A friend just sent me this:
There is technology available to automatically issue fines for traffic light, crosswalk, and speeding violations on city streets. Somebody I know in another state showed me a ticket received in the mail, including a photo of the traffic light violation in progress and another photo clearly showing the his face. At least that particular driver was embarrassed, paid the fine without complaint, and took the city’s traffic lights a lot more seriously after that. Vendors claim these systems pay for themselves, which seems plausible enough considering what I see every day in Newton.
Here’s one example: https://sensysamerica.net/products-new/crosswalk-safe/
Is this legal in Massachusetts? Is it a good idea for Newton, especially for Newton crosswalks?
A resounding yes. This is the only way to ensure compliance.
My wife teaches in Providence and I spend a lot of time walking with my 2-year-old daughter on Hope Street and Blackstone Boulevard – two streets which used to be dragways that put everyone’s life at risk.
In the fall, they installed speed cameras on both roads, including a 20 mph school zone that results in the issuance of tickets for speeds above 30mph. The difference before and after the installation of those cameras has been night and day – drivers are finally obeying the law, and the streets are finally safe for all users.
These are typically civil infractions that don’t count against your insurance, and the current proposal for red light cameras in Massachusetts calls for only a nominal fine (I believe $25 or $50). But that’s enough to achieve a wholesale change in driver behavior and save lives. It also frees up significant police resources.
It’s abhorrent that 40,000 are killed and an additional two million injured by automobiles each year in this country alone. Automated traffic enforcement should be ubiquitous.
PS under the proposed Massachusetts legislation the fine would be $25.
https://turnto10.com/news/local/massachusetts-bill-would-allow-speed-red-light-cameras
They are not currently legal, but there’s a bill scheduled for debate this week that would allow them to be used for a few scenarios:
Red light runners (no ticket if any part of the car is over the line while the light is yellow)
Speeding (> 5mph over the limit)
Illegal right on red (no stop or where prohibited)
Blocking an intersection or bus lane
The fine would be limited to $25, not entered on the driver’s RMV record (so no points/insurance impact) and IIRC any profit over the upkeep costs will need to remitted to the state’s transportation trust fund. The main issue I’ve seen in other areas that try cameras is that they partner with a private company and thus have an incentive to maximize the amount of tickets sent out, common for the yellow light indicators to be shortened at the same time cameras are implemented among other shenanigans. They do reduce tbone collisions but increase rear ends I’m guessing due to people slamming their brakes as soon as the light turns yellow.
The proposed law actually seems fairly reasonable, it sets limits on how many cameras can be deployed, they have to be publicly debated and there have to be clearly visible signs warning drivers that they are there among other things. Also has a number of restrictions against photographing the driver and ensuring that the photos are destroyed in a timely manner. I’m guessing the restriction on profits going to the transportation trust fund is there to discourage the incentive to pull in a private company to maximize the number of tickets going out.
Good idea, but how do we also discourage the incentive to maximize the number of tickets going to the transportation fund?
In Providence, the full video of each alleged violation is reviewed by a police officer and they are supposed to be the ones who sign off on the tickets – in theory, at least (RI being RI, who knows what actually happens in practice). If that model were to be successfully implemented in MA then incentives for issuing tickets wouldn’t really change.
Will they have facial recognition software?
The best implementation would lead to zero tickets issued because the cameras would deter dangerous behaviors.
I hate this use of technology. The city would use it as a piggy bank, and by the time an offender receives notification they can’t necessarily recall the alleged infraction. I would also hope that police unions would recognize this as a threat to their jobs. I’ve always found and believed that it’s a learning experience to get pulled over by a police officer. A genuine opportunity to change specific driving behavior. Reduce an infraction to a ticket in the mail, and it becomes all about the money. It will not alter bad driving habits.
In my opinion, the use of this equipment is also a violation of the 6th Amendment. The use of autonomous cameras is very different than the use of a radar gun that’s literally in the hands of a trained police officer. In the case of the latter, the accuser is a human officer who was actually onscene either at the time of the alleged infraction or very shortly thereafter. In the case of the former, the “accuser” is a piece of technology, and the “states” use of an officer to sign these tickets is a thinly veiled attempt to dodge constitutional protections.
@Jerry Reilly – The state wouldn’t be maintaining these or have a say in where they go, they just set the guardrails on how many can be deployed and restrictions around usage. The usual conflict of interest is the municipality and company maintaining the cameras getting a split of the profits, but as worded they can only recoup the cost to operate and don’t get to keep the profit. I guess it’s possible that a city still tries to game it but there would be no direct benefit in doing so.
@Rick Frank – The cameras would be prohibited from taking frontal photos of the car and municipalities would have to make efforts to ensure that the driver, passengers and contents of the car cannot be identified. The photos also have to be destroyed within 48 hours of the final disposition of the ticket. The fine goes to the person the car is registered to regardless of who was actually driving so they don’t need to prove who was in the car.
I’m torn on this one – on one hand I’d echo Mike Striar’s thoughts with the additional concern of normalizing constant surveillance along the lines of 1984. On the other hand it does seem like the bill has given thought around privacy concerns along with minimizing the conflict of interest around profits from these cameras. Would like to see the restrictions go a step further and only allow these to be used in school zones or intersections which are near school bus stops.
