I couldn't recall the recent thread that got into this issue, but this article in the PG today is an example of how public safety is improved by having real live human police officers making traffic stops, as opposed to automatic cameras.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11023/1120178-100.stm
A traffic stop in the city this morning led to the arrest of a man who was wanted for homicide.
Pittsburgh police said Tersaun Cole, 19, of Carnegie, was apprehended shortly after midnight when the car in which was riding was stopped at Middle Street and North Avenue on the North Side for a suspected traffic violation.
Police said that Mr. Cole had exited the rear passenger door after the Dodge Stratus was stopped and he fled. He was apprehended by a pursuing officer.
Police said he was in possession of 84 bags of suspected heroin and now faces numerous felony drug charges in addition to criminal homicide.
The homicide charges is in connection to a killing that occurred the afternoon of Thursday, Dec. 30, in Elmore Square, in the Hill district. Teante Hill, 30, of Pittsburgh's Bluff neighborhood, had been shot numerous times in the torso. Mr. Hill died the next day.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11023/1120178-100.stm#ixzz1BsrK0Xvj
I think part of the discussion was that it's not necessarily an "either/or". I'd prefer both, for exactly the reason suggested by this story. But if you remove cameras from the equation, I think it's eliminating a whole level of traffic law enforcement that could benefit every road user if implemented appropriately. Appropriately does not mean replacing men and women on patrol.
i don't like being spied on.
Stories like this always crack me up. If you have 84 bags of heroine in your car why wouldn't you be driving your car to the letter of the law?
"suspected traffic violation" is what the cops come up with when they want to search your car.
it's also an easy one - it's basically impossible to follow the law 100% of the time even if you devote all your attention to it. and 99.999999% of people don't try that hard.
@salty- sounds to me like the cops were right on this one.
exactly my point. they likely knew they wanted to pull that car over, then observed the "suspected traffic violation" - not vice versa.
Then there's Jonny Gammage....
From Wikipedia: "The car that Gammage was driving, a Jaguar, belonged to NFL player Ray Seals, Gammage's cousin. Seals was not present, he had loaned the car to Gammage who was visiting from his hometown of Syracuse, NY. Per court testimony, Lt. Milton Mullholland of the Brentwood Police Department began following Gammage as he drove northbound on State Route 51, after noticing that Gammage had braked when passing the Mullholland's patrol car, which was parked on the side of the road. After driving behind Gammage for more than a mile and a half (leaving Brentwood and entering City of Pittsburgh limits) Mulholland decided to stop Gammage because Gammage repeatedly braked to slow his car -- despite the fact that the portion of the roadway on which Gammage was traveling is graded and braking is necessary to remain within the speed limit. Upon stopping Gammage, Mullholland called for backup, but rather than a general backup call, he specifically requested the presence of Officer John Vojtas on the scene.
As Mullholland ran computer checks on Gammage's driver's license and the car registration, Sgt. Keith Henderson of the Whitehall Police Department arrived on the scene. Witnessing Gammage talking on his cellular telephone inside the vehicle, Henderson shone his flashlight into Gammage's car and drew his weapon. Officer John Vojtas of Brentwood arrived next, and with his weapon drawn, had a loud discussion with Gammage which resulted in Gammage exiting the car, cellular telephone and datebook in hand. Vojtas knocked the items to the ground using his flashlight. When he raised his flashlight, Gammage knocked the flashlight from Vojtas's hand. Vojtas and Henderson tackled Gammage and wrestled him to the ground. Mullholland joined in the altercation, helping the other two men pin the struggling Gammage to the ground. Officer Michael Albert of the Baldwin Police Department (who had arrived in response to the backup request) approached and attempted to assist in handcuffing him. Officer Shawn Peterson of the Whitehall Police Department also became involved, and joined Vojtas, Mullholland and Henderson in holding Gammage down, as one or more of the men struck him with flashlights. Gammage was eventually handcuffed, at which time only the two Whitehall officers, Henderson and Patterson remained in contact with him, one sitting on Gammage's legs, another holding his upper body.
