Green Light, Green Light, Red Light! (Camera)
So, here we are, all grown up, gone are the days of playing Red Light/Green Light with friends, and now into the real world of traffic lights that it so effectively prepared us for.
But, as with anything, there are people who don't follow the rules of the game as closely as they should. Enter red-light cameras - now new and improved with higher fines and more locations! Oh. Wait. Is that new and improved?
There has, of course, been controversy about this since the beginning, and now with the fine being raised from $180 to $500, as you can imagine, folks are all a twitter again.
I can see both sides of this. On one hand, if you do something illegal (especially if it's illegal for a darn good reason) then you have to be willing to accept the consequences, and frankly, in this case, you're lucky if your consequence is just a ticket, as opposed to an accident that results in injury or even death. But, herein lies the problem - the person who has to deal with the consequences is not necessarily the person who broke the law.
The ticket is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, which is the problem with all photo-based traffic tickets. So, for example, I own a car, many of my friends do not (it's Toronto after all...), which means I will often lend my car to friends. I imagine this kind of arrangement is pretty common in a city like Toronto. But, if someone goes through a red light, I am legally responsible. I'm not saying my friends would try to rip me off, I'm just saying that the person who ran the red probably won't know they did it. Unlike speeding where it's hard not to know what you're doing, people don't run red lights on purpose (well, not generally anyway), so they won't know about it. Does this mean that I'm going to have to start keeping a log of who is driving my car when?
The stats seem to say that red light cameras decrease fatalities (possibly while increasing property damage accidents, but really, if we have to choose between dead people or wrecked cars, I'd vote for wrecked cars any day). On March 18, 2008, The Toronto Star reported that "the Toronto [red light camera] experience showed a 26.2 per cent drop in "angle" or T-bone crashes, while rear-enders were up 10.1 per cent." Although there has been an increase in rear-end collisions Glenn De Baeremaeker, the public works committee chairperson, pointed out to the star that "The T-bone accidents have gone down, those are the most dangerous."
Based on that my gut says that probably red-light cameras are a good idea. What I'm not so clear on is how increasing the fine is going to provide any kind of benefit at all. Is the idea that there are people out there who figure they can afford $180 so they're gonna run the red, but once it's $500 then they can't afford it anymore so they'll stop? Seems like a pretty weak argument to me, and makes it pretty easy to see why there are lots of cries of 'cash grab' being heard around the city today. But what about the argument that more vigilance will cost more money?
The city tells us that the extra money is required to implement additional cameras and monitoring. Currently there are 10 cameras being rotated among 38 intersections (listed here). The plan is to increase that to 98 cameras between 169 intersections by the end of 2009, which will, of course, cost money. That said, Gary Welsh, Toronto's General Manager of Transportation Services, said on the last page of a memo to the Public Works and Infrastructure committee that "Over the next five years, the estimated project revenues exceed costs by approximately $4,401,100.00." - so, we're talking a reasonable chunk more than just cost recovery here.
I dunno. What do you think? Are they a good idea? Does raising fees make sense, or is it just a cash grab? Is it maybe okay for it to be a cash grab, since the city's gotta get revenue from somewhere? I'm really curious to know what folks are thinking about this issue.
Photo from the blogTO flickr pool by Xenon
Comments (34)
In an ideal world, the city can increase the fine 10,000%, and it won't make a difference - they still won't make any additional monies because no one is running red lights.
What's the big deal?? It's pretty damn hard to run a red if you don't speed through amber. remember your driver's ed classes folks - amber still means proceed with caution. Follow that, and the $320 increase won't affect you.
So from a legal perspective, is the onus on the city to prove it was you driving or for you to prove it wasn't you driving? Or are you legally responsible whether it was you driving or not?
I'm inclined to agree with you johnnylee, it's not the fine that I take issue with (in fact, honestly, I'm not sure I take issue with any of it), the bit that's troubling is that you could do nothing wrong, other than lend your car to someone, and be liable for a big chunk of change. It's the same issue that folks had with photo radar back in the day.
Jerrold - that's my understanding, but let me dig around and pull up the bit where I read that. It's in legalese though, so I could be interpreting it wrong... I'll find the link and post it.
"amber still means proceed with caution"
it does ?
lol.. I always thought in a traffic light it meant prepare to stop.
lol, but hey.. I don't have a license.. I donno.
and I'm a "play it overly safe" kinda guy anyways
when it comes to ton's of metal flying at me :P
it really means that ?
I -really- didn't know..
(I'm not trying to be flip.. for once..)
James - Without consulting a driver's handbook, and relying solely on my drivers ed from *ahem* 16 years ago, my memory of it is that you should stop if you can do so safely, and if you cannot then you should continue on. So, if you're coming up on a light and it's amber, and you can stop in time without being rear-ended, or ending up stopping in the intersection, then you're required to stop.
