If you hate red-light cameras, you’ll really hate speeding ticket robots | Hacker News Reader

If you hate red-light cameras, you’ll really hate speeding ticket robots

arstechnica.com

25 pointsjamesjyu55 comments

Lots of countries have speed cameras which are fairly automated. In the UK they tend to be placed in areas of frequent accidents (where speeding is definitely dangerous) and trigger at around 10% over the speed limit.

Rather than use algorithms to assess the general traffic speed, why not just have sensible speed limits?

Because issuing tickets is a source of revenue.

I'd love red light cameras if they were designed to make the roads safe, but that's a secondary concern.

Indeed, in Germany we have speed cameras installed next to streets, we have mobile speed cameras in cars that are parked on the site of the street and specifically for the autobahn the police has cars and bikes with cameras that allow them to measure your speed and I think even safety distance while driving.

I always assumed you would find them everywhere.

We have a 25 mile stretch of SPECS cameras near here. Fixed infrared cameras, with automatic number plate recognition, that calculates your average speed between 2 points. They do seem to work and it's a pretty fair system.

It's really masking that the fact the road needs widening to handle the traffic safely.

In the US, speed limits have a tendency not to be set to a "safe" speed, but rather to a speed that will optimize revenue from tickets. It's not terribly hard to find, in any town or city here, plenty of streets and even highways which have limits that are obviously below both the average speed of traffic and the design speed of the road, set largely for political (often money, though sometimes to appease residents who feel a street is "too fast").

So yes, let's have sensible limits first, and then worry about the enforcement.

Can someone explain to me the opposition to red light cameras? I don't get the problem with giving people who break the law fines for it, but maybe I haven't looked at it the right way.

I'll skip the whole face your accuser argument and go for safety.

Many areas have shortened yellow light times to generate more revenue. This causes unsafe conditions (speed up on yellow or slam down breaks causing problem).

Even the presence of a properly timed red light camera causes problems. Regular drivers get paranoid and act in a way to stop from getting a ticket versus what is actually safe driving. Sudden breaking is one result, nevermind some of the absurdities winter weather brings to the situation.

Very true. If coming up on an intersection with a stale green light that has red light enforcement, I floor it to make it through the light before it has a chance to go yellow.

Most of the time, I just make sure my route doesn't go through a red light enforced intersection.

Furthermore, I have seen drivers refuse to go through a red light to clear a path for an ambulance because of a red light camera.

The law must always be enforced with an element of common sense. Red light cameras lack all common sense.

The law must always be enforced with an element of common sense. Red light cameras lack all common sense.

That is amazingly well said. Spot-on.

Ideally no they aren't a problem at all. The problem arises from other places when the legislators see it as a revenue stream, so to increase that they shorten the length of the yellow lights and do various other things similar so that people end up violating them more. This is obviously annoying since it means that you have a much greater chance of accidentally doing something that will result in a fine. And the worst of it is that shortening the yellow lights results in roads that are that much more unsafe.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/red_light_cams_red_light_...

just one story about it.

It's not a problem with giving people who break the law fines, it's a problem with giving people fines because a machine said so, especially when that machine is run with a lack of transparency by a notoriously bureaucratic organization. When I speed, it's usually because I'm trying to get out of the way of an aggressive driver or something like that. Technically illegal. Would a police office consider it unsafe and write a ticket? No. If I get hit by a speeding camera, can they prove it was calibrated properly? Not easily. In California, there are even efforts to eliminate the appeal process entirely.

Note that I respect and understand your opinion if you disagree with this, but that is the argument that opposes this.

In my state (PA) there are laws on the books that say a citation has to be reviewed by a police officer in the jurisdiction the citation is issued in.

I do the same when around overly aggressive drivers myself (although admittedly I can be aggressive and am trying to work on it!), but I don't think either one of us can say what a police officer would or would not do. Some are extremely by-the-book and will write you the citation regardless.

If there's no way to prove camera calibration I would hope judges would throw all the tickets out. I've fought a handful of speeding tickets since I've been driving and more often than not the officers can prove when and to what specification their radar guns were calibrated (usually at the beginning of that shift so within 8-10 hours, and to give the driver a 2-3 mph "benefit of the doubt" so to speak).

And no appeals are just ridiculous.

Thanks for the input!