Within just seven minutes, Gammage lay dead. The coroner's report showed his cause of death to be asphyxiation due to pressure applied to the chest and neck. His last words were alleged to be "Keith, Keith, I'm 31. I'm only 31.""
that was an "honest mistake" - and at least nothing like that could happen again... uh, oops...
And I remember the shitstorm in Syracuse after Gammage was killed.
From the Synthesis/Regeneration website:
The case received national attention because Gammage's cousin was Pittsburgh Steeler defensive tackle Ray Seals. Seals' father and Gammage's uncle, Tommie Seals, was a member of the Syracuse police force. Jonny Gammage had no criminal record. He was known in Syracuse as a positive and generous member of the community.
then there's cameras in pittsburgh police cars.
Would not have helped jordan miles, as the officers were in plain clothes and an unmarked car, nor Johnny Gammage, as it were suburban police officers fishing for a caller...
with cameras, they might not have needed a "suspected traffic violation", they might have had 15 unpaid redlight running tickets caught by cameras to stop the car for.
it's not like cops are going to stop pulling people over when the cameras are put in. it's a supplement or a tool. the cameras could have the opposite effect and actually free up the police to do more "policing" instead of spending their time pulling people over for running red lights
Last week on my way to work I saw a cop pull over a minivan for blowing through a red light at Panther Hollow and Greenfield Rd.
The same exact light I got left crossed at.
If they could invent a camera to stop the Pittsburgh left, that would be super awesome. In any case, a camera would have made proving who is at fault a whole hell of a lot easier. The whole your word against his thing sucks, especially if you're dead and don't have any words.
I can't believe so many people here are so against cameras on general principle, but that is the first thing everyone looks for after one of us gets creamed at an intersection.
Night before last, around 10 PM, I saw a guy blow an oh so very, very red light on Penn Ave at Dallas, with a cop stopped at the light in the oncoming lane. As soon as the motorist realized OMGthatsacop he hit his brakes -- about 20 yards past the intersection. I have to assume that the cop had something more important to do, because he didn't even flash his lights at the guy. Maybe he just figured "hell, it's late at night and there's nobody coming so it wasn't all that dangerous, might as well let that slide."
The good thing about cameras is that they keep working even when they're about to go off-shift, and they don't beat people up in the O or break their girlfriends' jaws.
@rsprake If you have 84 bags of heroine in your car why wouldn't you be driving your car to the letter of the law?
Before profiling became a national issue about racism, a Florida judge had thrown a case out and, IIRC, had even demanded the profiling be revamped.
"Driving a rental car just under the speed limit after midnight" was in the profile.
There was a tasty quote from the judge. The gist of it was, "In my courtroom, following the law is never considered reasonable cause for suspition."
It was long enough ago that the judge may have been a segregation-era appointee.
I can't believe so many people here are so against cameras on general principle, but that is the first thing everyone looks for after one of us gets creamed at an intersection.
I'm generally iffy on automated law enforcement (i.e. computers mailing out tickets based on image processing of red-light cameras); I'd not be opposed to something like, say, maintaining a rolling 24 hours of video footage at intersections or other trouble spots. That strikes me as a tool valuable enough to warrant spending a few bucks.
+1 reddan.
Precisely. Not every "running an orange" is unsafe. But most unsafe behavior is related to breaking some law. There is a level of subjectiveness that is lost when an automatic ticket-writing machine takes over.
I would feel a lot better about them if, as reddan suggests, there was a full-motion video recording 24/7 at trouble spots. Have the equipment "bookmark" potential ticketworthy situations, and have one trained policeman evaluate each, and press "Yes" or "No". Maybe have two doing this, independently, and actually issue the ticket if they both press "Yes".
EDIT [added after Steven made his post]: Having the full-motion video would allow LEO to evaluate accidents, not merely take after-the-fact statements and reconstruction specialists.
+1 for automation with human checking.
Why can't those three police officers who've been on paid leave for the last year while the feds try to figure out if they want to prosecute them for beating Jordan Miles instead be sitting in a dark room pushing a button all day?
@steven Why can't those three police officers who've been on paid leave for the last year while the feds try to figure out if they want to prosecute them for beating Jordan Miles instead be sitting in a dark room pushing a button all day?