From my casual observations though, I'd say that it's not the general practice. ;)
Jerrold - the City of Toronto FAQ on the subject (http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/redlight_cameras/faq.htm) says:
Q Who receives a ticket for running a red light detected by a camera system?
A The registered license plate holder receives the ticket, regardless of who was driving the vehicle.
This site (http://www.torontotraffictickets.com/redlight.html) outlines some relevant portions of the act. Really though, I think the bottom line is they're saying it's not worth trying to fight it.
if your buddy runs a red light with your car then either 1) ask your buddy to pay the fine or 2) don't lend your buddy the car anymore and pay the fine yourself.
Drivers Handbook says:
You must stop if you can do so safely; otherwise, go with caution.
That's the way I learned it back in 1960. Some things never change.
satan says...
"if your buddy runs a red light with your car then either 1) ask your buddy to pay the fine or 2) don't lend your buddy the car anymore and pay the fine yourself."
Right except maybe you lend your car to several friends and one or two family members on a reg basis... without keeping some sort of detailed trip log... how exactly will you know which person ran the light... ah well... too bad... u pay.
I say, if you're gonna lend your car keep a log of time and date. And tell your friends not to be doing any illegal things while in your car. It's that easy.
Maria - the problem with just saying 'don't do something illegal' is that I really do think that probably when people run a red light it's 'cause they don't know it's a red light. I wouldn't lend my car to someone I thought was irresponsible, cars are expensive and dangerous. I can't imagine keeping a log of time and date in the loaning car thing. Then it wouldn't feel so much like doing a favour for a friend as, well, running a business but not making any money.
See, the thing here is, honestly, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. There is a big part of me that thinks absolutely increase the fine, it's the part where you can be held liable for something that you didn't do that makes me feel a bit antsy... Apparently not antsy enough to get me off the fence, but antsy nonetheless.
I don't know exactly how your insurance works in Canada but here in the UK we someone else driving your car will not be covered by insurance unless they are a registered driver.
If its the same over in Canada getting a $500 fine when your mate runs a red light is a lot cheaper than getting done for driving without insurance or smashing into someone with none.
There are people who want the return of speed cameras, especially in school zones. That means the owner of the car will be getting the speeding ticket.
However, no demerits points should be charged for either red light cameras or speed cameras.
Torontonians are getting more an more lax about yellow lights. Soon we will be like Bangkok where driving through the intersection well into the red is normal.
But $500 seems like a little much, yes? $180 is appropriate already.
And where are the police? In all the years I've lived here I've never seen them enforcing this. They like to pick off speeders on major streets because it is easy. Police presence assists with awareness, cameras do not.
I've been hit by a car while walking when a taxi cab failed to notice a red light. Not hard mind you, but hard enough to have zero sympathy for drivers who fail to notice a red light.
Not paying attention while driving is JUST AS BAD as people who purposely run red lights. Either action can kill someone.
Ross - here your insurance covers other drivers, if the driver is insured on another vehicle i believe it's their insurance that takes care of things, but otherwise it's your own.
Ryan - point taken. I don't for a second think that running a red by accident is acceptable, my point about running a red by accident was actually just that if someone did that they probably wouldn't know they did, and so not know that it had resulted in a ticket sent to the owner of the car, so the owner of the car gets the consequence of the person not paying attention.
I think the majority of the people that are getting caught at red light cameras are not people speeding through the red light, but the people turning right that don't come to a complete stop for two seconds before turning right on red. Not that I condone that activity, but most of us forget that you need to stop for two full seconds, and if the camera catches you turning after 1.3 seconds stopped, you're getting that ticket.
There is indeed a small percentage of drivers stupid enough to run red lights on a regular basis. Eventually they accumulate enough demerits and fender-benders to lose their license and/or go to jail.
BUT if there is an intersection where a disproportionate number of cars are running red lights, then the issue is with that intersection's design.
For example, in some intersections the lights are hidden by billboards or trees or around blind corners, so that a driver coming into view of an amber light can have no way of knowing if that light has been amber for 2 seconds or 20 seconds. Jam on the brakes and risk a rear-end collision or sail through? There's no way of knowing. There are also some intersections where the amber light is unusually short, to the point that even a car travelling at the speed limit (it does happen) must brake unsafely to avoid entering the intersection on the red.
Red light cameras have a minor utility in the fist case; but if the city really cared about making intersections safer they would be better off spending our money to fix the second case.
Diane raises a good point. bad design can be fatal. in a fit of optimism i'd like to believe that some of the purpose of the red light cameras is to further gauge the issue and see where to focus resources to make improvements to the design of those intersections. (okay, you can all stop laughing now, you never know, it could be possible... *grin*)
As long as Toronto doesn't go the route of some US cities and tamper the length of the amber cycle just to make some more money.
