Loading ...
On The Beat – Automated Tickets: Here’s Your Reply
Written by Alex TeachJanuary 27, 2010 – 1:00 pm
Last week’s exposition on the use and benefits of traffic cameras has led to so many responses that I thought I’d continue the dialogue with you directly. The following are quotes pulled directly from the Pulse website and my own Facebook page (facebook.com/alex.teach).
Joshua: “I believe that if a camera could monitor every second of my life, then life itself would lose meaning. When I see a system where nobody has to be present for me to be caught of a crime, imagine the possibilities. They could plant chips in new born heads that identified police of their location and how much alcohol or other drugs they have used within seconds.”
I get this one a lot, and it always slays me. You being caught on video speeding has a direct correlation to Orwellian brain implants? And your inability to run a red light in the middle of a public street would cause you to lose meaning in life? Really? Folks…if your threshold for living is at such a low bar, getting a ticket may not be your worst problem. Check with your doctor and see if there is a prescription for Perspective. If so, double your dosage. (Relax, Josh: You’re still my literary “Boo”.)
Joe: “But wait, Officer Teach—what about that neanderthal cop who was videotaped shoving a 70+ year old man to the ground at Walmart? Why was he not convicted of any crime? Traffic cameras don’t lie–neither do security cameras. I suppose it depends on who you are.
And a note on your attitude: It is very unbecoming to write with such ugly, conceited sarcasm to the people you work for–the general public.”
Well, since you brought up oranges in my apples conversation, I’ll shock you by saying that I completely agree. They don’t lie and I have no idea why that old man wasn’t put in jail for grabbing his arm in front of God, video, and everybody, but I suppose the judge and grand jury of your peers will have to wrestle over their mercy towards both and the lack of arrests for some time. I swear, despite your media savvy, it’s as if you don’t know something about the case. Weird, huh?
As for the writing tip, if your first irrelevant point didn’t show your underlying irrational resentment towards police, this one does. Police don’t need a leash, brother; they’re held in check by the public trust, which they DO serve. So in answer, I am not writing to the people I work for—my sergeants, or the Pulse. I am expressing my thoughts on my own time. You’re just upset because unlike you, I don’t have to hide my issues with masked hubris and am able to simply call you a “sanctimonious prick” directly. It’s quite liberating, and you should be jealous, come to think of it.
Herb Montgomery: “I’m not sure when ‘big brother’ will piss me off enough to say enough is enough, but keeping assholes from running red lights sure ain’t it.”
Herb, you’ve learned a valuable lesson here: We don’t have to agree on everything to like each other. Your apparent propensity for common sense over ignorant indignation really puts you ahead of the rest here…on this topic at least. (Pardon the inside joke, folks.)
Joe Dumas: “Traffic cameras, however, represent a huge violation of the due process rights that we are supposedly guaranteed as American citizens. When the camera takes a photo of your car, you are assumed to be driving it and are charged with a violation. With traffic cameras, you are presumed guilty until and unless you can prove yourself innocent. No American should bear that burden.”
Joe, I’m not sure where you work, but you speak with great conviction for someone who actually doesn’t know at all that which they speak of. You are not ‘assumed’ to be driving it; the camera doesn’t actually care. The owner of the car, however, is held civilly responsible for the use of the car registered for them; that’s why when someone borrows your car and gets it towed, you have to get it released and pay for it. It’s your property, and therefore you are sent a civil fine after verification of a device that has been calibrated scientifically to measure your speed, or to take an “actual video” of your car running through a red light. Your application of law is in regards to the criminal side. That’s why you’re wrong. (Relax, it happens.)
Joe Dumas, Continued: “Another part of our due process rights as Americans is the right, when accused of violating the law, to face our accuser in court. It is kind of difficult to cross-examine an inanimate box. I (or my attorney) can question an officer as to the circumstances of the incident, and I can also tell my side of it to the judge. If the officer fails to show up, the judge can dismiss the case.”
In poker, your last sentence would be referred to as a “tell”. You start off with a flag waving behind you as proudly as the opening credits of Patton and then end with technicalities on how to “get out of it”. As for the earlier bit, do you know what happens when you cross-examine an officer? He refers to your “inanimate box”. Ironic, yeah? Cross examining a scientific device or “video evidence of the event” is about as efficient a use of the courts time as grandstanding over a topic whose legal jurisdiction you’re not even aware of.
Don’t try to crap a crapper, Joe. You’ll never be able to sell cars or make it in politics, and folks should always keep as many options as possible.
Arlos Dempsey: “I’m 56 years old, hope this doesn’t jinx it, but those cameras make you accident prone.”