Because judgement is involved.
oh snap!
I wouldn't want to inflict that button pushing on a trained police officer, I'd rather have them out on the street.
The trigger, recognition, and citation issuing automation are tweakable and proven - in rare circumstances would you need someone to review the footage or override the system. This isn't the 70s. These systems are successfully and happily in place, doing their job, around the world. We trust computers to handle our banking, our health records, our taxes, so much of our lives is already computerized (and on video, too) - seriously? A red light ticket by a proven system we don't trust?
One problem that seems to be consistent everywhere I've heard of cameras at intersections being used - they need kevlar protection, especially in trouble spots. People do seem to object to being caught misbehaving.
@ejwme:A red light ticket by a proven system we don't trust?
Heh...don't WANT, not don't TRUST. Crucial diff, at least in my case.
I am not worried that red light camera systems will issue tickets erroneously, nor am I worried that they will _replace_ live police officers. (Obviously, the money required to design, install, and maintain the system could otherwise be spent elsewhere, but I'm not going to speculate on how much difference that would make.)
I dislike automated law enforcement; while I generally shy away from making slippery-slope arguments, I believe that removal of the human element from law enforcement (even if it seems benign and foolproof) is an additional step towards the alienation and disconnection of individuals from their community.
I do not agree with letting a red-light runner slide because *this particular incident* was not dangerous. Especially when the light was extremely red, not just orange.
People who push red lights right to the hairy edge and then past, are aggressive, pushy, self-centered drivers. If they're not situationally aware enough to see the marked cop car at the intersection, they're definitely not situationally aware enough to see a cyclist approaching the intersection on a cross street, just reaching the light when it turns green. Or other situations.
Frankly, it's much safer to pull up to a red light, stop, look both ways, and then intentionally drive through it, than it is to push the light and run it at speed just after it turns red.
Frankly, it's much safer to pul up to a red light, stop, look both ways, and then intentionally drive through it, than it is to push the light and run it at speed just after it turns red.
Sounds like an Idaho red light to me. 
The red-light runners that most bother me aren't the aggressive ones; it's the oblivious ones who didn't even notice the light that terrify me.
In general, I'd like to see efforts put towards implementing more draconian consequences, rather than narrowly focused preventative efforts. Instead of telling people "here's a list of bad behaviors...feel free to drive like an adam's apple otherwise", let's tell people "if you hurt somebody, you're going to pay a stiff price...even if you're driving 'legally'".
That said, I suspect we're far more likely to get approval for cameras than for actual penalties that aren't trumped by the "I didn't see him" defense. 
Semi-related, it pisses me off to no end that the state is spending Millions upon millions of dollars to "automate" the turnpike with the easy-pass camera system, with the rationale being to some day in the distant future "control costs" by eliminating jobs. Oh, and by the way, I get worse service because of the fewer cash lanes because I don't want to take on another stupid monthly account for a system I might use 4 or 5 times a year. And the state can't fund transit. Bullshit. Mini-rant.
Edmonds - There's a toll bridge just outside Vancouver (where the bikelanes are paved with gold and the trees are hugged daily) that is fully automated. No trasnponder necessary, though there is one available. It's the Golden Ears Bridge.
You have two choices to cross this terribly convenient (and lonely) bridge: Drive across without a transponder, or drive across with one. With one, you get a discount that makes sense for more than about 5 crossings a month. Without one, the registered owner gets a bill in the mail once a month with the tallied tolls for that car. No booths. No cash. No stopping.
The QEW (I think?) outside Toronto is the same way, though I'm less sure when the transponder starts to pay for itself.
The EZ-pass? adding another layer of complication that's not necessary.
reddan - thank you for clarifying the difference between not wanting and not trusting. I do have a tendancy to assume that the two are the same, and while in some cases they are, not always, thank you!
I hardly ever drive, but I still love ez-pass, especially the full speed toll plazas where you don't even need to slow down to get scanned.