Sameer - okay, that's just gross. "hey guys, you know what would be a good idea? let's put people's lives at risk so we can make more money, good idea no?"
Well, I don't worry about red light cameras anymore (and haven't since, what, late 2005) - ever since I heard of www.photoblocker.com and their red light camera license blocking spray few years ago.
I've done that 1.3 second right turn once, got caught by a camera, fought the $180 ticket and reduced it down to $80 or so, but even then, that was just b.s. cash grab...
So, I looked around, and finding that plate spray was a blessing - for mere $30 I had both of my cars' plates covered, and I don't worry about those damn cameras anymore (haven't gotten a ticket on any of the cameras since).
Sure, I would not suggest you getting one of these if you're a reckless driver, but for someone like me who's so-so safe driver (hey, I'm not perfect), it's a great stress reliever...
Serb - I dunno. Seems kinda shady to me. I wonder what would happen on the 407 if you didn't have a transponder. Would they track you down based on the make and model of your car and the partial license plate info they could get?
I imagine this isn't legal, right? The theory is that no one can tell it's sprayed in person, it has to be on camera? So, what would be the consequences of being caught? Anyone have any idea?
megan, I am not sure of "legal" consequences, but as far as I can tell from all the laws I've seen and read through, your license plates cannot be modified in any way in order to "hide" the actual numbers/letters on them or have them appear less visible (that's why those plastic covers have been "outlawed"). I can't say how the spray would hold in court, as nobody can really tell anything has been sprayed on the plates, other than you of course.
And avoiding 407 cameras? Not a good idea... again, this is something to be used to avoid dumb red light camera charges, not avoid paying highway tolls. And even if you tried, they have a team of actual people (gasp!) going through all the camera shots of cars whose plates could not be identified by the system itself, and they will get a hold of you... sure, with a few months delay, but still, they will get a hold of you and ask for their money.
Serb - yeah, I wasn't thinking it would be a good idea to use it to avoid 407 charges, just that if you used it for red light, what would you do if you went on the 407, because then they would know you'd sprayed something on it, because of the 'actual people' you mentioned. ;)
nope, no they wouldn't... 407 cameras work a bit different, and the spray won't really work on them that easily (ok, it will fool the camera itself, but they will also have a picture taken for manual processing, which happens because those cameras are not perfect and they make mistakes all the time), which means that nobody can tell if you have something on your license plate preventing the camera from identifying it or not - they'll just attribute it to a weird angle of the shot, camera not being able to snap it properly, etc, etc (ie. technology limitations).
Think motorcycles on 407 - those cameras can't ID their plates because they are different size and are on a different height than the ones on cars, so most of those get processed manually.
Hmm. Cyclist must obey the same laws as drivers yet they're the ones that go through red lights and stop signs, followed by the sound of cars screeching not to hit those morons or the sound of car horns to warn the cyclist of their infractions.
If I ever get caught going through a red light I will fight it as I have the same rights as cyclists - to go right through them. Of course I won't, but the idea of turning left, then the light turns amber, then pedestrian think it's their right to walk through a flashing red hand but insist on walking as fast as their pet snail, the the motorist finally turns then get dinged because the light turned red. Is that my fault?
Cyclists don't have the right to go through them persay. Fines are given, and if they are stoped and present their licence demerit points are also taken. Its just cops for the most part aren't told by their supervisors to care too much. They don't have a licence, and really don't need ID on them and how can you give a ticket to some guy on a bike with no ID?
Check out www.nopointstraffictickets.com
contact: Tel: 416-322-2874, Toll Free: 1-866-928-0899.
We can answer any questions in regards to fines and demerit points.
Having looked at many of the pictures from the red light cameras in Toronto, I havent seen any where there is was a blocked licence plate come through. The 407 has a specific law for obstructing the plate and avoiding the 407 cameras. The only law that would apply in the city is for obstructing the licence plate, but it normal has to be completely obstructed, not just for the cameras.
A cyclist has to identify themselves to an officer, if they dont they can be arrested until the officer determines who they are.
I was following a tractor trailer on Lakeshore blvd ( W ) at a speed of less than 30kms / hour and maintained a safe distance from the truck. The lights turned red and I was in the intersection
but did not pass the intersection fully. There was enough space for a car from the other lane to turn right which one car did. I noticed camera lights flashing. Will I in this case get a ticket.
Will appreciate if someone could answer my question so that in the future I could be more careful to avoid this kind of a situation.
Thanks
Sam
Red light Camera Tickets
Do not go on the drivers driving record, (drivers abstract)
Do not go to your insurance company
Will NOT affect your insurance rates
No record is kept of the charge
The charge is a fine only, of 180 dollars
If you go to court they will normally reduce the charge from 180 to about 50 dollars on a guilty plea.
Have the same weight as a parking ticket
If you have any other questions about red light camera tickets you can call OTT Legal for free advise.
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS