Although serious, speeding and running red lights are not the only issues on America’s roads. Dumb cameras can do very little to detect other problems, such as drunk or dangerous driving. More problematic in camera-heavy areas, particularly in rural locations, is the temptation to fall into a false sense of security and reduce the number of police and patrol officers. This can have the unfortunate side-effect of encouraging other dangerous behavior, which cameras cannot catch."
I found this to be one of the strongest arguments against the camera systems.
Despite what the pols supporting cameras may say, it's all about finding more revenue to fund their continuing assault on freedom. Not only do the cameras not increase safety, here in Chicago they've been shown to decrease it, as motorists second-guess themselves at dangerous intersections and make bad driving decisions. More insidious is the camera-culture's creation of a citizenry that obeys laws only because they are being watched and not because it's the right thing to do in a free society.
This is antectodal. People approaching red light intersections in NYC come almost to a stop when the light turns yellow when they ordinarily would simply pass under the yellow safely and legally. I find myself doing it all the time. There seem to be more rear end collisions at such intersections.
Would be much more impressed if Nanny Bloomberg directed his traffic minions to fix the Belt Parkway, BQE and Cross Bronx, preferably quickly. Instead cones closing lanes pop out on highways for miles with no work being done.Yet contracts for midtown pedestrian plazas and bike lanes are quickly completed.
Many of those arrested (and convicted) after the recent British riots were apprehended as a result of CCTV cameras -- as has been true of criminals in Britain for a long time. Studies show the cameras prevent crime and increase arrests when crimes occur. Take a look at Crimewatch on the Beeb sometime. Where is the outcry in Britain against what you call the "sordid web" of these cameras? You may make an argument, but please be fair in presenting the facts.
Ha! spenser dont make me laugh!!!!
The UK has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world! Those CCTV cameras are the reason that most of the young people in the UK walk around with hoodies. And those that got caught in the riots were but a tiny fraction of the rioters and were the ones dumb enough to loot without concealing their faces.
Less restrictive gun laws would have prevented those riots as well as the epidemic of muggings, break ins and home invasions that go on in Britain everyday despite the widespread presence of these cameras.
Houston just turned their camera off in a game which involved the people voting to remove them, a judge declaring the election invalid, the city council turning them back on to avoid a lawsuit with American Traffic Solutions, and, finally, the city council discovering the will of the people might just give them the boot.
All traffic control systems are designed to be used by fallible humans. These systems capitalize on predictable human behaviour.
The reason the system failed in Friendswood, TX (a colleague programmed the system) was that it could not discriminate between the hoi polloi and the policemen and judges who were ensnared. It was pulled for purely political reasons.
1. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a car.
2. The "contract" we as a society have agreed on as "the law" contains a set of absolute speed limits and an absolute prohibition against running red lights. You don't need to confront a witness to defend yourself on the grounds that you were driving your pregnant wife to the delivery room.
3. The reason we don't like these laws is that we don't like paying for getting caught in circumstances in which we feel we shouldn't be punished. Period. You'd be far less outraged if, instead of getting fined, you got a letter from the DMV with the picture of your violation and a message: "Hey -- don't do that!" I don't like these laws either, but there's absolutely nothing about them that's inimical to a free society. The Sixth Amendment stuff is garbage.
4. This is why I say that, when conservatives express high-minded resentment about their precious American liberty being curtailed, they're demeaning that very liberty I treasure as much as they claim to, because all they really mean is, "I don't want to pay for that."
1. The contracts with the private camera companies often stipulate that the yellow light time be shortened to increase profits, at the expense of safety. Even without the contract stipulations the city has a perverse incentive to do so.
2. They also usually do not synchronize the lights because this too decreases their profits.
3. They often do not allow right on red at camera lights, as this complicates installation of the camera system, driving up start up costs.
4. Studies have shown that they increase accidents, not decrease, partially because of the reasons above, partially because people will slam on their breaks at a yellow light, rather than ease on them, to make the chance of running closer to 0, causing the slower stopping Mack Truck behind them to crash into them.
5. If the scenario of the large truck above happens in front of a cop, and the driver runs a red light to avoid being hit, he won't fault you and just give you a warning, because he saw the whole thing, and because he gets little to no personal profit from it and he actually cares about the spirit of the law, safety.
6.Law enforcement by private for-profit corporations, you should understand the implications.
If the city wants revenue they should raise a tax, if the people don't want a tax, tough noogies to the city.
