Cameras in Cahoots!

[caddmannq]

Over the last few years there has been a lot of publicity over people who caused traffic accidents by running through a traffic stop light. These "red light runners" turned out to be rather common, and a call went out to do something about it. Fines quickly increased, but to little effect.

Then the city began installing special cameras over major intersections to take pictures of red light runners, so the police could send them a ticket (or summons) by mail. After about a year of tweaking around, these cameras are finally starting to operate.

But: (and here's the controversey) We (the city) don't own the cameras. They are owned, set up, and maintained by an independent electronics company. In a negotiated agreement (there was no competative bidding) the city gets the cameras and services "free" by turning over half the proceeds from traffic fines resulting from ticketing the people who are caught on camera.

Hmmm...lemme see... Isn't this the same as the city farming out police services to an outside company with no political accountability? That would be clearly illegal, and some folks here are starting to get squeemish about the "Big Brother" tactics employed too.

Whaddya think?

[Graham]

Cadd,
The cameras in the UK were untill recently installed by the County council (State), and the proceeds went to the government, now the proceeds are kept locally, this has the undesired effect of encouraging the installation of more cameras because they are moneymakers.

I see the point you are making, it is only a small step to a "private" police force.
There are places even here where people don't consider the police service to be adequate so they have hired security firms, I am sure it must be far more common in the US.

Also there are many instances where the government is looking for private funding to help provide public services, it seems that it is the way things will be more and more.


G

[Ming]

I hate to say anything about cameras as I had initially thought that it was a little bit of a stretch just to make money. After seeing one put up at an intersection that I usually drive through to go to work, I have had a change of heart. There have been so many accidents where people cheat the red light and hit someone. It just makes sense. The only cameras I have seen in the town I live in are in about 5 or 6 of the most common accident areas with lots of traffic.

[Gomer]

caddmannq: just curious if you have a link to any articles about this. I like to read up on stuff somewhat before I go shooting my mouth off.

As far as controversy goes... seems like anytime anyone tries to get a leg up on those breaking the law people get all upset and find something about it "controversial."

[Knothead]

Boy, tough call...I agree with Cadd, freedom dies just a little every time Government takes an intrusive, and possibly irreversable step into our lives and laws, but...

OTH, it's funny what a contentious breed we are. Like, we expect to be able to break the rules, but those in charge of enforcing the rules have to play it squeaky clean...

[Toadman]

Cadd, as long as a sworn police officer views those logs/pics and signs off on an alleged violation, it is legal.

We have an abundance of "red-light cameras" in Australia, all owned, maintained and operated by the various police departments or road transport boards AFAIK. They have been shown to reduce the likelihood of accidents due to "red-light runners" markedly. All intersections which have these cameras are well signposted before the inetsection to warn people, and it seems to work, from what I've read form the road safety people. Our motoring organisations favour them too.

We do use "non-police" personnel to man speed camera operations in Australia, these "guards" are regulated by the police department but are not trained police. They only sit by the cameras (to stop people stealing them! LOL) and do not issue traffic citations or such. These cameras have been criticised as revenue raisers more than the "red-light"cameras.

Cheers from Down Under
Mick

[cadetstimp]

The intersection cameras near my work have been deactivated due to litigation!

BTW..nice avatar mickwish!

I see nothing wrong in the city hiring an outside agency to do specialized work in which it (the city) has no core competency.

I do see a problem if there is no competitive bidding/RFP called. And I do see a problem in intrusion of privacy.

Other than that, what is the political accountability involved in using high technology to catch offenders? In fact, the general populace would feel safer on the roads were these offenders dissuaded from their "crimes".

The BIG BROTHER thing is another issue altogether. But realistically, the breadth and depth of information/profiling the Government agencies already have on the average person, starting from credit/phone/income information to medical/insurance/passport/fingerprints (as in my case as I immigrated here and the first thing they did at JFK airport was to fingerprint us and take mug shots) and so on is already so formidable that photographing your car is really no big deal. They even photograph you all the time in stores. So your face is already in some computer record.

It's already an overkill.