DC's Stupid Camera Tricks

It's a truism that when it comes to actual municipal governance, Washington, D.C. rarely rises to the level of Third World kleptocracies. It is simply one of the worst-run cities in the country.

Via The Washington Times--an eminently enjoyable publication that strains credibility by dubbing itself "America's newspaper" while Web pages load--comes the tale of how D.C. has brokered the worst kind of deal as it expands its odious program of ticket-issuing traffic-surveillance cameras:

The District's latest traffic-camera contract runs counter to federal guidelines and expert recommendations that warn against paying contractors based on the number of citations they issue because such pay plans erode public support for the automated programs.

"Where a private contractor is responsible for the processing of citations, compensation to private vendors based on the number of citations issued should be avoided," the Federal Highway Administration said in a report on red-light cameras last month.

"Compensation should be provided solely on the value of the equipment or the services provided," the federal report states.

The District recently extended its red-light and speed camera contract with ACS State & Local Solutions to include a new compensation plan for the vendor. The new contract provides a $651,735 monthly fee and an extra $23,000 for each group of 2,500 tickets the vendor issues over a threshold of 53,750.

Previously, the city had paid ACS a fixed monthly fee of $759,992.

According to the agreement, city officials are projecting the number of citations issued in the District could increase to as many as 130,750 per month. Under that scenario, ACS would receive $1.3 million a month, according to the contract.

Whole story here.

Comments

[sage]

I'm sorry, but I really don't see the problem with using these cameras at intersections. What I *don't* think a city should do is count on 'X' dollars from them. I think they should count on the number of accidents avoided and lives saved. But perhaps that was Mr. Gillespie's point.

[Nathan]

I take exception to this statement:

It is simply one of the worst-run cities in the country.

Its not one of the worst-run cities in the country, its the worst run city in the country. And you get taxed out the wazoo for the privilege. Hell, even Mass. has a lower tax burdern, and that's saying something.

[David]

How do you quantify lives saved? Lives lost is simple addition. But how can you tell who would have died in any scenario?

[Ironchef]

The whole "quota" system for traffic violations is bunk (cops have to give xx number of tickets per month). This is just an incentive for ACS to meet it's own quota.

Tickets should only be issued based on the validity of each individual case. Danger, threat and safety to others.

(agree with the worst-run city in America bit)

[sage]

David,

" how can you tell who would have died in any scenario?"

You can't. And likely, most of the red-light runners are the ones skating through when the light is "pink." But let me ask you: How many accidents do there have to be or lives lost before doing something like the camera thing is justified?

[OPUS]

Washington D.C. is only doing what it can get away with. If it works for Federal Government and large corporations then why not them?

Anyhow, they now have a ML Baseball team and a ML Football team with an offense SLUR for a name.

DC reminds me of a on going Monty Python skit that needs to end.

[crimethink]

According to the agreement, city officials are projecting the number of citations issued in the District could increase to as many as 130,750 per month.

As an act of civil disobedience, I plan on driving around in DC and stopping at every red light. That'll piss 'em off!

"Come on, run that red light! WTF?! Damn f-ing good drivers! I wish they'd get the hell out of our city!" -- DC camera statist

[matt]

sage:

Aside from the fact that this is simply another money-making scheme for the city and friends, why do you assume that the cameras actually decrease accidents?

[sage]

Crimethink,

Even better, when you approach a light that is yellow, stand on your brakes. Sure you might get rear-ended, but you won't get a ticket. Imagine if drivers were doing THAT all over town. People would be following the 2-second rule for sure. Or even the 2-minute rule.

[jc]

How many accidents do there have to be or lives lost before doing something like the camera thing is justified?

A question with bad logic as it's basis. The camera prevents NOTHING - it only helps issue tickets. Now, if the camera helps catch a red light runner killing someone, then there is some justification. But first you have to ask how often a red light runner gets away with killing someone anyway. Since the number is only slightly above zero, the cost can't be justified. So they tack on the citations to justify it and the citations become for all practical purposes the sole reason for the cameras.

[Lamont Cranston]

What is being missed here is that everyone is assuming that the cameras are both effective and improve safety.

As an English policeman said,"Speed cameras don't reduce casualties - they are just for revenue generation."
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/thejournal/content_objectid=13555072_method=full_siteid=50081_headline=-Cameras-are-for-cash-name_page.html

Believing the claims of the companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is on a par with accepting the claims of any commercial interest that wants to improve its profitability

[crimethink]

jc,

I think the ostensible idea is that people will notice the cameras, and think twice about running a red light when they know there's a higher probability of getting caught.

But giving the camera operator a commission for each ticket issued (which is essentially what this amounts to) makes it clear that this is a money-making scheme.

[sage]

matt,

"why do you assume that the cameras actually decrease accidents?"