Bugg, that's exactly right. I do the same thing in Manhattan at red lights. I find myself looking more for the countdown on the flashing red crosswalk thingy than I do for living and breathing pedestrians. Countless is the number of times that I have almost been rear-ended by an irate cabby for stopping early at a yellow light that would have been much, much safer to just blow through.
And yet, it's even worse to drive in and around the DC area. Driving conditions in DC are paranoia-inducing. I actually did get a camera-generated ticket for running a red light in DC 10 years ago or so. Sure, I ran it. No question, and I paid the fine. But it was an Orwellian moment for me to see a picture of my car on a government summons. A rough wake-up to what happens when liberals are allowed to run a city for far too long, a la Bloomy.
And my friends in DC are desensitized to it, even the conservatives among them. The conservatives roll their eyes when the topic comes up. The liberals look at you the same way a dog looks at a speaker playing music: "what are those puzzling noises coming out of that thing"?
"The reason we don't like these laws is that we don't like paying for getting caught in circumstances in which we feel we shouldn't be punished. Period. You'd be far less outraged if, instead of getting fined, you got a letter from the DMV with the picture of your violation and a message: "Hey -- don't do that!" I don't like these laws either, but there's absolutely nothing about them that's inimical to a free society. The Sixth Amendment stuff is garbage."
Nice try. Sadly, though, writing "Period" indignantly at the end of your sentence doesn't make it true, and doesn't close down the conversation. This is nothing to do with the money, it's to do with a surveillance society in which no judgement can be exercised. I would not be far less outraged if I received letters from the DMV. I may be less annoyed, but I would be less annoyed to receive a $50 fine than a $5,000 fine. The amount is debatable, the principle is not.
No amount of rationalization can change this fundamental fact: Those who oppose traffic cameras do so because they do not like having to pay for violating the law.
For far too many Americans, enforcement of laws in general, and traffic laws in particular, is quite literally a game. When their violations can only be punished by a very expensive police officer actually observing them in the act, there's relatively little prospect of being caught. With the use of traffic cameras, the odds shift dramatically, and there's the rub.
Here's a thought: Obey the law and you won't have problems with traffic cameras or police officers.
uh... Charles... What about all the private security cameras that, while recording their assigned zones, pick up street intersections, too? Would your defense attorney-self argue inadmissibility on behalf of your drunk driver client?
I agree with Bugg. They've put tons of cameras along Pelham Parkway (The Bronx's major east-west corridor) and have done nothing to improve the road, which is collapsing because it's not built to withstand heavy bus traffic, and the damage massive tree roots have inflicted upon it.
They've expanded sidewalks Boston Post Road and Southern Boulevard, taking away traffic lanes, yet very few people walk that section of road.
NYC transportation policy has been anti-driver for decades. This has to stop if we're ever going to revitalize the city and state.
"Traffic cameras have no place in a free society."
I can only say .. right on! Preach it!
Yes, I know that traffic cameras are "for our own good". Just as helmet laws, prohibition of dodgeball, no swings on playgrounds are "for our own good".
I'll take a slightly more dangerous world where I'm expected to be an adult and take care of myself over a world where I'm infantilized by minders who are petrified by the thought I would hurt myself if they weren't there to help me. So good riddance to traffic cameras.
It is almost laughable when bloomberg's name is mentioned as a possible contender in the Republican Party. In the days of Nelson Rockefeller it might have been plausible but today----NEVER. He is nothing more than a left winger dressed up as a RINO.
The excuses offered as to why the apparent violation (car proceeding through a red light) should not be proof positive of guilt are very weak. Anyone who was actually rushing an injured person to the hospital (note: a judge will instantly find you guilty when you make this claim, some will actually say "you are the 37th person to use this excuse... today") is not automatically guilty - that's what trials are for.
What outcome would you expect if you admitted to an officer that you in fact did go through the light?
What outcome would you expect if you admitted to a judge that you in fact did go through the light?
I have a single camera ticket episode in my past. I got a letter showing a car and plate passing a red light, and demanding payment.
Problems:
1. not my car
2. the plate had been stolen, and reported stolen, and replaced by the DMV many months earlier
I explained this by mail. They gave up. Total cost to me: a 1st class stamp.
In my neighborhood (Hempstead, Long Island), police don't issue tickets (it interferes with their donut schedule), and cameras are the only enforcement we have.
Follow
