« Tax fiscalization as another cause of suburban sprawl | Main | John Stossel is jumping to Fox Business »
Department of Duh
Justin, a loyal MR reader, writes to me:
Funny new story. Near the end it mentions citizen's group that wants to remove cameras from a highway because, in their words, "It's nothing but a speed tax".
I liked the opening paragraph of the piece:
A driver has racked up dozens of speeding tickets in photo-radar zones on Phoenix-area freeways while sporting monkey and giraffe masks, and is fighting every one by claiming the costumes make it impossible for authorities to prove he was behind the wheel.
Monkey masks I can see. But giraffe masks? That's good enough for a markets in everything. Who, other than this guy, buys a giraffe mask? And how is this for governmental wisdom?
...It took Arizona state police months to realize the same driver was involved
And the guy's car?
...has black-and-white checkered racing stickers on its sides and a sticker on the windshield that reads "Bucktooth Racin'."
The state now has surveillance photos of him putting on a mask before driving but vonTesmar, the driver, offers up a novel defense:
...[he] said if the Department of Public Safety does have surveillance photos of him on the road, it proves he's not a danger to other drivers. If he were, officers would have pulled him over, he said.
The cameras remain unpopular in Arizona:
Arizonans have used sticky notes, Silly String and even a pickax to sabotage the cameras.
Many believe the shooting death of speed-enforcement van operator Doug Georgianni on April 19 on a Phoenix freeway was a result of anger over the cameras, although authorities haven't made that direct allegation.
Three separate citizens groups are targeting the cameras in initiatives for the 2010 ballot.
As you can see, the local government blogging marathon continues. Soon I'll offer up some posts on crime.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 12, 2009 at 08:07 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
What is the purpose of speeding tickets?
It's not about the speeding.
(So how did Robin get the patent on skepticism?)
Posted by: Andrew channeling Robin at Sep 12, 2009 8:22:07 AM
I always assumed speeding laws were initiated because there was ample evidence that people who exceed the set speed limits for a certain location are more likely to be involved in vehicular accidents, some of which might injure or kill others. Is my assumption correct, and if so, was the evidence anecdotal or scientific?
If the latter, the Phoenix story becomes somewhat less humorous. We have laws against many things. For example, I can't just pull out my registered firearm and "shoot a man in Reno, just to watch him die." Would his death be funny because the shooter wore a giraffe mask? If you were my victim, would you be thrilled (assuming you survived) that people were out there fighting against laws that might insure my imprisonment?
Posted by: songar at Sep 12, 2009 10:45:32 AM
I always assumed speeding laws were initiated because there was ample evidence that people who exceed the set speed limits for a certain location are more likely to be involved in vehicular accidents, some of which might injure or kill others. Is my assumption correct, and if so, was the evidence anecdotal or scientific?
People who travel at a speed significantly different from the surrounding traffic flow definitely cause more accidents, and all things being equal, faster speeds do make accidents a bit more likely and more severe. (The latter due to the laws of physics.)
On the other hand, this paper (that's a preprint, I believe the full paper was published this year in the Journal of Law and Economics) demonstrates that speeding tickets in NC definitely have an inverse relationship to local county revenue. When the county needs money, tickets go up. (The found a somewhat asymmetrical response; tickets go up fast when revenue declines, but they take a long time to decline when times are good.)
Here's the final version. From the paper:
We find that significantly more tickets are issued in the year following a decline in revenue but that the issuance of traffic tickets does not decline in years following revenue increases. Elasticity estimates reveal that a 10 percent decrease in negative revenue growth results in a 6.4 percent increase in the growth rate of traffic tickets. Our results suggest that tickets are used as a revenue‐generation tool rather than solely a means to increase public safety.
Posted by: John Thacker at Sep 12, 2009 11:00:53 AM
Red-light cameras, however, definitely increase accidents according to all studies. The most favorable interpretation is that they substitute rear-end collisions for other types of accidents, but I'm not sure how much better that is.
Posted by: John Thacker at Sep 12, 2009 11:02:22 AM
DC: Camera Ticket Overturned Over Accuracy Doubts
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/dc-camera-ticket-overturned-over-accuracy-doubts/
"Doubts over the accuracy of the speed camera equipment led to the dismissal of a Washington, DC photo radar ticket last month. The motorist, who requested anonymity, decided to fight the citation out of 'spite.' He arrived at the District's Department of Motor Vehicles on August 17 unprepared with an argument that would beat the ticket. He fully expected to lose, but thought it was right to 'cost the city more money' because he saw the photo radar program as little more than an illegitimate money grab. The motorist was surprised, however, when Adjudicator Stephen Reichert took one look at the ticket photo and noted that a second vehicle had been within the radar's field of view."