As I pointed out earlier, it's probably a rare case where someone goes flying through a light that has been red long enough for other cars to start going through the intersection. But my assumption comes from stories like this one which seem to show that the cameras act as a deterrent. Again, I don't think cities should be using these as revenue-generators. I think they should serve the same function as guard rails and speed bumps.

[crimethink]

sage,

Hmmm.... I see an Italian Job reenactment in the making....

[matt]

sage:

"Again, I don't think cities should be using these as revenue-generators."

How else would you expect them to be used?

As Lamont cited above, camera advocates don't take into account the uninteneded consequences of the cameras.

For example, see:

http://fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=785

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=80826&ran=203722

[Phil]

It's not as if the cameras can actually prevent speeding or red-light-running. They can only take a picture of it happening. And most DC drivers, frankly, aren't deterred by the potential cost of a $50, $100, or $200 ticket -- they consider it the cost of getting through traffic more quickly. The Post did a lengthy article on it a couple of years ago, in which the consensus from most of the drivers they spoke to was, "Oh well, at least I didn't have to wait for the light."

Pointless personal anecdote: On Halloween '03 I got nabbed by a Fairfax County red-light camera at the intersection of 50 and 29 in Fairfax. The infraction happened at 3:30am, with no other cars visible for several blocks in any direction. My wife and I had just spent 2 hours in our car on the shoulder of the Beltway in sub-freezing weather, waiting for a tow truck that never arrived, because my radiator had sprung a leak and the car overheated. Having waited that long, I was able to restart the car after pouring in a gallon of coolant, and figured out that I could get home from there if I didn't have to stop and idle anywhere.

Did I run the light? Yes. Were there extenuating circumstances? Yes. Should that intersection be a flashing light at 3:30am? Yes. Would a cop have stopped me? Maybe. Did I have to pay the fine? You bet your ass.

Red-light cameras are a poor substitute for proper light timing, good traffic engineering, common sense and human judgement.

[sage]

matt,

"How else would you expect them to be used?"

As a deterrent. Just like I said. The unintended consequences are just that, however. In the story I posted, the proposal was to allow the city with the camera to keep 90% of the revenue from these things. That is indeed a recipe for corruption.

Hey, I'm not married to the camera idea. Maybe instead of cameras, they should have concrete columns that spring out of the street when the light turns red. When it's green again, they retract back into the street. Problem solved, other than the utter carnage it would cause. 🙂

[mat]

sage:

The problem is the lure of millions of dollars in revenue for a city or state government makes the whole scheme inherently corrupt. Unless you think our dear city and state leaders have suddenly all become angels and their corporate cronies who provide the camera technology have no interest in increasing their profits.

[sage]

mat,

Point taken, but what did you think of my concrete barrier idea?

[matt]

sage:

I figured you were being facetious. (I assume you still are). But if simply reducing crashes is the main concern why not make the yellow light longer? Or increase the time between one light turing red and the other turning green? This would allow time for the interserction to clear. Of course, those solutions don't bring in gobs of money either.

[sage]

matt,

All right, you guys have convinced me: The costs of these far outweigh the benefits. There is another problem I had not thought of: The presumption of innocence. With red-light cameras, there is none.

[Isaac Bartram]

.... why not make the yellow light longer? Or increase the time between one light turing red and the other turning green?

They've already tried all those things and even more drivers are running red lights. At least that's the case in Central Fla. Drivers still treat the the orange as green, so lengthening it has little effect.

Cameras are not the solution but something needs to happen to change driver behavior.

Maybe we should just do away with the yellow light altogether and try to put a long enough interval before the other light turns green. Nah, that wouldn't do any good, everybody would just start trying to game that gap.

**I hope everybody had there sarcasm detectors on**

[matt]

T"he presumption of innocence. With red-light cameras, there is none."

Good point.

[Lowdog]

Unfortunately, being an anti-stater (see post above), I see most every little public or traffic safety rule/law that comes into being as a way for the cops to increase revenue, not because they care about us and our safety.

[matt]

I agree Lowdog. The cameras are just the newest and most efficient way to do that.

[Russ D]

In the story I posted, the proposal was to allow the city with the camera to keep 90% of the revenue from these things. That is indeed a recipe for corruption.

It's also a recipe for a company to install the cameras, get their city money, and then get the heck out. For a piddly 10%, why bother keeping the cameras in working order?

[Maurkov]

Here's a picture of you crossing the intersection against the light. How is one supposed to presume innocence, exactly?

If the length of yellow is arbitrary (instead of computed from the posted speed limit), there's an incentive to change it periodically to catch people off guard. Otherwise, what's the problem? Consistent enforcement is better than arbitrary enforcement.

[matt]

Maurkov does make one good point about the camera. Generally pictures don't lie. I'd trust the camera more than your average cop.

