Florida is poised to mandate the use of remote cameras to issue citations to cars running red lights, according to
The Miami Herald. And while there are many detractors, when you examine all the arguments, the rational mind can really only conclude that the cameras are a good idea.
Most of the arguments for and against deal with a specific usage: issuing red lights to cars that run through them. We'll examine that in a bit, but first, let's address another use that nay-sayers are completely ignoring: providing an objective view of accidents at intersections.
Case in point: a co-worker was recently broadsided by an ambulance that ran a red light from a blind intersection. He and an eyewitness maintain that the ambulance did not have its lights and sirens running; the ambulance driver and an off-duty police officer that was behind the ambulance claim that he did. No one, apparently, is denying that the ambulance ran the red light. But with two eyewitnesses directly contradicting each, and each driver maintaining their innocence, we have no indisputable resource to settle the matter. Why would the cop lie? Well, why would the civilian witness lie? I don't know what happened; I wasn't there. Should the driver have seen the ambulance? Was he careless? Or was the ambulance driver recklessly ignoring traffic laws? A camera on the intersection would settle it beyond a reasonable doubt. I've advised my friend to find an excellent lawyer.
The arguments go like this:
It's unfair, because the owner might not have been driving the car.
Remember, you're not being cited as a driver; it's not criminal violation, it's a a civil one. The ticket works on
exactly the same principle as parking tickets: you are responsible for your vehicle, so you get the fine. Since you should know who was using your car when it was illegally parked - or driven through the red light - you can certainly go to that person and demand that they pay you for the violation they exposed you to. But it IS your car, and you ARE responsible for how it is used.
As reported in
the Murfreesboro Post, the Seventh District Court of Appeals agrees:
“Owners will take more care when lending their cars and often they can
pass the expense on to the real wrongdoer," the court’s opinion said.
The 7th District Court also addressed the next major complaint about red light cameras:
It's unfair, because municipalities make money off the fines.
So what? As long as the picture actually shows a car actually running a red light, why shouldn't a fine be levied? A law was broken, and public safety was put in jeopardy. If you want to deprive the city of the revenue, just stop before the light turns red. As the court ruled:
“That the City's system raises revenues does not condemn it. Taxes, whether on liquor or on running red lights, are valid municipal endeavors. Like any other exaction, a fine does more than raise revenue: It also discourages the taxed activity. A system that simultaneously raises money and improves compliance with traffic laws has much to recommend it and cannot be called unconstitutionally whimsical."
So what's next? An exceptionally lame argument, that's what:
But if people stop at red lights, the people behind them will be more likely to rear-end them.
Everyone is supposed to stop at the red light, not just the car in front. If you are operating the car properly, you are watching the car in front of you, and you are maintaining the proper safe following distance, and it won't matter when the person in front of you stops. What this argument really boils down to is "most people operate their cars unsafely and should have their licenses suspended, so they shouldn't be expected to follow the most basic traffic safety laws." IF, in fact, cars start getting rear-ended because drivers are stopping at red light
like they are supposed to, the problem
isn't that the cars are stopping at the red lights, but that
too many bad drivers have been issued or allowed to keep licenses that they do not deserve to have. If people can't stop at red lights, they shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel, period.
It's unfair because it violates my right to privacy.
I can't decide if this is a more stupid argument than the "stopping at a
light causes accidents" idiocy; perhaps they are both equally stupid. You're on a public street: you have
no expectation of privacy when you're out in
public. If you had a right to privacy on a public road, you wouldn't have to have a unique license tag that identifies the owner of the vehicle mounted in plain view on the bumper. No one is issuing a ticket for the way you drive on your private property; ram that car through the back wall of your garage, if you like. But go out on a public street, you're doing it
in public.
It Violates "due process."
No, it doesn't. You can certainly appeal it, if you're so inclined. What's that? "Facing your accuser?" The camera was decades in the future when the framers created the Constitution, so they couldn't specify cameras, but in the case of red light cameras, the photograph is your accuser, and you certainly have the right to "face" the photo. Its testimony is unlikely to change under cross-examination, however. About the only way to explain away a photo of your car running a red light is to claim that The State has doctored the photo to get at you. But I don't believe that police are wasting hours doctoring photographs so they can falsely charge you with running a red light; if we're really at the point where that is a reasonable expectation,this nation is already doomed.
The bottom line is this; the cameras can't stop anyone from running a red light. It can only photograph you doing it. If you think you have a valid reason to run red lights, you can continue to menace society in this fashion. And whoever owns the car you're driving is going to fork over some dough. And frankly, I have no problems with that. You won't be doing it in MY car. Not more than ONCE, anyway.