Ah, yes. The old “sue the gun manufacturer for the murder, not the man pulling the trigger” bit. Arlos, how did you even accidentally make it to 56 blaming boxes on pole-tops for causing car wrecks instead of the speeding or careless drivers? Asbestos exposure? What? I’m serious.
Cody Maxwell: “Safety for liberty ain’t a fair trade.”
Well said, my man. If you’re completely retarded. Liberty isn’t a caveat for allowing you to run roughshod over rights any more than it allows for you to run roughshod over other cars or pedestrians. It’s as much a desecration of the flag our fathers died for to wrap it around your eyes as it is to drop it on the ground.
Jan Finder: “As to it being about money, of course, it is about money. Why do you think, speed traps were invented. Fines go into the General Fund. Also, yes, complain about privacy on FB. There hasn’t been any privacy for a long, long time anywhere.”
Jan, I believe we’d just get along famously. First five rounds are on me.
I could write ten more pages, but this one will already have to be whittled down to a nub by my editors as it is. Keep the responses coming, folks. We’re interactive here at the Pulse.
Unlike those darn one-way traffic cameras.
When officer Alexander D. Teach is not patrolling our fair city on the heels of the criminal element, he is an occasional student at UTC, an up and coming carpenter, auto mechanic, prominent boating enthusiast, and spends his spare time volunteering for the Boehm Birth Defects Center.
Posted in On the Beat |
|
|
78 Comments »
I couldn’t agree with Scott Lewis more.
Want to make intersections safer? Make the yellow lights longer according to AAA Traffic Research.
Regardless, red light cameras time and time again are not really about ethics, legality or safety. They’re simply a revenue stream (and one that benefits PRIVATE COMPANIES! with tax dollars)
This entire argument rests on a single idea – that the posted limit accurately reflects the safe speed. But that is simply not true. First, traffic enginneers realize that most people drive 8-9mph over the limit, so if it’s perfectly safe to drive at 40mph, they set the limit at 30. Most intelligent people then drive at 39 to compensate for that. Second, municipalities intentionally set low speed limits for revenue. We often have stretches of road that are 40mph, with one small 30mph section strictly for writing tickets. If posted speed limits were actually realistic and intended with safety in mind, I would be fully behind Mr. Teach. But he seems to have no connection to the reality of how speed limits work.
I don’t even know where to start with rebutting all of this, since the whole article is such a juicy target for anyone with a thinking brain.
1. As already mentioned, speed and red light cameras do not save lives. Case in point: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. $15M-$20M in camera fines per year steadily growing since 1993, and the same or greater number of deaths (usually ~25-35/year in a city of 750k people). No audit trail for the money, no oversight, and they ignore public opinion with a government-funded TV ad campaign that speed kills.
2. Most cameras are not run by the state, but by contractors who have a pure profit motive. This is why many intersections have had their yellow light times cut down a second or two, or cameras that malfunction without any independent standards and testing bodies to oversee these devices. No release of software that should be open source (see the breathalyzer machine firmware scandal), no independent testing or calibration, it’s all their word. Oh, and some of these contractors have been proven to bribe the police with as was the case in Edmonton with ACS, with no criminal consequences to the cops or ACS.
3. On the topic of speed, please come back to me when you follow the SAE guidelines on 85th percentile of speed being the maximum limit. This is frequently not the case, and speed limits and cameras seem to be in areas of temporary limit transition or where it is exceedingly low, where such areas would be much more effectively protected by real policing. A camera doesn’t stop a speeder, but a cop can. A cop can save a life, a camera can only prove someone was speeding when they hit a kid. And while you’re at it, make sure that you’re not giving red light camera tickets to people whose bumpers are less than half a foot on the “wrong” side of the line as soon as the light turns red even while moving out of the intersection, because that’s not justice either. See the investigative TV show Dateline for this one.
Alex,
And here I note, with some amusement, that Chattanooga is actually directly cited in the post of cities that specifically reduced yellow light times dangerously:
===
1) Chattanooga, Tennessee
The city of Chattanooga was forced refund $8800 in red light cameras tickets issued to motorists trapped by an illegally short yellow time. The refund only occurred after a motorist challenged his citation by insisting that the yellow light time of 3.0 seconds was too short. LaserCraft, the private vendor that runs the camera program in return for a cut of the profits, provided the judge with a computer database that asserted the yellow was 3.8 seconds at that location.
The judge then personally checked the intersection in question was timed at three seconds while other nearby locations had about four seconds of yellow warning. City traffic engineer John Van Winkle told Bean that “a mix up with the turn arrow” was responsible and that the bare minimum for the light should be 3.9 seconds.
