Proceed at your own risk
Redd Foxx once said something like, "Don't watch that stoplight, watch those cars. No one ever got run over by a stoplight."
Driving in High Point reminded me of that sage advice, until the city finally began to crack down on red-light runners.
The bad old days may be coming back, thanks to a court ruling that might kill the red-light camera program.
Credit goes to a city resident who filed a lawsuit because he didn't want to pay a $50 fine for running a red light, and a school system that wants free money.
Not many years ago in High Point, you were foolish if you drove through a green light without looking both ways. That green light wasn't going to protect you from scofflaws racing through a red light from the left or right. It took a public outcry to get some action from the city. One solution was placing cameras at some of the most dangerous locations.
Several years later, traffic safety has improved. More motorists actually have learned to slow down when they see a yellow light and then stop when it turns red.
The program has had its critics - mostly people who seem to think they have a constitutional right to disregard traffic laws. But it took an interpretation of state law to deal a likely fatal blow to this public service project. If 90 percent of the proceeds have to go to the schools, it would cost the city more than $80 for every $50 citation - $45 to the schools and $35 to Peek Traffic, which operates the camera system, plus other expenses. That's not sustainable. Solution: just get rid of the cameras and go back to demolition derby.
The schools will get a big chunk of money already collected but then this funding stream will end. Public safety will be compromised.
Watch out, Redd. Someone's barreling through the red light, and he's driving a school bus.
Comments (12)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Well, "interpretation of state law" makes this sound like judicial activism. It isn't. The state constitution specifically requires fines and forfeitures to go to the public schools.
Posted on February 15, 2005 9:53 PM
It's not a constitutional right to disobey traffic laws; it's a constitutional right to face your accuser. And then there's that whole innocent until proven guilty thing. And the state can't prove a driver is guilty from a picture of their license plate.
Then there was that study done last year that showed that traffic accidents at intersections with red light cameras in Greensboro actually WENT UP (turns out a lot of people slam on the breaks really hard at those intersections).
I recommend paying the fine with a giant sack full of pennies if you are unlucky enough to get one of those tickets in the mail. And bring a copy of Orwell's 1984 to read while they count it.
Posted on February 15, 2005 10:01 PM
The News & Record itself published a front-page (I believe) story about a study that deemed these red-light cameras to be ineffective at curbing red-light runnings. The study, in fact, saw a positive correlation between red-light cameras and accidents.
I'm not sure what you think the bad days are, but the News & Record thinks the bad days are better than current days.
Posted on February 16, 2005 8:55 AM
Lex, if it were that simple, this case wouldn't have been winding through the state and federal court systems for so long. High Point contended that the constitutional provision applied to criminal penalties resulting from violations of state laws rather than civil penalties for violations of city ordinances. U.S. District Judge James Beaty agreed with that interpretation in his 2003 decision, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later remanded that question back to state courts. Maybe the N.C. appellate courts will agree with the city.
Rusty, you could make the same argument against fines for parking violations.
Posted on February 16, 2005 9:05 AM
Thanks, Jason. You're referring to one study about Greensboro's experience. Studies for High Point show clear improvements since the cameras were installed. And I've felt safer on the streets.
Posted on February 16, 2005 9:07 AM
At least parking violations are given by a human being that you can face.
Posted on February 16, 2005 10:08 AM
Doug,
Good point, although it seems odd that the two studies could reach such different conclusions.
As the recipient of one of Greensboro's red-light tickets, I have one primary objection to the program. The whole setup makes fighting the ticket seem futile and not worth the effort. When I first got my ticket, I was a little spooked by the realization that something had taken my picture without my knowledge, but then I was angered that I couldn't quite remember the exact traffic conditions at the time of my violation. I racked my brain and finally remembered where I was heading, but that's it. For all I know, an 18-wheeler was bearing down on me and I feared for my life if I came to a sudden stop. When I read the requirements for fighting the ticket, it seemed like a whole lot of rigamarole just to get out of a $50 fine.
I assume the $50 price point was deliberately chosen to encourage people to just pay instead of fight.
At least if a real person stops me and tickets me, I can remember exactly what happened and plead my case.
Posted on February 16, 2005 10:54 AM
Does it make anyone else angry that most of your fine has been going to a for-profit company? I bet this company is making out like a bandit. And the cities probably haven't been doing too badly either. I think in light of inconclusive data as to whether the intersections are any safer, the programs should be discontinued. It seems to be that the main purpose for the camera system has been revenue driven anyway.
Posted on February 16, 2005 12:48 PM
Yes, like most everything else, it's about making money, not making the streets safer. If it were about making the streets safer, why wouldn't High Point continue the program at its own expense, rather than nix it after this superior court ruling? After all, if it makes the streets safer, it's a good investment, right?
Posted on February 16, 2005 5:26 PM
About facing a human accuser: If a security camera records a murder, isn't it OK to use the videotape as evidence?
Posted on February 17, 2005 8:48 AM
Yes, prosecutors could use video evidence of a murder. But in that case, the process is criminal and not civil, and the accused is afforded innocence until proven guilty.
But if a video camera recorded the license plate of a car whose driver commits vehicular homicide, then it would not be OK to assume the driver's guilt based on who was the registered owner of the car.
Posted on February 17, 2005 1:31 PM
Doug, it really is that simple. Read Article 9, Section 7 at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article9.html
What's not simple is betting on whether judges will read and follow the plain meaning of the article.
Posted on February 18, 2005 1:30 PM