Once you sign up, you don't really need to worry about it. I haven't logged into the website since we signed up. Every so often when it gets low it just automagically takes money from our credit card. The less I have to think about, the better. Nothing worse than the feeling of getting up to the toll booth and suddenly wondering if you've got cash. If they could get their act together and get one ez-pass system for the whole country, even better.
In Dubai every single car in the whole city has a transponder. They have toll scans all over the place. We were driving around and didn't even realize we were going through a toll, but I was told they'll snap your picture and send you a ticket if you don't have a transponder and go through one. No cash payment possible.
I wonder how many fossil fuels are wasted by having everyone slow down, wait in line, pay a few nickels to a human being, and punch the accelerator.
Oi, your description of Dubai does the opposite of making me feel better about such a system here, though it undoubtedly gets drivers to pay up for what they use.
I'm not crazy about the automagical withdrawals, either. I'm just a fully manual person, I despise the sync function on itunes, and I'm still not convinced of the usefulness of indexed shifting. I'm like the school they tore down to build the old school.
I'm just a fully manual person, I despise the sync function on itunes, and I'm still not convinced of the usefulness of indexed shifting. I'm like the school they tore down to build the old school.
*i* am gentoo linux.
that would make a fun commercial.
edmonds - I know a good many people like you, manual cash preferences. I've got my share of them, myself... I avoid the toll roads because I don't want to have to carry cash and I don't want to pay $3/year or whatever it is just to have the thingie sit on my dash (and I object very strongly to them sitting on my $30 until I "use" it - just leave it where it was, thank you).
In my mind, the benefits of a 100%plate/registration based fast lane automated system are high enough that I'd choose that over 100% manual booth-worker tolls, which I'd also choose over this half assed EZpass system.
I'm an all or nothing kind of gal, these inbetween shenanigans make the turnpike a road of last resort.
Which is sort of why I really like the cameras for red light runners - "only follow the laws when you think you'll get caught" seems to be an acceptable method of driving for some people. Well, if they always think they'll get caught, they're now predictable and easy to bike/drive/walk with on the road.
your description of Dubai does the opposite of making me feel better about such a system here
Dubai is crazy in so many ways. Tolls are the last thing anyone would worry about spending money on. For more information on their toll system see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salik_(road_toll) It looks like they aren't "all over the place" like I said, but only in 4 specific locations.
In the US, I think being able to stick tolls on various bits of infrastructure without having to add more than a pole and a scanner would make a lot of sense. Need a new bridge? Fund it with tolls. Tunnel maintenance? Toll the tunnel. Congestion bad? Toll specific hours. Encourage people to bus/car pool? Toll the non-carpool lanes. I'm sure there are all kinds of problems with this, but I can dream. I'd rather my toll dollars go directly to the infrastructure, rather than the overhead of paying someone to sit and collect my tolls.
Plus, think about all those extra infrastructure dollars leftover for transit and bikes. It might get people to switch modes if they know it'll cost them an extra $3 every time they drive to work alone in rush hour.
you basically described driving into manhattan
From that link I came across this. I didn't realize they reclaimed THAT much space. So awesome.
does someone have to deputize the computer which decides that you ran a red light and issue you a ticket? cause if not.. that's not a legal ticket. and if so, why the hell are you deputizing computers! haven't these idiots seen Terminator!
i have serious issues with the use of computer and video surveillance technologies. on the one had we have the potential of a Terminator-like apocalypse and on the other hand we have a ruling class with is striving to make the working class redundant so it can replace us with robots (see this) and keep us well in line in the meantime. if this doesn't frighten people any more than the future is already lost.
When I was in Columbus a few months ago, the paper was all about the automated ticket cameras. They have some key intersections that are monitored, but it is "up to the discretion of [humans]" who actually gets tickets in the mail. Word of mouth, though, was that the cameras had come in handy for monitoring licenses & activity on a street that was notorious for drug trafficking. That's not the intended purpose of the cameras, but that's another way they were being used.
[edit: here's a more recent article about this in Columbus...http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/28/copy/traffic-camera-deal-wont-face-competition.html?adsec=politics&sid=101]
@nick we have a ruling class with is striving to make the working class redundant so it can replace us with robots
My impression is more prosaic: they are replacing us with Chinese workers. The trade deficit doesn't seem to be making the rich any poorer. For sure.
That NYC video is beyond awesome. I saw very little editing, and very few stops for lights or traffic. I didn't see in the comments how much this is sped up from normal, any idea?
nick, I'm not sure if you're aware, but most banks all have computerized records. so if you participate in the modern economy at all (and some people don't, I understand that and am slightly envious of it, honestly), you're already participating in a globalized computer-based infrastructure that can (and I personally believe actually does) track you.
Even the Giant Eagle Advantage Card watches what you buy and when, then sells that information (even if you pay in cash).
Every time you use the internet, an ATM card, a credit card, your cell phone (even when you're not making a call, many phones have GPS now), your Giant Eagle advantage card, (or any card with a bar-code or a magnetic strip), give your Social security number, walk past a security camera, show your id or passport to law enforcement, apply for a job or a loan... nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
I think it would be fascinating for someone to make a "Supersize Me" type film about what it would take to "drop off the grid" completely.
@Stu: The NYC video's description says 2X normal speed.
@Ejwme: Giant Eagle says they don't sell or otherwise share loyalty card info with other companies (apart from various exceptions like corporate mergers and companies they hire to manage aspects of the program). They share it with law enforcement though.
It's interesting to contrast American approaches toward privacy with European ones. Europeans typically have strict privacy laws that govern how much information corporations can keep on them, much stronger than here. Americans are more wary of government surveillance, while that's generally more accepted in Europe.
Of course these are broad generalizations, but the European attitude seems to be that governments work for the people, while corporations don't, so the former deserve more trust. In America, perhaps we have weak privacy laws because corporate interests control so much of our government. And people don't trust the government partly for the same reason.
Steven - they share "In order to provide you with services or information that you request or benefits for which you are eligible as a Giant Eagle® customer;"
That's a truck sized loop hole. I'm eligible as a GE customer to have the benefit of my purchase history being sold to the highest bidder, in order to get an extra $0.50 off Cheez Product today, yay.
But I have noticed the same exact tendencies on Euro vs US sentimentalities. People don't trust corporations here either, but I think we've gone all fatalistic about corporate interests, it's the darker side of the American Dream the collective has seemed to accept. The government... I have no idea why the collective seems to dislike them so much. They're no more or less incompetant than everybody else, they just have less creative marketing.
The government... I have no idea why the collective seems to dislike them so much. They're no more or less incompetant than everybody else, they just have less creative marketing.
there are a number of reasons for americans' distrust of government. first of all, it's genetic. it's part of the national psyche. we fought a war because we didn't like the way we were being governed, and another one because some others didn't like the way they were being governed. distrust of government is even built into the constitution.
additionally, we trust corporations more because we assume they're simply out for themselves. that makes them at least somewhat predictable. we know they don't care about us, so that's just an operating assumption. the government is supposed to care about us, but we have many examples where they go against our interests. it's a big and diverse country, and everyone has various and (self-)contradictory ideas about what the purpose of government should be. then you take an average citizen and give him some power, then ask him to look out for all of us - how can anyone expect him to do that?
corporations aren't supposed to look out for us, but the government is. thus, when corporations screw us, we say "yeah, i thought so." but when the government does it, it hurts, and foments more distrust.
@steven Of course these are broad generalizations, but the European attitude seems to be that governments work for the people, while corporations don't, so the former deserve more trust. In America, perhaps we have weak privacy laws because corporate interests control so much of our government. And people don't trust the government partly for the same reason.
In the US, there is a judicial tradition that the 14th and 15th amendment mean that basic human rights, and constitutional right inhere in corporations.
The function of that tradition was to deny that the 14th and 15th really were to guarantee rights to Afro-Americans.
Even now, the right wing talks about "individual rights" and "Balanced budgets" they mean corporate power and less tax for corporations.
It's why I think the Tea Partiers are deluded suckers.
Right. Once you realize that the government is looking out for the corporations and not "the people", everything becomes a lot clearer.
@ejwme they share "In order to provide you with services or information that you request or benefits for which you are eligible as a Giant Eagle® customer;"
That's a truck sized loop hole.
I worked with a woman whose husdand was an upper level IT working with the card DB. She said that her husband privately advised to never use the card.
The cards are becoming ubiquitous. They used to have GE specials that didn't involve the card. They are far fewer. Rite Aid used to have specials that didn't involve a card -now they dont'.
I'm beginning mroe and mroe to think that corporations - and the very wealthy that control them - are beginning to looked priveleged in the same ways that French aristocracy was before 1789. No taxes, great influence over government, etc.
One way the lords and nobles used to justify their priveleges was how their consumption provided employment for so many people!
I used to belong to a secret club of people who would regularly exchange giant eagle cards just for fun. We were trying to fry the consumer profile, cause we had crazy different buying habits from each other at the store. It was also kind of a fun lottery for the free turkey...
They specifically say they don't sell information. They also say that whenever they make such data available to third parties in order to offer stuff to consumers, the third parties are prohibited from benefiting from the data.
I suppose they might evade the letter of that first rule by trading information with a manufacturer, in exchange for some benefit for both themselves and customers, as long as no money was exchanged and the manufacturer somehow didn't benefit. But if they wanted to do that sort of thing, why inconvenience themselves with a no-selling-info policy in the first place?
Nobody's making them keep the info private. They're volunteering to do so. I doubt their privacy claim causes significantly more people to sign up for Advantage cards, versus if they just said they use the info for various business purposes as allowed by law (as some companies do).
So I don't see the point of writing restrictive rules for themselves and then violating the spirit of them. It's more likely that they really don't want to share their marketing data with anyone. I imagine it's far more valuable to them than any single manufacturer would be willing to pay, and they really don't want it ending up in the hands of their competitors.
we fought a war because we didn't like the way we were being governed, and another one because some others didn't like the way they were being governed.
Isn't this also true of most every country in Europe? Some of them have fought many more wars than we have (over their longer histories) for these very reasons. So I'm not sure it explains any difference in the American psyche.
corporations aren't supposed to look out for us, but the government is. thus, when corporations screw us, we say "yeah, i thought so." but when the government does it, it hurts, and foments more distrust.
It seems like you're arguing that we favor corporations because they're predictable, even if they're predictably evil. (Some) Americans don't like our government because sometimes it works in our interests, sometimes it doesn't.
But if that's so, wouldn't they prefer to have a predictably evil government to the current occasionally inconsistent one? That seems unlikely (though perhaps it would explain the Tea Party...).
ejwme
"nick, I'm not sure if you're aware, but most banks all have computerized records. so if you participate in the modern economy at all (and some people don't, I understand that and am slightly envious of it, honestly), you're already participating in a globalized computer-based infrastructure that can (and I personally believe actually does) track you.
Even the Giant Eagle Advantage Card watches what you buy and when, then sells that information (even if you pay in cash)."
yeah, and why aren't more people deeply frightened by this?
on the topic of gov vs corporations, the government offers services which corporations could offer for a profit. anti-gov sentiment is part of an intentional propaganda strategy in order to expand the marketplace. for example: no one wants to eliminate SS instead they want to privatize it. this is also why the military is frequently off the chopping block, the military-industrial complex is already extremely lucrative.
the military-industrial complex is already extremely lucrative
Keeps CMU afloat... PITT is doing the same thing to legislators for bioterrorism funding.
I miss the viking thread.
Vikings are never far away. They're watching. And waiting.
"I didn't know vikings still existed."
"They mostly live in Minnesota."
This sums up how I feel pretty well.
not to fan the flames on a dead topic, but I found this twist on the idea: http://www.pe.com/localnews/murrieta/stories/PE_News_Local_D_shotsprings31.1fb2e5f.html
and thought it interesting enough to share. So would forced charitable donations be better than a ticket? I kind of like the idea. Could funnel the money to charities that deal with alternative transportation, police/fire/emt support groups, or just the nearest charity to the intersection in question.
Then again, it could induce a driving crime spree for some busy ninny December 31st who is in so much of a rush to get in their year-end donation they can't write a check and drop it off somewhere.
