Miracle of Miracles, I am on the same side of an issue as the ACLU.

I think photocop is just fine. Taking a picture of my car when I am breaking the law on a public street does not impose on any civil liberty I ever claimed to have. What they do with the information after the ticket is finalized is another story, but using cameras to catch law-breakers and raise some much needed money strikes me as a-okay.

""using cameras to catch law-breakers and raise some much needed money strikes me as a-okay.""

I may be able to agree with you to a point, but should YOU be charged with running a light when it was your friend that did it while borrowing your car. Should YOUR insurance go up, should YOU be liable for the fine. That's what bugs me, now they are claiming the owner of the car is responsible for it's use. What's next?

Flash

What next - photocops and smoke detectors inside Minneapolis bars and restaurants?

Hey - why not 'round the clock surveillance of City Council members so we can catch them shaking down local business-owners. I mean, as long as they're honest they don't have anything to worry about, right?

Kevin,
What about your right to cross examine, or even confront your accuser? Do you get a court order to take the camera down and bring it into the courtroom?

Ye Gawds, I'm agreeing with Flash!

The whole thing bothers me on many levels. Can you get a ticket while you're not driving? There's certainly no right to face your accuser ("Tell me Mr. Photocop, did you actually see me? Speak up, I can't hear you."), there's a good degree of trust of the company running the equipment required and we've seen that they're not always scrupulous.

This is probably one of those decisions like Kelo that cuts across ideology.

That's ridiculous. The camera is not accusing you of anything. That's like putting a radar gun on the stand after you get caught speeding.

Flash - Don't let other people drive your car. It's a massive insurance risk for you and them. Common sense.

Nightwhatever - If we want to track corrupt Minneapolis council members (a little redundant, eh?) in their private lives we can use the domestic surveillance techniques allowed in the US for decades. They worked for getting mobsters, so they should work for Minneapolis politicians (the joke is there is no difference, ha!).

Just checking your list Mitch.

take your guns....nope
take your picture at a stop light....nope
listen in to your phone conversations...sure thing no problem.

""That's ridiculous. The camera is not accusing you of anything. That's like putting a radar gun on the stand after you get caught speeding.""

Not really, with a radar gun you can call the cop to testify, you can challenge him on the calibration of the radar, you can make him identify you. At least you can address your accuser, the one who wrote the ticket. He is then burdened (beyond a reasonable doubt) with justifying the reliability of the radar. With a camera, there is no one to cross examine.

"Don't let other people drive your car. It's a massive insurance risk for you and them. Common sense."

You're kidding, right. So my wife can't drive my car, or my son. Come on now, admit it, that was a pretty poor argument!

Flash

Wouldn't want the government spying on citizens, eh Mitch?

Yeah Mitch, keep that in mind next time you're on the phone with an Al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Some much for your precious civil liberties, eh?

So your wife and kids aren't on your insurance plan?

Still, your wife gets a ticket in your name from driving your car. Go to court and make them prove you were driving the car. I thik you'll win easily.

Has anyone received a photocop ticket? Is it signed by a camera? Doubt it. From what I've read, the bad photos are weeded out and then the MPD issues the ticket with the photo as evidence, making the MPD (or maybe the city, never got a ticket don't know) the accuser. You can then go to court and confront the accuser - the MPD or the City - and challenge their evidence, which is the photo. There again since the burden of proof would be on the people who issued the ticket, I would think your case would be open-and-shut unless they had a picture of your face in the car.

Radar guns have been brought into court.

As far as phone conversations, If I get a call from a guy in Pakistan and the NSA thinks he might be a terrorist, the NSA has my permission to tape the whole deal.

Anyone who has researched the technology and its application knows it's a revenue driver and has nothing to do with law enforcement. It's just a cheap way to make big bucks with no impact whatsoever on public safety.

MPD claims 53% reduction in accidents at intersections with cameras.

It makes no sense to oppose this program unless you are a red-light runner. There is no civil right to obscurity. If you're out in public, you're fair game. Ditto for cameras like London has. It seems like as soon as the police get a little too efficient at enforcing traffic laws, there is an outcry in the name of "civil liberties". This is outrageous. If the law unnecessarily strict, then get the law changed. While most speed limits are probably unnecessarily strict, I don't think red light laws are. I think the police have the right priorities here, since red light running is extremely dangerous. Driving is not a civil right either.