===
So…uh, yeah. What’s that all about?
(As a note, I am a proud supporter of local law enforcement, so I greatly appreciate your commentary. But, uh, people dying in the streets is a bad thing, and it sounds like there are situations in which this technology reduces rather than improves safety.)
FTA:
“Police don’t need a leash, brother; they’re held in check by the public trust, which they DO serve.”
If that statement doesn’t make your blood go cold I don’t know what will. Sure, police can be perfectly trusted. They are always well behaved, never corrupt, never abusive, and certainly don’t need any pesky public accountability from mere ‘civilians.’ Now hand over your papers, citizen.
It can not possibly be legal in America, the (used-to-be) Free, to issue a ticket to the owner of a car when there is NO PROOF the owner was driving it.
Maybe it was loaned to his brother or a repairshop mechanic was testing it.
It is difficult for me to believe that “Alex Teach” is indeed a sworn officer of the law. However, taking things at face value, he is a public servant, and as such is actually an employee of the people, just as his superiors are. Perhaps Ofc. Teach would not be quite so cavalier if he should receive a bit of his own medicine. By way of hyperbole, what if his actions “extra domus” were to be recorded and documented? I only posit this as a bit of mental exercise and would never actually suggest that he be followed and photographed.
I suggest this only because he stated in a previous column, “There IS no privacy in the middle of a one- or six-lane roadway”, therefore he should not have any presumption of privacy when he is walking down the street, shopping in a public market, etc. Perhaps then, he would have an understanding of why so many people are upset about these automated devices, not because they may be catching “law breakers”, but because they are one more obstacle between the general public and their protections under the Constitution. We have a right to face our accusers and until anyone can provide a way to show that these devices are 100% foolproof, any documentation they produce should be held in question.
I do urge anyone who has received a ticket from any of these machines to fight it in court. The next step is to join together, as is your right, to protest their use and force the City Council to have them removed. Remember, they work for you too and their jobs are dependant on you reelecting them. As much as Ofc. Teach believes he is speaking on his own time, he does, in fact, work for the people. As such, he is subject to the will of the people and his duty is to uphold the laws that have been enacted by the people. He can rant all he wishes to in this forum, but he is restrained by, and subject to the law.
Finally, I say this to Ofc. Teach: “utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant”. Perhaps after which you would be more willing to understand people’s concerns about privacy.
The big problem with speed cameras is that the entity issuing the ticket is either a machine that cannot accurately assign culpability or a company who’s contract is based on the number of tickets issued. NOT a police officer. They have no incentive to be accurate:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1791.asp
Is the question of ethics any less on the company than on cops with ticket quotas?
The other problem is that speed cameras can be fooled easily. On the one hand, people can mock the speed cameras:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/56121/Speeding-You-must-take-me-for-some-sort-of-Muppet-/
Or they can use them as a prank/malicious to frame another person in a way that would never fool a real cop:
http://lastgeek.com/kids-prank-using-speed-cameras/
Finally, there is the whole hypocrisy element where governments taught the safety aspect of these camera systems when there is ZERO evidence that supports that claim. You are essentially lying to the people that you serve when you deny that speed cameras are anything but a source of income for local governments.
@bruce wayne: To be fair if you mechanic was driving it at the time bring it in front of a judge. The cameras don’t deprive you of your due process, they just present the fast way around it right up front. It sucks that you get harassed like that, but generally it’s an exception to the rule and no one should ever pay if they truly are innocent.
Still waiting to see the response about traffic cameras on 20mph back roads where it’s obvious that it’s not saving lives, but just there to generate revenue.
Way to ignore the fact that most of the red light violations are for not coming to a full stop at a right turn, and not just blowing though a red light. Or that yellow lights have been shortened, and this contributes to more accidents than a camera would prevent. “Why were the yellows shortened?”, you might ask. It’s to generate more camera violations, and more profit. Cameras are contracted out to private companies that profit on a per-violation basis, and profit wins over safety every time.
My thoughts on the subject of speed cameras making us safer…I think not. I drive on freeways frequently here in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and every day I watch as people driving 85 in a 65 slam on their brakes just as they near a camera zone, only to speed up again once they know it is “safe” to do so. This is inherently UN-safe, and those of us who maintain a safe and prudent speed are just as likely to be caught up in the accident thus caused as are those who are speeding. In my opinion, this is reason enough to eliminate them.
officer teach seems to have a larger ego than hes entitled to considering his obvious deficiency at polite discourse. its unfortunate to see so many “peace officers” develop this trait. the belief that the people whom they “serve” are just stupid sheeple the same belief held by the british when they were in control of the colony’s. its a shame that so many officers have gone from protect and serve to believing they know whats better for us than the populace that supports their existence.say what you will but i believe John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would vehemently disagree with officer Teaches “opinion”. cameras are a valuable tool for creating revenue nothing more nothing less… the statistics are there whether officer Teach would like to remain ignorant or not.
