Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Traffic Camera Shenanigans
A television station in Lubbock, Texas found that in eight of the twelve intersections where the city plans to install red light cameras, yellow lights were shorter than the minimum safety guidelines established by the city engineer.
More interesting, that same city engineer promised the Lubbock city council last year that he wouldn't increase yellow light times at intersections with cameras. In a telling moment of candor, Jere Hart told the city council that though the public prefers longer yellow cycles, and though studies show longer yellows dramatically reduce red-light running and collisions, lengthening them would cut into the revenue the cameras are expected to generate.
This isn't the first time a city has fiddled with yellow light timing to boost revenue.
Jim Anderson|2.27.07 @ 9:32AM|#
Where I live, they started with tiny blue lights so cops could more easily ticket red-light runners. That didn't work (to the tune of several thousand), so they've switched plans, wanting to install a revenue generator. Really, who can blame them?
|2.27.07 @ 9:43AM|#
This is why I'm glad that my state's constitution gives penal fine money to public libraries. Somehow the cops haven't found a need for any of this crap.
|2.27.07 @ 9:44AM|#
This infuriates me. Traffic engineering is not a matter of opinion. It's a hard science. Sure, the goals and purpose of a traffic engineering project can be subjective - how much to value pedestrian access and safety vs. vehicular traffic, for example - but how the yellow phase needs to last on a road with a design speed of X is not something you can screw around with.
Dan T.|2.27.07 @ 10:12AM|#
I suppose this counts as a cost when a community adopts a "low taxes at all costs" philosophy.
Bagger|2.27.07 @ 10:30AM|#
People, please stop handle spoofing Dan T. No one could possibly be that obtuse, not even the real Dan T.
Dan T.|2.27.07 @ 10:43AM|#
You don't think this sort of thing is more likely to happen in low-tax areas? It signals a certain desperation on the part of local government, doesn't it?
|2.27.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Hey Danno,
Cleveland and Akron are among the upper echelon (not the good
sense) as far as amount of tax imposed. They both have either toyed
with or implemented cameras.
Would you call Northern Virginia and DC "low-tax"?
(Sorry for feeding the troll, guys.)
Highway|2.27.07 @ 11:07AM|#
It's definitely an empirical science. There are plenty of
studies that show what the range the length the yellow light should
be are, on both sides. Too short and you get accidents, too long
and you get accidents. So you set it in the middle.
As joe said, it's infuriating when chowderheads in some city
council directly put the safety of their citizens at greater risk
for the sake of higher revenues from a damned "gotcha!" red light
camera. And it's galling when they then turn around and try to
shmooze the public, saying that they have to put in the cameras 'to
increase safety'.
Highway|2.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Actually, that should read that you get MORE accidents if you set the yellow too long or too short. There's always going to be the chance for accidents at any intersection.
Dan T.|2.27.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Hey Danno,
Cleveland and Akron are among the upper echelon (not the good
sense) as far as amount of tax imposed. They both have either toyed
with or implemented cameras.
Would you call Northern Virginia and DC "low-tax"?
But have they intentionally set the length of the yellow light to
be shorter than what's considered safe for the purposes of gaining
more red-light camera revenue? That's what I'm talking about.
Dan T.|2.27.07 @ 11:14AM|#
As joe said, it's infuriating when chowderheads in some city
council directly put the safety of their citizens at greater risk
for the sake of higher revenues from a damned "gotcha!" red light
camera. And it's galling when they then turn around and try to
shmooze the public, saying that they have to put in the cameras 'to
increase safety'.
It is infuriating, but they're just giving the people what they
want - government services without taxes means that they've got to
come up with some other means to raise money.
|2.27.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Wow, Dan can't even read upthread 6 posts to remember what he
said.
I suppose this counts as a cost when a community adopts a "low
taxes at all costs" philosophy.
I miss Dave W. already. At least he was fun in
Britney-Spears-shaved-bald-psycho-train-wreck sort of way. And I
never got to ask him if he was this bipolar kid who used to work
for me. Exact same stream of nonsense.
What I love about red light cameras is how many police patrolmen
are put out of job by automation. I expect a disgruntled cop to
throw his shoes into a red light camera at any moment.
Dan T.|2.27.07 @ 11:23AM|#
I do remember that, I was clarifying that "this" was referring to yellow-light tampering (which we all agree is a bad thing), not red-light cameras (which many people would agree are a good thing, if used properly).
|2.27.07 @ 11:25AM|#
It was my understanding that one of the "packages" that the manufacturer (Lockheed?) offered was one that offered a lower sale price on condition of a shorter yellow time and a company percentage on fines levied. I think that some states (perhaps the feds?) have outlawed the company percentage scheme. I'm too busy to research it now.
|2.27.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Danny Boy,
There have been allegations of this in all those locales. Only in
Akron have they successfully been fought off entirely, but wouldn't
ya know it, Mayor Don still wants them AND a city income tax raise
to 2.58% (which many of the people who will have to pay it won't
get to vote on). Akron will be the 2nd highest taxed major city in
the state behind fuckin' Youngstown.
And Don still wants the fucking cameras.
|2.27.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Dan T- Remember this simple rule: every government always wants
more money.
Corollary: Every government always wants more power.
Dan T.|2.27.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Mayor Don still wants them AND a city income tax raise to
2.58% (which many of the people who will have to pay it won't get
to vote on).
Why wouldn't they get to vote on it?