If I ever get a ticket from one of those cameras after I accidently slide through an intersection during a snowfall (which happened to me last week), I'm going to raise all holy hell.

eracus, I take it you are one of those who has researched this issue? You wouldn't care to cite articles for us would you?

Here are two articles I found. They are government funded so there is some inherent bias. Take them for what they are worth. The first article seems to indicate that there is a reduction in right angle crashes that is partially offset by an increase in rear end crashes. There is an overall positive economic benefit according to the study.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/

This article gives a summary of the research and some positive implementation examples.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rnt4u/ti/rlcameras.htm

Not meant to be an exhaustive summary by any means, just a starting point.

Phipho beat me to challenging Eracus' post. I *have* researched the issue - quite extensively. There are valid studies that report reductions in right angle crash rates and increases in rear-end rates (that occur when people actually stop for lights that are about to turn red and other drivers still hoping to make it through on a "late yellow" plow into them). There is some controversy over a study by Burkey and Obang that finds increased accident rates at red light camera intersections. The Insurance Institute contends that Burkey and Obang failed to adequately account for red light cameras being installed at interesections with higher accident rates. Former House Speaker Dick Armey contended that cities use red light cameras to generate revenue by purposely keeping the signal change interval for yellow lights unacceptably short. Both the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as well as MN/DOT have formulas for determining the appropriate signal change interval based on 85th percentile speed, grade, size of intersection, etc... My own spot check for the research I was involved in found that yellow light timing was within the guidelines. Many intersections also incorporate all red phases. Anyway, yes red light cameras can be revenue generators, but to say that it has no impact on safety ingnores facts.

Also, the ACLU plays both sides of the issue. Where it suits them (Minneapolis) they claim RLC's violate rights by not identifying the driver (taking a face shot, for instance). In other locations they contend that face shots violate privacy.

My research resulted in a recommendation to NOT implement the program in the City i did the research for. There are other means of effective enforcement available.

Wow, a PB length post without the rightous indignation.

Photocop technology has been in use elsewhere for more than a decade. There are studies and there are more studies and then there is what is actually experienced in practice.

In Washington, DC, for example, it is common for traffic enforcement to ticket every legally parked car on a residential street regardless of permit (yes, you need a permit to park on a public street in front of your own house). The local government does this routinely because it knows the rate of collection far exceeds the cost of court contests because most people would rather just send in the check than traverse the byzantine route to a hearing, in which they have no guarantee of winning relief, and which, by design, costs them more in lost time and money than just paying the ticket.

It is the same with photocop ticketing at stop lights, but which involves a moving violation, which increases the insurance rates of safe drivers who would otherwise go undetected, thereby not only increasing city revenues, but also the profit margin of insurance companies that sponsor the studies in the interest of "public safety," and then lobby the government to install the equipment. It is profit, not public safety, that drives the technology AND public policy.

If this technology were about anything else than just another cheap way to take your money, there would be no debate. The data would show the rate and severity of accidents is reduced, insurance rates would adjust to the new, improved level of safe city driving, and city costs would be reduced by the need for less traffic enforcement and damage to public property.

Name one city in the world where this is actually the case. You can't. It doesn't happen.

MPD claims 53% reduction in accidents at intersections with cameras.
Posted by Dave S. at December 21, 2005 01:48 PM

MPD claims the intersection of Nicolette and 7th is safe after dark too. Anyone care to test this claim?

Eracus,

your first argument is based on the theory that insurance companies will reduce consumers rates if there is a reduction in expenses. This is not always the case. An example of this is the insurance industry in Texas. Several years ago they pushed for a relaxation of requirements to cover black mold damage to residential property due to losses suffered on claims of this nature. Texas at that time had some of the highest rates for homeowners insurance in the country. Several years after the adjustment with revenues well into the black and the industry had still not responded with lower rates. The state ended up taking most of the insurance providers in the state to court to force them to lower rates.
My own insurance company is still fighting them on this point.

