Various news outlets and the Chicago Tribune are reporting today that the Mayor of Chicago has issued a one day suspension to a bureaucrat for circulating an email memo "warning police supervisors that the city was on track to fall far short of this year's "targets" for parking ticket revenue." The unfortunate bureaucrat broke the cardinal rule of bureaucracy -- never tell the whole truth.
When it comes to things like parking tickets and red light camera citations, the bureaucratic script must be diligently followed -- parking tickets are written because a parking law has been broken and red light cameras are all about safety at intersections. Everybody got that? Politicians are not, repeat not, interested in revenue generation from things like parking tickets and red light cameras. They are only concerned with public safety and enforcement of the law.
The bureaucratic script, demanding discussions of public safety and enforcement of laws, are particularly important when discussing the use of red light cameras and the potential for installing more.
So any local news story or memorandum (.pdf) that includes and emphasises the amount of revenue generated by the use of red light cameras should not leave readers with the impression that there's any truth beyond your local government's concern for public safety and enforcement of the law.
Everybody got that?
August 18, 2010
We Are All $6,672 Safer!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
ha ha. point taken. You hate rlcs. I don't care if they are raising revenue. I still believe they add to safety.
Anon@1:24 --
Yup. We hate RLCs. We don't care either if they are raising revenue, we still believe revenue generation is their first and foremost purpose -- not safety.
Anon 1:24:
I'm with you. This discussion was hashed out before. The red light cameras are here to stay and the city is getting revenue from drivers who break the rules of the road. That's one of those win/wins.
The police still have discretion when they review the video before the ticket is sent. You can see in the memorandum where it says 61 citations were rejected.
I agree the politicians and the police probably think the public is too stupid to realize they are as interested in the money as they are in the safety aspects, but the public tolerates the little white lies because the cameras serve dual benefits.
Tickets written by cops at live traffic stops generate revenue, too. Should we stop doing that?
Father McKenzie --
The difference we see between a live stop and a camera is subtle but significant. A cop sees a violation, deems it worth the effort to stop the driver, interacts with the driver, informs the driver of the violation, and then decides whether or not to issue the ticket. Whether or not a ticket is issued, the effect upon the driver is usually that they are more conscious and cautious for the rest of their drive, if not the rest of their week.
When a camera takes the place of a law enforcement officer, there is no interaction or immediate feedback about the situation -- lack of interaction matters. The lack of immediate response to a true and real safety violation matters. A camera's only purpose is to record and fine the driver. We can't say for certain what the effect is upon anyone who receives a ticket through the mail, but we're willing to bet the effect isn't nearly as good as the live stop.
Does that mean that we get rid of parking tickets??? No interaction with an officer there - just a ticket on the windshield.
Anon@10:05 --
No, but the reaction to a parking ticket is probably not all that different to the reaction to an RLC citation.
RLCs are touted as being about safety, especially as they capture moving violations. But the whole bureaucratic truth is that RLCs are largely all about revenue generation.
We don't believe for a minute that fines are the active agent in persuading drivers, or anyone else who violates the law, to be more responsible. If the threat and imposition of fines were effective deterrents, we wouldn't need police officers at all.
PRU. I understand the points you are making. I think you should understand rlcs add to safety and you should be happy they add to the city coffers too.
-- rah rah.
Whether RLCs improve safety is debatable. There have been reports on both sides of that arguement. The fact that they are Big Brotheresque attempts to impose rules and fines are what strike me the wrong way.
One problem is that the owner of the vehicle, who is no neccesarliy the one who broke the law, gets the ticket. I know this has made it through the courts, but it sure doesn't seem right.
But the biggest concern is that the electronic snooping and recording of all our actions by our government for the purpose of punishing relativly small infractions of the law smacks of totalitarianism. Next comes speeding tickets issued by camera, then by IPass. Soon they'll be monitoring all our emails and phone calls for "sensitive" words and our bank transactions for suspicious activity. (Wait, the Feds do that now).
I am pretty sure this isn't what the founding fathers meant when they drew up the Bill of Rights.
What part of "breaking the law" don't you people get?????? It's not a case of Big Brother. It is about an easy way to enforce traffice laws for minor infractions!!!!!!
Anon. 12:58-
Don't forget your foil helmet!
Father McKenzie,
I knew as I was typing it, I sounded like I was thisclose to donning my foil helmet. But I didn't state anything factually inacutarte. The Patriot Act does in fact give the govenment the right to snoop in our private conversations and bank account, even without reasonable cause. And they do it all the time. My company turns in thousands of documents a week reporting lagre private bank transacitons of law abiding citizens for govenrment review.
Look, I am not a big fan of "slippery slope" arguments, but these types of governmet mass surveilance are simply the kinds of things we should be cautious about. We need to be wary of ceding our privacy rights to the government, and only do so when there is tremendous upside.
I am just not sure that these cameras provide the upside for which I would be happy giving up my rights.
Here's one thing that troubles me:
How some municipalities (not ours to my knowledge) actually SHORTEN yellow light durations on RLC intersections.
Dont you think that if safety WAS the real MAIN concern, the yellows would be lengthened at those intersections??? I think a mandatory lengthening of yellow should be mandated for all RLC locations.
And possibly even overlap the reds in both directions to avoid the people jumping the green hitting those running the yellows?
Funny how the published data from our 1 RLC indicates an overwhelming percentage of revenues come from rolling rights and NOT the oh-so-dangerous straight through runs...and why is the fine the same? I dont have a problem with making the straight through a $300 fine and lowering the rolling right to $50...
You want to raise revenues AND increase safety? Have a real officer spend more than about 10 seconds at the Dee Road/Busse intersection and stop every bozo that takes a right turn from the middle lane or a left turn into the right lane, or enforce the gridlock...
Anon. 2:42-
We don't have any privacy rights out on the street. So the cameras don't concern me. If you want privacy, stay inside.
8:51: I noticed that too. I think you make reasonable suggestions.
Post a Comment