As far as I can tell, the officers tend to err in different directions depending on whether they are ticketing themselves or OK'ing red light tickets. For example, in my area, red light cameras also detect when you roll a legal right-on-red. I got ticketed for a very safe turn that I slightly rolled (i.e. I approached slowly and stopped for less than a second because I'd been watching the cross street for several seconds already), which no police officer would have looked twice at. I've heard many other people complain about the same thing.

I'll give you a nice example.

In 2008ish, I got a very official letter in the mail from the Illinois DOT. It was a ticket. It said that my vehicle had gone through a toll booth without paying and provided photographic evidence of my misdeed. I lived in MN and had a MN licensed vehicle. They had got my information via the MN DOT.

The problem is the picture showed a vehicle that was white (mine was black) that most definitely did not have a MN license plate and I was fairly sure the photo showed the wrong plate number.

The other small problem was that I was driving a Chevy Cavalier and the photo was the front of a Freightliner. I believe that an 18 wheeler is a tad bit different from my car and even requires a different license to drive. One which I didn't possess(1).

We will ignore that I was in ND at the time of the incident.

I called and had to talk to multiple people, many suggesting I should come into the office. I pointed out that it was a bit of a drive that I had not previously done and had no intention of doing now. They eventually voided the ticket after 327 minutes of phone calls(2) spread over two weeks.

"In California, there are even efforts to eliminate the appeal process entirely."

I want to be able to face my accuser, and be pulled over by the same at the time of the incident.

I do believe their is an amendment banning such things.

1) I have had a license like it in the past, but never the air brake endorsement required to drive a Freightliner.

2) yes I remember, much like I remember certain billable hours from my consulting days

I think if you re-read the final paragraph of the article, the one in blockquotes, you'll have your answer.

I think the main opposition is that some studies have shown that red light cameras are correlated with higher accident rates[1].

[1]http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-acciden...

For one, some towns that had them installed decided to make yellow lights shorter. That way, they got increased revenue... however, a short yellow life is less safe for all involved.

This pattern seems to follow red-light cameras everywhere they go.

Isn't this an issue with proper standards on yellow light timing, rather than red light cameras?

I know in NSW, Australia, light timings are standardized based on speed limits. That prevents stupid revenue tricks like that, as well as making all lights predictable.

The incentive is to cheat on the light timing. Yeah, there's a standard, but who's really checking?

They are a burden to the free flow of traffic because the incentive is to make as many people have to stop at those lights as possible. I have seen this in practice in my city. All camera lights are synchronized with the previous signals so that you are forced to stop just as you are approaching the signal at traffic speed.

1: The software is closed source. How can we tell if the camera is working correctly at catching speeders?

2: Red light camera dramatically increase slam_on_breaks at yellow=>red lights and cause accidents.

3: If a light is malfunctioning, there is little way the camera knows. 4 way stop means everyone gets a ticket.

4: Some red light cameras will detect oncoming traffic at night and turn red to entice person to run light (at completely empty intersection).

5: Red ligt cameras do not increase safety. They do increase income, via taxation from tickets.

1. I'll agree with you on this. It would make sense for the software to be open source.

2. This is something I hadn't thought of and curiously nobody had said anything to me prior. To me, this is a big negative (not necessarily a show stopper).

3. In my jurisdiction any citations like this need to be reviewed by a police officer. Obviously you're not going to be issuing citations when a light is out and it would be trivial to fight. This is an implementation issue but not one with the technology.

4. Source? Regardless this seems more like an issue with a specific brand and not the technology.

5. One of the sibling posts here mentioned a study to this effect that I haven't gotten a chance to take a look at yet.

    >4: Some red light cameras will detect oncoming traffic at night and turn red to entice person to run light (at completely empty intersection).

Do you have a source for that? I'm as cynical as the next guy about the motivations for red light cameras but that just sounds like paranoia.

Th source, unfortunately, was a link from HN a few years ago. IIRC it was either Phoenix, AZ or somewhere around that area that started playing with reactive red light cameras.

Essentially, it would watch for speeders prior to the intersection, and it would turn red before you could legcally cross the intersection. Then, it would ding you for a RLV.

That's an abuse of power problem, not an issue with RLC per se.

My example is an edge case, but I was once waiting to turn left at a sensor activated red light that refused to turn despite no other cars being near the intersection. I even went in reverse and then forward again to see if the light would change. After waiting a minute or so I just decided to go. I definitely would've been more upset if I had to fight to get a ticket correction had there been a red light camera installed.