Your point that there are no examples of cities where accidents and property damage has been reduced is simply not true. I have read several studies that indicate that the most dangerous and damaging types of accidents are reduced with the use of red-light cameras. Data comes from 2 cities in particular, Oxnard California and Fairfax Virginia. Data in studies from each of these two cities indicate a mixed result. There tend to be fewer of the more severe front to side collisions while there is an increase in rear end collisions. As I noted in previous post the overall economic impact has been shown to be a reduction in total economic damages due to red-light collisions. The following website gives a nice FAQ on the issue. The cameras will make money for a municipality but the main intent is deterrence. Usually there is a large scale publicity campaign (paid for by the revenue generated by the cameras) and sign postings warning of the presence of cameras. A California study cited on this site reported that red light cameras were not large revenue generators. Only two of California's seven state programs were on a break even or better basis. I agree that insurance companies often want to have it both ways but that does not mean red-light cams are not a good program. It just means that insurance companies ( large contributors to Republican coffers by the way) are greedy money grubbing b#$%^&&'s that should be deported enmasse..... without trial......and have their phones tapped......and their conventions monitored.

Forgot to post the site, sorry.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html#6

From CBS and AP

"Since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the government has focused on preventing and disrupting attacks rather than building court cases against suspected terrorists. But experts cautioned that future legal prosecutions could be tainted if evidence was uncovered about a terror plot using a wiretap determined to be improper.

"Imagine if there is evidence critical to a criminal prosecution and the defendant challenges the evidence because it is constitutionally suspect," said Beryl Howell, former general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It could jeopardize any criminal case."

You see, using constitutionally invalid measures means you GET NOTHING when it comes time to prosecute, but I guess, if you intend to put people in jail indefinetely without charging them, then that doesn't matter.

As was written two days ago, this stupid act, considering FISA is notoriously easy, jeapordizes any legitimate legal course. Unless you intend to stop them by simply shooting them, Padilla and Hamdi clearly are showing you don't get to hold them indefinetely, and any evidence gained by this method, and any evidence stemming from it, all are likely to be excluded. So beyond being a gross Constitutional violation (IMHO), it's profoundly stupid.

Sure am glad we have the Prez protectin' our secyerty. It's too bad he doesn't recall an oath to protect the Constitution as well.

PB

ack.. scrolled down too far, apologies all.

PB

"I have read several studies that indicate that the most dangerous and damaging types of accidents are reduced with the use of red-light cameras."
----------
Cite your studies and check their sponsorship. You will find the majority are sponsored by insurance companies heavily funding both political parties, which is their right, but reports the inherent bias of the studies they produce.

Further, a "mixed result" is not evidence of anything, let alone a reduction in accidents or property damage. By your own argument then, there is no direct public safety benefit from red-light cameras other than to generate revenue that would not otherwise be collected.

If the argument for red-light cameras' effect on public safety was demonstrably true, every city in the country would have one hell of a liability problem. They could be criminally negligent for every accident that occurred at any intersection without one, which is why there are relatively few cities that use them.

This debate is some 20 years old and has never moved beyond "mixed results." If it were really about public safety, they'd just enforce the speed limit.

Dear Eracus,

The most comprehensive study to date was done by the US department of Transportation and published in April of 2005. The report is provides a review of the literature which is extensive and critical, citing flaws in past methodology. This study does an excellent job of correcting those errors and makes a number of interesting points. Here is the link if you'd care to read it.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/

When a researcher reports that the results are mixed it does not mean there is not a positive outcome from a program. It can sometimes mean that there are complex variables that have to be taken into account. In this case it is the rise in the less serious rear end collisions. Read the study for yourself. The executive summary is fairly brief and not too technical. I am sorry but the authors have not published a comic book version yet. If you ask nicely maybe one of the neighborhood children will read it to you.

Been there, done that: Government study justifies need for more government. Wow, there's a newsflash....

Don't believe everything you read, Sherlock. Either the insurance lobby got its report or this is the first time in history money and politics had nothing to do with the results of a US government study. What you have here is a government contractor presenting a government study paid for by the government citing the need for more government contracts, all of which is just one more shining example of your tax dollars at work.

The researchers who performed the study you cite were employed by BMI-SG, which was formed in 1982, and is a private engineering firm specializing in trasnportation planning, engineering, and research. It makes its billions in government contracts with federal, state, and local transportation agencies and is the same company that lobbied successfully for red-light cameras in Fairfax, VA, where they are headquartered, and have apparently updated their sales presentation under the banner of the Federal Highway Administration, with assistance from Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada.

They are clearly referenced in the bibliography, and you will find their website here:

http://www.bmisg.com/

Please try to keep up.

Here Eracus this one has pretty pictures.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_200209/ai_n9119700

Can you read English?

"The probability equation of stopping based on a multivariate logistic model was calibrated for the RLC approach."