Seven Ridiculous Ticket Camera Blunders
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/seven-ridiculous-ticket-camera-blunders/
"Officials in charge of red light camera and speed camera programs claim it is 'rare' for erroneous tickets to be issued because a human police officer diligently verifies each and every citation for accuracy before it is issued. If confronted with clear evidence that their cameras have made a mistake, the camera companies insist that it's an 'isolated incident.' Here are seven of the more ridiculous 'isolated incidents' from across the country:"
Posted by: anon at Sep 12, 2009 11:32:16 AM
I want speeding cameras and red light cameras in my jurisdiction. If you break the law and put others in danger, you should pay the price.
This fellow is showing contempt for a law that is there to protect all of us and they should throw the book at him.
Also, Phoenix isn't some dusty podunk where they need ticket revenue. This is being done to benefit the public, not the cops' purse.
Posted by: Brian at Sep 12, 2009 11:57:24 AM
I advocate the vandalism of such cameras- and, no, I have never been ticketed by one, I just don't like the idea of being monitored by governments public places.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Sep 12, 2009 12:12:23 PM
I want speeding cameras and red light cameras in my jurisdiction. If you break the law and put others in danger, you should pay the price.
And if the science shows, as it does, that red light cameras put others in danger and increase accidents, you're still for them?
Also, Phoenix isn't some dusty podunk where they need ticket revenue. This is being done to benefit the public, not the cops' purse.
All cities want revenue. It's not a tiny town that gets 40% of its revenue from ticketing out of towners, but the study I linked was not limited to "dusty podunk" towns, but included cities of over a million.
Posted by: John Thacker at Sep 12, 2009 12:35:48 PM
"I want speeding cameras and red light cameras in my jurisdiction. If you break the law and put others in danger, you should pay the price."
Brian, that is fine, and I'm free not to live in your jurisdiction. But you are begging the question of whether the law actually is correlated to putting others in danger. Obviously, a race car driver can drive fast quite safely. That is of course an extreme point but you can't argue with it. The more general question is does giving speeding tickets by cop or by camera increase safety?
Now, implicit in your statement is the assumption that people who break the law are the same people who put others in danger and should be punished when we get the chance, even if what we are punishing them for is not exactly what puts others in danger. That's a fine position, just not what most people say when talking about justice systems.
Finally, what price? If the price is too high, they will just drive around your jurisdiction, perhaps really fast to make up time. There should also be a cost of enforcement on individuals in the government. Automation makes it too easy to harass people with little recourse. Think spambots.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 12, 2009 12:48:42 PM
Andrew:
Yes, that is an extreme point, and there's really no point arguing with it as it is irrelevant as very few of us possess the reaction times of race car drivers.
"The more general question is does giving speeding tickets by cop or by camera increase safety?" Where's your proof,(a study about red-light cameras is/should be outside this discussion) that it does or doesn't? My instinct tells me that it would increase safety, and, being one who is more concerned about my safety on the road than satisfying the needs of those who like to speed but may not have a race car driver's control, I'll come down on the side of the current laws.
The "implicit in your" statement is confusing. Where did Brian imply that what " we are punishing them for is not exactly what puts others in danger"? We punish the speeder for the speeding, which numerous studies ( If you wish, Google: studies speeding and safety)indicate speeding endangers lives. It would seem, then, that indeed what we are "punishing them for is ["not" removed] exactly what puts others in danger."
Posted by: songar at Sep 12, 2009 2:13:18 PM
My instinct tells me that it would increase safety
Compared to what? TANSSAAFL, after all. It might increase safety compared to no police officer, but decrease safety compared to that police officer doing something else with his time that's more valuable.
Posted by: John Thacker at Sep 12, 2009 4:01:12 PM
While AZ police spent months figuring out that the fellow wearing a giraffe mask was the same fellow who was dressed as a monkey last week, this Polish driver kept Irish police guessing a lot longer.
Posted by: Allison at Sep 12, 2009 4:01:26 PM
Alex has done research showing that more police decreases crime, and that police doing various beat work are a bargain compared to their cost. The marginal deterrent effect of moving a police officer from traffic to say, walking a neighborhood beat, might result in more safety.
Posted by: John Thacker at Sep 12, 2009 4:04:08 PM
You think it's funny that this scofflaw is jeopardizing the safety of others? What a pathetic end libertarianism can lead to!
Posted by: bob beisner at Sep 12, 2009 5:11:55 PM
From everything I've read, very few red-light cameras give tickets for blowing through a red light. Most tickets are for speeding through the intersection. A vast majority (I believe almost 90% in our new cameras here in New Mexico) of non-speed related tickets are for motorists not coming to a complete stop before turning right on a red light. Beyond the seeming arbitrariness of this (Does a complete stop mean a full second without movement, 2 seconds, 1/2 a second? Does it depend upon state or municipal law?), does this really increase safety?
Posted by: tripp at Sep 12, 2009 5:21:25 PM
"The marginal deterrent effect of moving a police officer from traffic to say, walking a neighborhood beat, might result in more safety."
I say "my instinct tells me it would", you say it "might".So there we are.