To try and generalize a little bit, punishing people first without taking into consideration special circumstances can potentially cause more problems than they may solve.

I understand where you're coming from, but a minute doesn't seem like very long to wait.

This is a semi-common occurrence when I'm bicycling. I once waited for more than 10 minutes, just to see how long it would take.

I'd say the biggest issue is that they provide a perverse incentive to the local government -- reduce the duration of the yellow light to generate more red-light revenue. I couldn't easily find a link but I believe this happened in Denver (and that they later re-instated longer yellows after public outcry). My understanding is that lengthening yellow-light times and adding a delay between red & green are the proven ways to prevent accidents.

I've seen the camera supporters argue that even if cameras cause more rear-end accidents those are preferable to t-bone crashes from red light runners, but that's a false choice. Longer yellows and red-green delays prevent both types of crashes.

Beyond this, I think there is legitimate opposition to the lack of discretion by the cameras. In places with snow & ice, there are plenty of times when it is impossible to stop at a red light even when travelling well below posted limits.

I've seen others mention the yellow-light timing issue and I hadn't heard this counterpoint before.

As for the discretion, at least in my jurisdiction all automated violations (currently only red light cameras in certain parts of the state I believe, nothing in my immediate area) are reviewed by a police officer who has final say. Presumably they'd be able to tell if a vehicle just slid a few inches into the intersection v. ran the light 2 seconds after it turned red.

Is it this story?

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2300.asp

"Denver, Colorado was caught this week attempting to add red light cameras at intersections with short yellow times. Rocky Mountain News reporters videotaped the city's four proposed ticketing locations and discovered that each had a yellow signal time set at 3.0 seconds -- a figure below recommended standards."

It should also be noted that they are at the legal minimum. They're not 'flying under the radar'.

I'm not sure Denver is a very good city to base this on. I've lived in Denver now for 3 years and I've never seen so many people run red lights in my life! It's absolutely considered "normal" here.

If you increase the yellow light duration and red-green delay, won't the risk-taking drivers eventually adjust their behaviour to the same level of risk, by running the lights even later?

Exactly. You don't get a bigger fine if you run a red light after it's been red for 50ms v. 2s, and the fine isn't bigger if the other road has a green.

People are just so important that they have to get to the next red light 10 seconds faster than everyone else.

Red light cameras are too rigid. It makes no distinction whether you went into red after it was shown for 1ms or 2 seconds. Consider hitting the first 1ms of red light at 4 am on cross-road with perfect visibility and no traffic whatsoever... and your license lost. It all depends what's the penalty, of course.

As already mentioned the problem is when they are looked at as sources of revenue. At first it's hey, they camera can make red lights safe. After some time, it becomes lets figure out how to make more money on fines and safety becomes secondary. Shortening yellow lights is the classic way to increase fines, but make the intersection less safe. Hiding them is another because if the goal is safety you want everyone to know there is a camera.

Another issue is that the companies who install them specify in their contract a minimum number of tickets that the camera has to generate per month and they are guaranteed an specific amount of money if that quota is not met.

I absolutely hate them! There's nothing wrong with giving people who break the law a punishment but it feels like it's one step closer to 1984. Now they can catch me committing crimes without being present. They're watching me and it feels very invasive. I don't mind getting stopped by a cop but to have robots (cameras, same difference) doing it feels wrong. What's next? Are they going to start monitoring me on my private property? Are thought crimes next?

It's a slippery slope. Today people get used to being watched on public property and being issued tickets. The more people get used to this the further the authorities can go with it. And if you know me, you know I'm the furthest thing from paranoid when it comes to privacy issues. I assume nothing is private anymore and I just don't care but when I can be fined by a camera that's just crossing the line.

It also comes across as really lazy and sleazy too. A very cheap way to make a lot of money quick. When you get one of those tickets you really have no way to contest it. Yeah, you could go to court but they have a video and the law assumes the robots are always calibrated correctly and they don't know nor do they care if your wife is in the passenger seat having contractions or whatever the case may be.

It's like the swearing machine in demolition man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz4HEEiJuGo

Where I live red light cameras are triggering all the time when people clearly aren't breaking the law. For instance the red light camera near me is notorious for flashing cars coming to a stop too quickly at a red light. It will also incorrectly flash you if you're making a right hand turn on red every once in awhile. The problem isn't with automation per se, its with the fact incorrect judgements cost time and money to everyone involved.