Here's the World Bank/Asian Development Bank source of your study, an Australian government contractor:

http://www.arrb.com.au/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=43&itemid=64&PHPSESSID=dd288caeebf5c266576705a5b9944a3f

You are citing government contractors presenting the need for government contracts, which is all you will ever find in support of red-light cameras. They have no discernible effect on public safety. If it could be proved otherwise, there'd be red-light cameras everywhere because the public would demand them, just as they demand traffic signals, stop signs, and posted speed limits.

Such logic and reason seems beyond your comprehension, as is your inherent self-contradiction. On the one hand, you have decried the government's intrusion on your liberty for the protection from terrorism, but on the other hand, you are here demanding the government increase its intrusion on your liberty for the protection from scofflaws at red-lights. Brilliant!!

To engage further so distorted and confused a worldview only perpetuates your delusions, which serves no productive purpose, but only unkindly compounds your disorder.

Have a nice day.

University of Alabama Tansportation Center: "The research staff strongly encourages the adoption of automated enforcement of RLR [red light running] in Alabama, as a safety countermeasure..." (p. 2) Dec. 31, 2003 http://utca.eng.ua.edu/projects/final_reports/00470-3rpt.pdf
Hmm... University of Alabama doesn't *look* like a contractor trying to win government contracts.

Virginia Transportation Research Council: "Therefore, cameras are definitely reducing the number of violations" (page xiii); "Therefore, cameras are leading to a net improvement in safety if, as might be expected, the severity of the elminated red light running crashes was greater than that of the induced rear-end crashes" (page xiii); and "There are indications that Virginia's programs potentially improve safety" (p. xiv) Dec. 2, 2004 http://www.iacptechnology.org/Transportation/vdot.pdf
Hmm... Commonwealth of Virginia doesn't look like a contractor either.

Battelle Memorial Institute for FHWA: "The analysis showed an aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems." April, 2005 http://www.iacptechnology.org/Transportation/SafetyEvaluationofRedLightCam.pdf
Battelle?!! Are they trying to sell camera systems like Alabama and Virginia?

Just saying... not all the studies are from "contractors" looking to make a buck on equipment contracts.

As to the argument that if RLC's *really* worked then the public would demand them - reducing all speed limits to 30 mph would probably eliminate the majority of traffic fatalities. Just think, we could save 30-40,000 lives per year! Is there a hew and cry to implement that? Obviously not.

It comes down to what is feasible (in a cost benefit analysis sort of way). 30 mph national speed limit - not feasible. RLC - marginally feasible. Many communities are deciding that issue for themselves. Minneapolis decided it was feasible to implement RLC and reports a significant reduction in crashes. For the city I did research for, my recommendation was that it was not feasible - for reasons other than the factual safety benefit.

Just saying that Oceania has NOT always been at war with Eastasia.

Bobby Ray,

Do not wake Eracus. He is quietly sleeping after receiving his evening meds. He is also very tired from having been, "in the game" all day. He will tell you all about this after he is "wakey wake" as he is quite proud of it. The ward nurse tells me that Eracus is "in the game" three or four times a day now but is getting better with the use of Depends and a redution in his stool softener.

"Minneapolis decided it was feasible to implement RLC and reports a significant reduction in crashes."
----------------------
Really? Imagine that...

I understand the studies very well. "Feasible" v. "doable." Politically. It's all about what the market will bear, not public safety. No data has ever shown otherwise, as you say, "for reasons other than....."

Phipho, you illustrate my point. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

felt something brush against his foot and looked down to see the folded play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org]play65[/url] too illegal It wouldnt do for him to get arrested as a counterfeiter backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]backgammon[/url] him a suspicious look on her face You want something kid she asked online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]online backgammon[/url] Well I was on my way to school and I just wanted to stop by and see .

Obviously! (trying to appear that he understood) play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org]play65[/url] Marty snapped his fingers suddenly remembering backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]backgammon[/url] pulling taut as he landed online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]online backgammon[/url] pick up the cards When handling the cards in a handheld game, here are a few .

Thank you!
http://gyhgdxkc.com/srga/bxei.html | http://zfsdmtpq.com/lelx/ielm.html

online casinos Hey man what happened to your digital quartz http://www.casinophiles.com online casinos right foot He slowly backed away his eyes on the crate before [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] online casinos[/URL] inside.