Darth Tater
and just a little more fodder for thought i think good ‘ol Ben Franklin would also disagree “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
Darth Tater
I noticed that Mr. Teach glossed over the “Presumed guilty until proven innocent” statement in favor of lambasting the prior point, which admittedly deserved such treatment. Speed and red light cameras are nothing more than a financial gold mine for over-budgeted cities. There is no interest in safety. Case and point: 1. Studies by the Australian Road Research Board, Virginia Transportation Research Council, North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, and even the U.S. House of Representatives indicate otherwise – however, are frequently discarded. (http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/) 2. Cameras are often placed in areas where accidents or safety have never been an issue. 3. Automated processes reduce man-power, decreasing overhead and maximizing profitability. 4. Police Departments severely limit the hours and charge extensive fees for the accused to address their tickets prior to a court date (e.g. view the video.) Just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps Mr. Teach should reduce the sarcasm and focus on the facts of the matter as I listed. On the other hand, some of you seriously need to do your homework and comprehend what you are writing. Your arguments do not make sense at all.
This is just too funny. Where to start in this steaming pile of cop-kissing? First of all, Teach should be fired if he is really a police officer. His attitude toward the public he is supposed to be protecting and serving is beyond confrontational and insulting. To think that this jackass carries a device which can be used to implement deadly force is truly frightening. He has no respect for the public at large unless they are cop-loving kiss asses, and for that reason alone should be terminated. People like Teach make it hard to sympathize when police get hurt anywhere. He’s the kind of jerk who’s comeuppance will be well deserved when it arrives. Thankfully I actually know some good police officers who are leagues away from this prick’s arrogance and self-importance. That personal friendship reminds me that not every cop is as much of a douchebag as this little Sally-girl “officer”.
It is time for police to be reminded of for whom they work. Teach, you don’t work for your sergeants or captains… they only supervise your uneducated simple self while you work FOR THE PUBLIC! Your sergeants and captains also work for me and the rest of the public. That you have forgotten this (or possibly never knew it) points to a serious lack of training on the part of whatever law enforcement agency for which you supposedly work.
Lastly, your derision of the idea of a slippery slope with regard to privacy and state control of residents is appalling. While the leap from speed cameras to brain chip implants is admittedly huge, the idea was that this is just one step in our journey toward a Big Brother nation, much like the UK. I suspect you knew as much, but decided to feign ignorance and disbelief instead, in order to attempt some cheap jokes at the original poster’s expense.
Teach, you should be nowhere near law enforcement, except as a suspect.
If these cameras are intended to save lives, why are they disabled when they fail to generate enough $$$? Such a device certainly needs its own line in the budget, so the state/city can divert funds to continue the necessary functioning of this accident-preventing and potentially life saving device! I fail to see how you can back these blatantly obvious cash cows other than your own sheer laziness to enforce general traffic laws.
At least here in California radar can’t be legally used on a road until a speed survey has been done on a road. The speed limit is set after determining the speed of 85%(could be a slightly different number) of the cars on that road. One could get out of a ticket if you ask the judge at the trial if a traffic survey has been taken and if not the judge throws out the ticket. But that officer Teach almost has a adversarial attitude towards the public. Whatever happened to that slogan “To Protect and Serve”. He’s a danger to the public and to the police department. He will probably be the officer who tries to confiscate a camera from someone who is recording him while arresting someone. If not this then arresting that person for interfering with an officer.
So that you don’t think anyone’s trying to mask it: you are a sanctimonious prick.
*edited for spelling errors and omission on the first line of paragraph #2)
why is the alex teach avatar up there holding a gun? and why is he smiling at the same time? wtf do you people think cops are? gun-toting comedians? put a pic of a real cop up there. which is to say, a cop *other* than alex.
being issued a citation for a moving violation via a civil court is a run-around the rights of the people. in new jersey, a moving violation MUST be witnessed by the plaintiff in order for a ticket to be issued. speeding and running stops are considered to be moving violations. however, with this “civil penalty”, this law is evaded thereby eroding the rights of the people. alex, if you can’t wrap your head around this fundamental concept, you need to retire or obtain the proper training that is requisite to being an officer of the court.