Flashing is not the same as giving a ticket. Camera detects orthogonal movement to the expected traffic flow, photo is taken. Photo reviewed - was a person turning legally, no fine issued. There's a red light camera near me that frequently flashes the end-of-sequence people turning, but they're not getting tickets for that.

There is, however, a different issue in my state - thousands of speeding tickets have been declared null and void because the police couldn't prove that the speed cameras were correctly calibrated.

My problem with them is that they cause more accidents than they prevent [1]. There are a variety of reasons people might get to a controlled intersection where 'not stopping' has a higher likelihood of creating the best outcome. (my favorite and a common occurrence is being tailgated by someone not paying attention). RLCs mean there is always a problem with not stopping, and so if you're going to be ticketed anyway, you might as well let the guy behind you ram you so that you don't end up with a point on your driving record. (not a good choice in my opinion)

[1] "Further, for every 100 definite injuries from angle crashes in the before-camera period, 1.28 was fatal, which increased to 1.71 in the after-camera period, a 33.6% increase. Therefore, increased, and not decreased, fatalities were associated with the use of RLCs in this study." -- http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2511FA2D-6BC2-4091-9FD5-D...

Others have pointed out the revenue centered yellow light shortening. Some dangers born from this are panic stops and slow, generally erratic traffic leading up to intersections with known red-light cameras.

The camera effectively changes the perception of the yellow light from "prepare to stop, if it is safe" to "stop right now or risk a $75+ fine" (Where I live the fine will surely have doubled at least once by the time you actually get the ticket in the mail, but that's another issue).

I've often wondered if the folks implementing the cameras have thought about how the combination camera-driven paranoia, shortened yellows and altered perception of yellows will impact the traffic flow. If upstream light-timings aren't adjusted to account for the camera bottleneck, problems are inevitable.

Law enforcement as a revenue generation method, especially when sold as a third party service, seems inherently subject to mismatched incentives.

In Australia many high-accident intersections have combination speed/red-light cameras.

It will get you if you speed.

It will get you if you go through the red light.

It will give you two tickets if you do both.

It's quite possible to lose your license in one drive-through.

(Penalties in Australia are very harsh. i.e. 30km/h (20mph) over is automatic loss of license on the spot)

My brother is a paramedic in Australia. Apparently they get piles of automated red light and speed infringement notices on the work vehicles and once every so often they have to bundle them up and send them to the courthouse to be dismissed en masse.

"Do we want to live in a world where jaywalkers are caught every single time?"

There is a Jewish legend that before this world was created, God created a world that was ruled by the attribute of Justice - every infraction was punished exactly to the right degree, not to strongly, but not weakly either.

That world did not survive and God had to destroy it and start over, this time with a world based on mercy.

(There are some who say that the fossils found in the ground are from that previous world.)

Speeding tickets help prevent murder, in an indirect way.

That is, minor traffic violations are the most common way cops catch people who have committed more serious crimes. Some lawyers call it "bootstrapping charges."

If autonomous cars do eliminate (or greatly reduce) minor traffic violations, they could have a very negative impact on crime. Cops would need a new, smarter way of catching these criminals.

While these "speeding ticket robots" might help cities boost revenue, they lack the law enforcement benefits of having cops people physically pull people over.

I'm not sure what the extent of the "real-world driving data extracted from the on-board computer of a commuter's automobile" is but I think it would be much more interesting challenge develop something around "bad" driving.

Identify habitual hard/late braking, lane drifting or swerving (used to mean someone was drunk, now it means they're texting), sudden/excessive lane changes, lack of signaling or driving at speeds significantly below the posted limits in the absence of congestion.

These things are all quite dangerous, but generally unchecked.

The send off of this article is bizarre. It seems to be arguing in favour of automatically sentencing on serious crime and applying subjectivity and leniency on minor offences. I could not disagree more, automate the trivia and use proper human value judgements for crimes of consequence.

In France speeding ticket robots abound. Can easily rack up hundreds of Euros in fines without knowing it...until you get notice in the mail/post that is, ouch.

Then later your insurer gets in on it, increasing your monthly fee via form letter.

No human intervention required, brilliant.

Has someone just written a paper inventing speed cameras?

Edit: I think I misread it; this appears to use on board sensors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com