Until Alex, bless'im, does more research 'proving' that the number of lives saved by "moving a [traffic] police officer to say, walking a neighborhood beat" 'will' increase lives saved (your characterization of his study doesn't indicate that his study does that), my instinct for self-preservation is likely as valid as your assumption.
Suffice it to say, I'm not looking forward to the day when all traffic police have been taken off the job. Will Alex's study tell us when we will have too few, or do we have to wait for a dozen massive fatal pileups? Or hundreds? . . .
Posted by: songar at Sep 12, 2009 5:45:12 PM
I suppose the person who objected to the fine to benefit city coffers would not object to the speeding fines being use to pay death benefits to motorist injured by speeders. Afterall, they didn't enter a market to trade their life to satisfy the speeder's pleasure.
Posted by: Bill at Sep 12, 2009 6:22:56 PM
Of course, red light cameras themselves do NOT cause accidents; drivers do. Our whole society depends on individual responsibility for their actions. The original post is amazed at the lengths some individuals will go to disclaim responsibility for following The Law; the posts, however, celebrate fantastical good reasons for doing so.
I have seen serious discussions about red light cameras and accident rates; they blame the practice of shortening the yellow time to the bare minimum, replacing one effort to minimize risk with another -- the apparently unfounded assumption that enforcement will help people do the right thing. (This might maximize revenues at the expense of risk.) Unfortunately, a 3-second yellow encourages slow-response and "even orange is OK" types to enter intersections after opposing traffic starts up. But a short yellow time is clearly distinct from having a camera, and a much more likely cause of accidents.
Red light cameras are most sensibly installed at dangerous and very busy intersections which have lots of red-light runners; stats ought to be collected and reviewed VERY carefully -- more carefully than the offhand mentions above, and probably more carefully than the self-interested manufacturers bother to collect. I would doubt that ANY reliable evidence exists.
Posted by: Walt French at Sep 12, 2009 6:30:56 PM
Well, I don't have a nice set of tits & I'm not buddies with any cops, so I prefer the cameras, even though I've been caught by one. I think you'll find that some police groups are against the cameras for the same reason I'm for them (unstated, though). I'd bet that off-duty police officers are getting a lot more tickets with the cameras. Using the cameras has removed a lot of positive externalities from the police.
Posted by: kebko at Sep 12, 2009 7:11:00 PM
My sister was critically injured recently while cross in a crosswalk with the light by -- according to eyewitness accounts, which I expect will be corroborated by video -- a driver running a red light. In the city in which I live, I see drivers run red lights and stop signs with no consequences. I wish the city would install cameras to ticket these people, because no one should have to suffer what my sister and our family has.
Posted by: RPM at Sep 12, 2009 8:25:38 PM
On my brood's latest trip to the San Diego Zoo, we got the panda mask because it polled best with the focus group (two young girls). But the giraffe mask was second, beating out the monkey and alligator masks.
Posted by: mobile at Sep 13, 2009 2:12:45 AM
If red light cameras are increasing accidents, it is because drivers are speeding too fast when they come to the yellow light. Penalties for accidents that result in that fashion should therefore reflect who was at fault, especially if cameras make it easier.
Posted by: . at Sep 13, 2009 1:48:55 PM
This specific article is talking about speeding cameras on the local freeways, not red light cameras. These are specifically designed to raise revenue and the company that manages them splits the revenue they raise with the local municipalities (multiple, not just Phoenix). They have a definite incentive to use them to raise as much money as possible, because that's the business they're in.
They don't cause people to slow down much overall, just to hit the brakes whenever the cameras are coming up (causing waves in the traffic), then speed back up afterward. People who are don't notice them before they get to them, or who just don't care (like the fella in the story) are the ones who get ticketed.
They're also unconstitutional in AZ, which is currently working it's way through the court system (Tickets for a whole stretch of cameras in one jurisdiction were thrown out and the company has moved their cameras out of the area, but the ruling doesn't apply more broadly until it gets through the appeals courts), because they provide for fines double that of what people get when they're ticked by an officer (to provide for the company's revenue portion). Having two different sets of punishments for the exact same offense (speeding), violates the state constitution.
Also, the company's manual of operations turned up online recently and they've found all sorts of fun things in it, like how people with out of country plates have their tickets ignored ... and so do city workers and judges. They also don't send tickets to vehicles owned by companies, just to individuals. I've seen drivers going 30 over the speed limit and weaving in and out of traffic blow past the cameras all the time because they have one of several types of "immunity" to the tickets.
Posted by: Sharper at Sep 14, 2009 12:42:01 AM
How does he know the cops DIDN'T pull over his car? Or was he really admitting that he was driving?
Posted by: Al Brown at Sep 14, 2009 1:17:59 AM
I found this article very nice overhere, actually i am just looking for this type of updated article which is concern to the country or the realistic.. So thanks for share this nice article with us..
Posted by: souris at Sep 14, 2009 4:43:51 AM