I'm also not so keen that that particular article references a non-automated system. Same old, same old.
Wow... 5 cameras = $323k a year to the contractor! There's certainly some criminal activity going on, and you don't even need to take a picture of it!
"The lease will cost $5,395 per camera per month under the new contract, assuming the council approves it next month."
Of course, the city giving $4700/yr to charity makes it all ok. Pay no attention to what the other hand is doing!
@cburch - amen
Grumble! I can't see youtube at work, and I try and avoid computers at home ('cause I work on them all day). sigh.
The Infrastructurist just weighed in on this with some new data
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/02/04/do-traffic-cameras-keep-drivers-safe/
how am i supposed to know that there is a traffic light camera when i'm busy running a red light?
the only way such a scheme could be effective is if people *know* they are being watched. a cop standing on a street corner would be 10X more effective.
There are routinely cops standing at the corner of 5th and McKee in Oakland manually operating the stop light there. I don't know if it is to keep traffic flowing, prevent gridlock, or what, but it is not at all uncommon to see someone there on my way home. They are wearing a bright yellow jacket that says POLICE and a cop hat. Nobody seems to see them and they run the red lights just the same. Not that there is much a cop can do on foot.
Every red light camera I've seen has been well advertised. They put up a dozen signs starting a block away highlighting the photo enforced light, and usually mentioning how much the fine is as well. At least this is the way it is done in California, not sure about other states.
When heavier traffic due to 28 was coming through our intersection, they had foot cops here operating as well.
On three separate occasions, I saw them issue tickets (it may have been the same cop all three times) on foot. The one time the guy was going to just get a warning, mouthed off to the cop, and the cop chased him down 34th yelling "I've got your plate number and if you run, it will be far far worse than if you take this ticket" The guy took the ticket.
Entertaining all around. Wish it would happen more often (the tickets, not the mouthing off part…)
Every red light camera I've seen has been well advertised. They put up a dozen signs starting a block away highlighting the photo enforced light, and usually mentioning how much the fine is as well.
that's usually how i've seen it. and considering that the majority of the people are going thru the same intersection day after day, one would assume that they'd learn about it
If not, I'm sure the municipality would be kind enough to send them something in the mail.
erok - that's assuming they're paying attention to their surroundings as they drive. Oblivion is a hard habit to break, often only addressed through substantial hits to the wallet.
speaking of oblivion, did anyone catch the "news" on channel 11 last night about the guy who was upset his car was towed on sunday? he didn't claim he didn't see the sign (which read "NO PARKING AFTER 4PM 2/6/2011"), but that he didn't know his car would be towed if he parked it there.
#1 - really? that's "news"?
#2 - really? WTF did you think "NO PARKING" meant?
"No Parking" means "Other people shouldn't park there. But I'm good. 'Cause I'm AWESOME."
He is obviously a Viking! Vikings can park anywhere!
none of the red light cameras i've seen in pittsburgh are advertised. instead i just get creeped out and try to remember at what point our society turned into a police state.
Pretty sure there aren't any red light cameras in Pittsburgh. Is there something I missed?
Also, I hardly thing we live in anything close to a police state (with regards to traffic control, I assume, given the nature of this thread?). I rarely see anyone following any sort of traffic law whatsoever.
The cheap way out of this would be to simply post a bunch of signs saying the next intersection is camera monitored, without actually rigging up a camera. It would have the desired effect, with none of the downside we've been discussing. Of course it wouldn't hurt to set up a portable video camera on a simple tripod near some corner, every once in a while, just to give it some legitimacy, and teeth. It would also allow the LEO to write citations for stuff other than running "orange" lights, and thereby actually improve safety for the populace.
Yea, I bet that would work about as well as all the white lines I see painted across half the roads in town, with accompanying "speed monitored by vascar" signs. That has totally cut down on all the speeding. I'd give it a week before people figure out there is a very small percent chance they'll actually get a ticket from the roaming camera and go back to running the light.
Without an actual threat to the pocketbook, nobody cares.
dwillen - it only takes one. I heard somewhere that there was 'a study' done once on the tunnels, and all it took was one car to slow down by 5mph and the effects on surrounding traffic was measurable for five miles before the tunnel. Man I wish I could remember where I heard that. I don't even remember if the source was remotely credible, or if I just believed it plausible.
