Hit the Brakes: The Controversy of Red Light Cameras
Share This Story
Would you prefer to be caught doing something wrong red-handed, or would you rather be caught on tape? That’s just one aspect of the controversy that surrounds red light cameras. It’s never a good idea to break the law, but many drivers feel there’s a difference between a police officer pulling you over versus receiving a citation with photographic evidence in the mail days after your violation.
While photo enforcement certainly comes with its share of controversy, few people would likely suspect that the first red light camera was developed by a former Monte Carlo racing champion.
Caught on Film: History and Development
Maurice Gatsonides was a Dutch race car driver, engineer and inventor who founded a company called Gatso. According to the company website, Gatso developed the first red light camera (RLC), which caught images of violations by stretching tubes across the road in 1965. The tubes contained sensors, which could trigger the camera if an infraction was about to occur.
This red light camera was developed decades before it was introduced in the United States. The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running reports that New York City was the first major metropolitan area to receive red light cameras, which were put into commission in 1993.
Today, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports that 24 states and the District of Columbia use red light cameras in a total of 552 communities across the U.S.
According to the IIHS, modern red light cameras monitor traffic just before the crosswalk or stop line of an intersection. The cameras monitor all activity while the light is red, using sensors that monitor traffic flow. Many cameras will provide up to a half-second of extra time for motorists who are traveling as the light turns red.
Depending on the system in place, the camera will take photos (or video) that show the vehicle entering the intersection after the light has turned red. These cameras also record the date and time of the infraction, as well as the license plate number and vehicle speed. The data is then reviewed by police officers or other government officials to confirm evidence of an infraction. If there’s clear evidence that the car ran a red light, a ticket is typically mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle caught on film.
Pros and Cons of Photographic Evidence
Whether you love red light cameras or hate them, chances are you’ll find people on the same side of the fence as you. Recently, the Kansas City Star reported that red light cameras have made drivers more cautious, but at the same time, the incidence of rear-end collisions has increased at intersections that use traffic enforcement cameras.
The concerns don’t just revolve around safety either, as some defendants of photo cop infractions believe that red light cameras are unconstitutional.
The Tampa Bay Times reported that Thomas Filippone, a former New Jersey insurance lawyer, successfully argued that the law in Florida was unconstitutional because red light cameras do not prove the identity of the driver.
In Filippone’s case, Pasco County Judge Anne Wansboro dismissed the charge, saying that Florida’s red light camera law “shifts the burden of proof to the Defendant and therefore does not afford due process, and is unconstitutional to the extent due process is not provided.” The newspaper reports that city officials have taken notice, but “no one is taking down cameras yet.”
Red light cameras have also been scrutinized as nothing more than a revenue generator. The Washington Times reported that they generate an average of $61 million per year in Chicago, while Louisiana has seen red light camera revenue increase 419 percent since 2008.
The IIHS maintains that the main purpose is not to make money. Rather, photo enforcement is used to encourage people to obey the law. The organization notes on its website that signs often warn drivers when red light cameras are in use, and that if the cameras are successful, ticket revenue should ideally decline over time.
Do you think RLCs are a necessary nuisance?
Want to protect your car? Get an auto insurance quote now.
Author Information
No. They are not necessary.
I am not a fan. RLCs are there to generate funds. If a cop sees you slow down and then roll through a right on red when there is no one there, they are going to ignore it because they understand the intent of the law. Also, I have seen very little research pointing to the RLCs saving any lives.
If you don’t run a red light it wont generate revenue.
In Colorado, if you receive the ticket through the mail you haven’t been properly served by an officer of the court. The cameras are operated and owned by a private company.
So, you don’t have to pay it. Many people just send their money in with out questioning the legality of being improperly served. A local news station ran an expose on this. However, if you don’t pay and you live in the same county as the offense took place, they might send a process server out to deliver your summons. If you live outside the county, or out of state, it’s unlikely they will send someone to serve you. If they have to send a process server out to deliver summonses(sic?) then the red light cameras won’t generate enough revenue to be viable, financially.
This is also the case with photo radar vans, too. The law may be the same in your state.
The camera shown in the picture is part of the traffic signals detection system, and not for catching red light runners.
” . . .but at the same time, the incidence of rear-end collisions has increased at intersections that use traffic enforcement cameras . . .”
As long as the devices are properly set-up and maintained, and as long as things such as the yellow light delay hasn’t been improperly adjusted, the only inexcusable “reasons” a driver has for proceeding through a red light are: 1) carelessness, and/or 2) irresponsibility.
The yellow light should be interpreted as “The right-of-way of the direction of travel is about to change, and a “cease-proceeding” red light is about to appear. Please clear the intersection of you are in it, and do NOT enter it if you have not already done so.”
Unfortunately, the vast majority of drivers interpret a yellow light as “#$@&! The light’s about to turn red! Let’s speed up and get through before it does and I have to stop!”