Just Me|2.27.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Cameras are unlawful, but considered "legal" (which is definitely not the same thing). Non-victim behavior modification. Personally, I think the public at large should just shoot the cameras, repeatedly, and thereby destroy the revenue stream being foisted upon us all. Eventually, the rapacious city fools would realize that it's simply too expensive to maintain cameras exposed to the 'weather'.
Matt Moore|2.27.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Why wouldn't they get to vote on it?
I pay income tax in the city I work in... but I don't get to vote
on it because I don't live there.
Rhywun|2.27.07 @ 12:58PM|#
I pay income tax in the city I work in
Is that an Ohio thing? NYC used to have such a thing but it got
struck down years ago. But it seems fair to me to pay part of your
tax to the political entity in which you spend more than 1/3 of
your time, with a corresponding reduction in the amount you pay to
the entity where you spend the other 2/3. You "vote" on it by
taking a job there :)
Bagger|2.27.07 @ 12:59PM|#
I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says
"shenanigans."
Is "goings on" ok?
Dan T.|2.27.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Dan T- Remember this simple rule: every government always
wants more money.
I've noticed that half the time, people here claim government is
always incompetent because they have no profit motive and thus no
incentive to provide good service to its citizens.
The other half of the time, government is amazingly money-hungry,
constantly coming up with new ways to bring in revenue simply for
the sake of bringing it in, it seems.
The solution is always private enterprise - you know, the people
who openly admit to only wanting more money. They can be
trusted.
|2.27.07 @ 1:27PM|#
I currently go to college in Lubbock (Texas Tech) and watched
all the specials the TV station did on the lights. Long story short
they timed the lights and found that they were short of the
recommend time of one second for every 10mph of speed limit. When
they presented their findings to the city council they delayed the
plan to install the lights and almost got them to admit that the
lights were to be just another source of revenue.
At any rate there is more to the story but I have to get to a
Spanish test.
|2.27.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Dan T- You suggested that the yellow light camera scam might be
a result of the government starving for money because of low tax
rates. I suggested that governments seek more revenue no matter
what. You responded with one of those "People here say... followed
by what you think are contradictory positions. You did not respond
to my point.
So, I'll say it again: governments tend to seek more revenue, no
matter what. There is no reason to expect yellow-light shennanigans
to be connected with low tax revenue. Feel free to respond to that
point, if you like. But spare me the mentally slothful "people here
think..." crap.
Rhywun|2.27.07 @ 1:56PM|#
I've noticed that half the time, ...
The other half of the time, ...
The government doesn't compete with anybody, so yes, there is no
profit motive (and a trip to the post office should suffice to
prove how little they care about providing a service). The only
motivation they have is to get re-elected; and what are the chances
of that happening? Something like 80%?
So there's no profit motive but individual politicians are just as
eager for money and power as the rest of us; so yes, they are
constantly coming up with new ways to bring in revenue. Not sure
how you could possibly ignore the empirical evidence right in front
of your eyes.
|2.27.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Dan, can you grasp that greed and lust for power are not the same thing as the profit motive?
CharlieHorse|2.27.07 @ 3:16PM|#
|2.27.07 @ 3:33PM|#
(another tax example: I pay income taxes to the city of Grand Rapids, where I work, although I don't live there... I'm not certain of the exact rules of the GR tax but I think it applies to residents who work outside the city as well, at my last job I had a coworker who paid income taxes to the city of Detroit while working in Southfield)
|2.27.07 @ 3:51PM|#
I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says
"shenanigans."
Hey Farva, what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the
goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
uncle sam|2.27.07 @ 4:41PM|#
This attitude in the halls of government is also revealed when there is a movement to cut the fat in government and the poiticians threaten to cut funds for libraries, police, and fire departments.
Paul|2.27.07 @ 5:58PM|#
It signals a certain desperation on the part of local
government, doesn't it?
I like that. Has a nice ring to it. However, there is a certain
"desperation" in all government acton, otherwise, there would be no
need for it. Almost every expansion in my local government (and not
a low tax area by AAANY stretch of the imagination) is almost
always framed with a certain...desperation.
Take a look at any random Volvo driving around here, and a full
2/3'ds of 'em have an "I'm voting for kids" bumper sticker. god
only knows which new tax levy that applied to. Could easily apply
to 1/2 a dozen in the last 8 months.
But back to the salient point, there's a certain curve involved in
traffic safety measures. Sure, we don't let people drive 110mph
through neighborhoods, so a 15-25mph limit is in fact, for safety.
But somewhere along the line that point on the curve whips to the
other side and new traffic regulations become about revenue. So
perversely about revenue, that local governments are actually
willing to endanger the public to maintain or increase a revenue
stream.
If we take the idea that all persuit of profit perverts the
mission, then we have to assume that the mission of government at
large is...perverted. It stopped being about safety a long time
ago. It's about the money.
uncle sam|2.27.07 @ 6:33PM|#
There is a difference between income and profits, but the effect on human behavior is pretty similar.
|2.27.07 @ 6:59PM|#
Tomfoolery, high-jinks, mischief, antics, fourberie, knavery, machinations, monkey business, monkeyshines, skulduggery, rascality, roguery, roguishness, funny business, devilment, devilry, espieglerie, underhandedness.
|2.28.07 @ 12:48AM|#
Dan T., the classic claim was that governments have little
incentive to make good decisions because they don't bear the costs
of bad decisions. Not that governments don't want money. Of
course they want money.
I mean, the point is debatable, but it's like Free Market 101.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245