Joe, you are right on the money.
Teach – the reason the cop didn’t get convicted of beating up an old man at Walmart, even though it clearly happened, wasn’t because of some minor thing we couldn’t see because we weren’t in the courtroom. It was because he was a cop. This arrogance spreads into the contempt you now have for the public.
I’m glad to know people like you are patrolling somewhere else besides my fair city. You are so smug and sure of yourself; thank God I don’t live where you work. I can only hope for the sake of the people you “serve” you get fired soon for being a moron. I’d say I hope you get fired for being a sanctimonious prick but I don’t think that’s against the law, if it was 90% of police officers wouldn’t have jobs.
An furthermore, if I am riding in my car and it gets pulled over who gets the ticket? Not me, the driver does. So that should clear up that whole thing about it being your property. This is all just a money-grab and I don’t need to reiterate the points made above about safety, I think the facts speak for themselves and teach (notice my intentional lack of capitalization because I do not respect you or your views) you speak out your ass.
Well I spent far too long writing my previous response to your original column questioning the scientific merit behind your assertions that speeding cameras would reduce the “epidemic” of accidents here in America each year and asking about the ethics behind letting private companies profit off us and whether they could be trusted to do so legitimately, but it never got passed the “waiting for approval from moderators” stage, so I guess I’ll save my breath this time and just call you an idiot.
Thanks!
Why does the cop in the image have his finger on the trigger? You should never have your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot. ANY good officer should know AND PROMOTE this concept. Instead we are presented with a cop pointing his firearm in the air without any respect for where it is pointed.
As for speeding/red-light cameras it has already been pointed out that these are end-runs around the law in many municipalities. In mine they send out a citation for a non-moving violation (red light cameras). How do you run a red-light if you aren’t moving? You don’t. Now, they do have a process to appeal the citation by swearing in an affidavit that you were not the person operating the vehicle but it also requires you provide the identity of the person who was operating the vehicle. There several problems with this in my opinion; First, the U.S. supreme court ruled that the right against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in a federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)). You can argue, Teach, that because these are civil matters that the constitution doesn’t apply. The courts seem to disagree with you. Even if I was behind the wheel, you can’t prove this with certain camera technologies. Why is the burden of proof on the defendant? As the defendant I should have to provide no other evidence than a “Not Guilty” plea and it should be the burden of the state or municipality to prove I was the driver at the time. Memphis handled this well when I was there. They sent photos from multiple perspectives where the defendant could clearly see themselves in the photo.
Second, technology is super-great. Ever watch a football game recently? How do you suppose those first down marks get laid across the field in near real-time? Technology! Now, without the source code for the camera, prove to me that a the company running them, who has a pecuniary interest in the matter, isn’t tampering with the video feed? You don’t. This needs to be tried in a court by a willing defendant much the same as was done with the breathalyzers.
Teach, I’m all for ticketing and/or for suspending the licenses stupid people who are doing things that get people killed but there’s a right was and a wrong way to go about it. It’s no secret how much revenue these things generate nor is it a secret how much traffic officers are paid. If a poor performing “intersection” was only generating $100K a year this is nearly enough to have TWO full time officers at this intersection writing tickets. Don’t you think there would be a HUGE increase in safety at that intersection if everyone KNEW there was going to be an officer there writing tickets? It’s just like speed traps, those that know slow down. Of course as the intersection becomes safer the revenue will fall and it becomes a burden on the organization to maintain those assets. I agree it’s a problem in funding, but if this were really about safety, don’t you think the constituents would be more amicable to funding a program with obvious safety benefits over one that everyone perceives as nothing more than a money grab? Teach, I know cops have a hard time and put up with a lot of BS during their days. Many are often under-appreciated as well. You guys are just humans too and your arrogance about this is really disturbing. Your technology isn’t infallible and you are prone to mistakes like the rest of us. Please quit talking to us “citizens” as if we’re all ignorant sheep. Fix that image while you’re at it too.
Thanks
It is always such a pleasure to stimulate intellectual discourse; surely a gift! Before we move on to next weeks Webisode, however, I think that we can summarize all that we’ve learned after cashing in on this wealth of information:
.
1) Don’t Run Red Lights.
2) Stay within 10MPH of posted limits despite your superior abilities.
.
*Hugz*,
.
Officer Teach
Officer Teach,
What is your position on yellow light timing?
Wow teach, your powers of summarization are almost as weak as your policing skills.
You are a modern marvel Teach. Probably why i love you and hate you. It’s more love though, don’t worry.