Regardless, all it takes for cars to stop at the red light is for the person in front of them to stop at the red light. Maybe a little "herd innoculation" effect on the specially observant who realize they've been duped? They can only run it if they're first in line.
Note that cameras neither beat their domestic partners, nor listen to Guns'N Roses on headphones at disciplinary hearings...
@ejwme - they actually make reference to that "fact" in the movie "Singles". one of the main characters is a traffic engineer.
definitely some truth to that: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/11/why-traffic-flow-slows-when-drivers-hit-tunnels
but, i don't think there's a valid analogy to red lights. in the tunnel case, a small percentage of drivers slowing down leads to a standing wave that affects a large number of drivers. a small increase in the percentage of drivers stopping leads to a small percentage decrease in red light running - someone stopping maybe affects one or two other cars at busy times.
in pittsburgh no one slows down 5 mph at the tunnels, its more like 15 mph.
dwillien,
i can't remember the specific intersections, but keep an eye out (penn and 5th ave maybe?). earlier this week i noticed at least three cameras looking me in the face while stopped at red lights. maybe these aren't red light cameras and are instead looking into people's cars cameras.
as for a police state, that's probably a topic for another thread. but i stand by my comment.
They might be part of the city's surveillance camera system.
The surveillance cameras seem to be very useful for getting video of vehicles running down pedestrians and cyclists, which prosecutors can then discard since they claim to not have grounds to prosecute drivers.
They should have a surveillance camera at Jack's Pizza on Hart's Run...
I believe those cameras are intended to replace inductive loops to trigger signal changes. If they convince people not to run the red lights, though, I see no problem with that.
edit: dwillen, I believe that a police state is one in which the prevailing rule of law is that the police decide whom to punish and how, and where the police themselves are relatively immune to limits on that power.
@Dwillian
I always thought VASCAR was the Spanish word for Enforced, lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VASCAR_enforced.jpg
I think calling America a "police state" is odd considering much of the world population is forced to live in an actual police state. Maybe I have it all wrong and the Egyptians are really just excited about shoes.
I could be living in a country where they can't feature "foreign" recipes on the TV.
ok not a direct analogy, but I stand by my conclusion - that not every driver has to be convinced that the red light cameras will steal their souls in order to decrease the light runners at a given intersection. herd innoculation.
and Singles is probably exactly where I heard it, since I was obsessed with that movie at about the time I think I "learned" it. The young are so impressionable.
There are no red light cameras in Pittsburgh. The last time this came up, Bill peduto was trying to do it, and all funds would be earmarked to improve pedestrian and bike facilities (because there is so little money for these improvements). Council at the time killed it.
I believe those cameras are intended to replace inductive loops to trigger signal changes. If they convince people not to run the red lights, though, I see no problem with that.
this is correct. they are actually cameras, but they are just there to trigger the lights to change.
erok, do those cameras register cyclists as well as automobiles, in order to trigger a light change?
I thought they were set to sense the presence of approaching fire trucks (and theoretically public transit vehicles) and so to turn or hold the light green accordingly. They have nothing to do with regular motor traffic.
I can't vouch for the ones at penn and fifth, but the brand new traffic lights in front of our office (at 34th and butler), the city's traffic engineer told us they were very low-res cameras that sense when there are cars waiting. she said that they are supposed to pick up when bikes are present, but most likely don't do it very well. i'm guessing it's hard to determine if it is a ped or a bike based on an image.
I think that in order to provide priority signalling, the vehicle needs a strobe light tuned to a particular frequency. I suppose it could just detect the typical frequencies of emergency vehicle light bars. In any event, I don't believe that the light at Penn & Fifth implements that, as I've seen emergency vehicles go through the red with lights flashing.
My understanding (and again, this needs testing) is that video vehicle detection is supposed to pick up bikes (and motorcycles, natch) and does no worse than the inductive loop technology. Except for ninja cyclists after dark - tough.
Infrared. World War II technology.