@Mike Striar, it absolutely changes driver behavior. Britain has speed and red light cameras everywhere, and I promise you, it makes a difference.
I hate it, but it’s absolutely effective. Anecdote: I was driving back to my sister’s house late at night, from the nursing home where my mother was on deathwatch. I must say that I was preoccupied. Flash! Went through a 30 mph speed camera in a residential area probably doing 40. Insult added to injury, as my mother died an hour later.
That’s why I hate it. But it’s also effective, and you don’t have cops sitting at the side of the road catching people for speeding infractions. Instead, they’re doing more useful things.
Interesting topic and a nice reprieve from (you know what).
Agree with all of the above, but am particularly concerned with the slippery slope of precedence. If proven successful, what’s next? Tickets for jay walking? Checking a text while walking?
As the law is currently written, many minor traffic violations do indeed qualify as events which result in a surcharge under the SDIP (Safe Driver Insurance Plan). For a detailed list, look here at Appendix A. https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/06/26/Safe%20Driver%20Insurance%20Plan_0.pdf Also, fines increase with multiple offenses which means that there has to be a record of the particular individual’s driving history so the idea that there would be no permanent record is a bit of a non-starter.
Also, since the law imposes surcharges for the driver who commits a violation, issuing the ticket to the registered owner or owners (as there can be more than one) is additionally problematic (due process anyone), not to mention the concept of destroying the video (failure to preserve evidence). One does have a right to contest the issuance of a ticket (due process again), even if only a civil infraction, and the police have an obligation to preserve evidence.
Recall that it was not terribly long ago that a college professor resident of Newton was wrongly accused of and ticketed for improper driving and at the time he was sitting in his office.
We are already being heavily monitored by police and private video surveillance; I’ve seen lots of surveillance videos in my work in criminal defense. I’m not aware of any published listing of police pole cameras but the evidence is gathered in connection with criminal investigations and I’m only surprised when there is a lack of video evidence, not the presence of it.
And lastly, I agree with Mike Striar’s point that being actually stopped by a police officer and forced to experience the humiliation of sitting in your car while they run your plate and license can be a behavior modifying experience … especially for those individuals who actually end up in handcuffs in the back of a squad car. Finally, don’t underestimate the number of individuals with outstanding warrants who are caught because of a minor traffic infraction. I don’t have a statistic I can share, just years of experience with lots of defendants who were picked up by the police because of a traffic violation.
Cheers!
Here are two other applications citizens should consider:
1. Carbon-taxing Far West Suburbanite Commuters: During peak traffic hours, use the Bush ’43 era cameras at major intersections to read license plates.
* Allow use for all plates registered to a Newton address and paying excise tax to the City of Newton (everyone have their new Excise Bills?)
* Issue a summons and allow payment of a fine to forego appearing in Newton Court
* Back it up with an ordinance authorizing exclusive use of City roadways during peak hours by taxpaying citizens
2. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority automatic issuance of speeding tickets
* Based on point-of-toll-collection observation of each vehicle’s speed (already measured and recorded by current technology)
* Based on calculated elapsed-time interval between tolling stations
All by way of saying “one might be careful of what one wants from government … “
I’ve spent a lot of time in and around Melbourne, Australia, where speed and red light cameras are in wide operation and are generally accepted by the public as a way of saving lives. And people there are just as sensitive to privacy concerns. Here”s a summary: https://www.police.vic.gov.au/road-safety-cameras
Excerpt:
“Speed contributes to approximately one third of Victorian road trauma; this equates to approximately 100 deaths and 2,000 serious injuries. Even small increases in vehicle speed can significantly impact on the risk of a driver having a crash. Speed management is, therefore, critical in keeping our roads safe and in reducing road trauma.
Drivers travelling at 65km/h in a 60km/h zone [that’s 39 mph in a 36 mph zone] double their risk of being in a crash. The risk increases even more at higher speeds.
Speed cameras / red light cameras have reduced injury crashes by up to 47 per cent at Victorian intersections.”
As far as I can find, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not to date adopted any statutes which would permit the issuance of citations automatically based upon the described camera technology. It has been adopted in some states, and in one state I am aware of – Ohio, the law was held to be unconstitutional on both state and local grounds. So, I think the short answer is “no”, the City cannot adopt this absent several significant changes in Massachusetts laws and the Code of Mass. Regulations.
Paul is correct that slower speeds reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes. (I don’t like to call them “accidents” because an accident is an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.) Driver perception reaction time is fairly constant and when people travel at slower speeds they have more time to take evasive action. I’m not offering anything novel here. The question is how to enforce slower speeds and punish the individual responsible for speeding or violating traffic laws. I’m not persuaded for many reasons that holding the owner of the vehicle accountable whether they are the operator or not is at all appropriate. If they have negligently entrusted their vehicle to someone who ought not be operating, there is a remedy for that if the driver causes harm. But issuing the ticket to the registered owner upon the assumption that the registered owner was the driver improperly shifts the burden of proof onto the person accused of violating the traffic law to prove they were not the owner, while not capturing a video of the operator and then not preserving the video? I’d take that appeal in a New York minute.