Because of this, when your typical driver tries racing through a traffic light camera intersection and realizes he/she can’t make it, they slam on their brakes so they don’t get caught. Unfortunately, the driver behind them –who *also* is speeding to get through– suddenly doesn’t have the time *or* distance to stop, so . . . *WHAM!*
And as for “RLCs are there to generate funds,” well, that’s incorrect. The only way properly-run red light cameras would –and do– ‘generate funds’ is because people choose to irresponsibly drive. If people drove the speed limit, kept a safe following distance, and paid attention to the traffic signals, then no one would run the light so, ergo, there would be no fine incurred. Plain and simple.
Very well put
In NC the yellow light is shortened when RLC’s are installed to generate more revenue for the private company operating them. If you choose to dispute the ticket, you must PAY it first before you can dispute it; I find this totally rediculous.
“The IIHS maintains that the main purpose is not to make money.”
Well then find me an article where red light cameras are being discussed for a town that DOES NOT include talk about how much money is going to be made.
“Many cameras will provide up to a half-second of extra time for motorists who are traveling as the light turns red.”
They also get the towns to shorten yellow-light times to ‘enhance revenue’, to use some highway-men speak. In fact, many systems have been thrown out in court, just for that reason.
“According to the IIHS, modern red light cameras monitor traffic just before the crosswalk or stop line of an intersection.”
Exactly. For most cameras, it’s not the people ‘running’ the red lights in the classic sense, rather it’s the people that didn’t make a full stop, BEHIND THE LINE, before making a right turn on red. In some case it’s over 95% of the tickets. Do the towns ever tell you that their goal is to, essentially, ticket every driver that simply wants to make a right turn on red, as has been done (without tickets) for decades? By the way, I now shut my right-turn signal and sit-out the light if there’s a camera – I simply don’t trust them, considering all the mistakes they make. One the light is green, I put on my signal and then turn.
“Whether you love red light cameras or hate them, chances are you’ll find people on the same side of the fence as you. Recently, the Kansas City Star reported that red light cameras have made drivers more cautious, but at the same time, the incidence of rear-end collisions has increased at intersections that use traffic enforcement cameras.”
Thank you for including a bit of the other side. This article otherwise looks like a press release from Red-Flex (one of the camera companies).
THis is really a problem of numerous people not obeying the law which is to use a YELLOW light toclear the intersection, NOT to use a yellow light as an excuse to speed through. For that matter, running the red light if no one is there is not legal. The increase in acidents is not due to the cameras but to the bad drivers running red lights. Put the blame where it belongs. If you rear-end me because I slowed down and stopped for a yellow/approaching red light then YOU not the camera or me are at fault.
I see this everyday. The all clear phase is the time when all the lights are red. A gap between when the yellow light turns red and anohter leg gets the green. People have learned that as long as they hurry to get into the intersection soon after the light turns red, there wont be any traffic. Many times a week I sit at a light and wait for the intersection’s red light runners to get out of the way so I can proceed. And, all the other motorists in the lanes next to me wait as well. Lately though, I go when the light turns green and block the redlight runner from making it through the intersection. Someday you will see me on the news as the guy to impatient to wait for all the red light runners to get out of the way. Someday I may even get plowed into but for now, I will continue to scare the crap out of the red light runners when I pull out in front of them as they enter the intersection after my light has turned green.
You nailed it Milton. Due process is eliminated by assuming you are guilty inless proven innocent. And you have to pay additional money to dispute the citation. And finally, if the citation is issued by an out of state company, they have no authority to cite you. More rights taken away!
You have no right to run a red light
What about T intersections with “dumb” sensors embedded in the road? I ride a motorcycle sometimes and these things NEVER sense my bike so the signal never changes and stays red. I usually just make a right-on-red and then a U-turn if I am trying to turn left but this is more dangerous than just running the red light when it is safe to do so. These “dumb” sensors are also the cause of a “false” red light which is what happens when a careless driver swings wide when turning right or cuts the turn too close when turning left and trips the sensor in the other lane making the sensor think a car is waiting for the light and since these sensors are “dumb” they latch once tripped so even if the car moves away they still think the light needs to change. The result is traffic on the other road having to stop for nothing and wasting our time.
so what is the rush? how long is a red light–30, maybe 35 seconds on average? how long do you have to wait in line for a carry out at McD’s? but I have regularly counted up to three cars go thru after the light turned red.
I gave seen drivers stop at a red light and if there is no cross traffiic they continue even though the light is still red. what’s the rush? the light will change maybe in 20 seconds.
part of the problem is local government. they don’t have the lights timed to facilitate traffic flow. there is technology that can acccomplish this and this technology also adjusts the timing of the traffic light for rush hour, special events, and weekend traffic. if the city that has red light cameras can afford them, then they ought to be able to afford timers for those traffic lights.
but why not? the city that has you stopping at almost every intersection gets a bonus. cars idling at intersections use more gas, and therefore their owners are buying more gas. and for every dollar that a driver spends on gas, there is six or seven cents a dollar (depending on your state rate) that goes into the state’s pocket. and that’s in addition to what they get from the fool that gets caught on camera.