[Rhywun]

I see most every little public or traffic safety rule/law that comes into being as a way for the cops to increase revenue, not because they care about us and our safety.

I was waiting for someone to bring up the extremist response to this. "No rules! No laws! I will speed as goddamn fast as I want to because I have total control over my car!" I agree that the cameras are wrong, but frankly, I don't see how laws against speeding in a world where you have to *share* the road with everyone else, is such a goddamn burden.

[Gary Gunnels]

The UK now has something like five million cameras monitoring public streets, etc. They were supposed to reduce crime. They haven't. So the UK has discontinued buying them.

[sage]

"Here's a picture of you crossing the intersection against the light. How is one supposed to presume innocence, exactly?"

Actually, it would be a picture of the license plate. And since I am a sibling in a family of 14, and the car happens to be registered to me, I'm the one who got the ticket in the mail, even though I was actually in the shower at the time of the alleged offense. So one of my brothers or sisters had gone down to the 7-11 and picked up a licorice whip. And happened to get throught the light as it went from pink to red. But why am I explaining all that? The burden of proof is on the state. At least it's supposed to be.

[dead_elvis]

The whole traffic enforcement regime is a pile of steaming crap. It's just designed to bring in dollars, anyone that thinks it's for traffic safety is delusional. Humans or machines, doesn't matter. Look at how real live police deal with enforcing traffic laws. I regularly see people run red lights right in front of police who either aren't paying attention or just are too lazy to care. I have never, never, never seen a person pulled over for driving dangerously. That would require initiative, and involves subjectivity. Instead, they stand on the side of the road with a radar gun in places that they know people speed, and just pick them off like shooting fish in a barrel. Most of the time they are ticketing people for going too fast in a place where it doesn't feel dangerous to go fast; that's why people are speeding there in the first place! In other words, they aren't ticketing dangerous drivers who cause accidents. Doesn't make us any safer, just fills the coffers in the most efficient, lazy way possible. Bring on the machines, they can't do any worse than that. /rant

[Douglas Fletcher]

city officials are projecting the number of citations issued in the District could increase to as many as 130,750 per month.

Holy christ! That's more than 4,000 a day -- how many cops would they have to have writing tickets non-stop to match that? This is sheer evil.

[Wild Pegasus]

I think you folks are missing the point. The goal of DC traffic cameras has nothing to do with traffic laws, revenue generation, or anything else of the sort. The goal is to have DC residents accept ubiquitous government monitoring. It's no secret that Congress wants the entire city under video surveillance; traffic cameras are just one step forward on that path. And if City Council comes along, so much the better.

- Josh

[dead_elvis]

"I don't see how laws against speeding in a world where you have to *share* the road with everyone else, is such a goddamn burden."

Problem is, speeding in and of itself doesn't cause accidents. There are situations where going 10 or 15 mph over the limit would be perfectly safe. Some situations it wouldn't be. Real live police are able, but most often choose not, to use discretion in this regard. Cameras certainly cannot apply any wisdom to the situation.

[rxc]

It's called "performance-based regulation". It has been done with police for a long time - they have quotas that have to be met each month, both for quantity and quality (seriousness). The politicians always deny it, until the smoking gun document surfaces.

The military used to use body counts, but learned, about 35 years ago, that they did not help with the public communication efforts, so recent wars do not include them. They probably have a bullet/body ratio, though, as a substitute. The idea is the same.

[Lowdog]

Rhywun - other people have defended my viewpoint (which, I suspect, is theirs as well), but I will mention that I didn't say I wanted to speed as fast as I want, etc, etc. I just said that the cops/politicians were not interested in traffic and safety laws for our sake.

Actually, even though Josh's tinfoil hat is depriving his brain of oxygen (mine consistently does the same), I suspect he's probably even more right than is comfortable to admit.

[Rhywun]

I just said that the cops/politicians were not interested in traffic and safety laws for our sake.

I can agree to a certain extent, but clearly the original intent of traffic laws was not to make money, but rather to protect people from careless drivers. Speeding might not *cause* accidents, but limiting it is a pretty convenient way to reduce the frequency and severity of them, all other things being equal. As for Germany, accidents are less frequent there because the Germans are more careful drivers. It has nothing to do with speed limits. When accidents *do* occur on the Autobahn, they tend to be fiery infernos with numerous deaths.

[LochNess]

Yeah, I suppose the Washington Times is "eminently enjoyable", especially when they print stuff by the managing editor's wife.

[Wild Pegasus]

I try not to wear the tinfoil hat too often. It's too easy, as a political radical, to slide into simple unthinking contrarianism. But arguments about traffic stop revenue for the DC police simply neglect to mention the 800-pound gorilla sitting right there.

- Josh