Rochester ending its red light camera program
Perhaps of interest to Albany: Rochester mayor Lovely Warren announced Thursday the city will stop its red light camera program at the end of December. Said Warren in a statement: The Red Light Camera Program has been wildly unpopular among Rochester's citizens, and its benefits simply do not justify a further extension ... I am particularly concerned that too many of these tickets have been issued to people who can least afford to pay them, which is counterproductive to our efforts to reverse our city's troubling rates of poverty." A city-commissioned study earlier this year reported a reduction in crashes at camera intersections, but the number of violations issued had stayed the same. [Democrat & Chronicle x2]
Say Something!
We'd really like you to take part in the conversation here at All Over Albany. But we do have a few rules here. Don't worry, they're easy. The first: be kind. The second: treat everyone else with the same respect you'd like to see in return. Cool? Great, post away. Comments are moderated so it might take a little while for your comment to show up. Thanks for being patient.
Comments
I have mixed feelings about this clearly complicated issue.
It's the nature of all fines to hit hardest "people who can least afford to pay them" simply because any unexpected fine is proportionally a big chunk out of a modest income. One option for those cash strapped folks would be to stop running red lights. How many fines does it take before you say, "Gee, maybe I should stop doing that."
And if you think I'm being self-righteous about this, let me make a confession: last Saturday night I sailed right through a red light on Whitehall Rd. in Albany. Not just miscalculated the duration of the yellow and tried to get away with breezing through the first few seconds of the red. No, this was plowing right through the red like I didn't see because my attention apparently was elsewhere. A pedestrian screamed at me and I stopped to let him scream even more because I deserved it. It was a shock to me that I would have been so careless because in my imagination I'm a good driver. I could have killed that pedestrian. It happens it was not a red light that has a camera, but if it was, I would have deserved a fine. Hopefully my shame (and being yelled at) will have the effect of making me more careful.
... said chrisck on Dec 1, 2016 at 1:50 PM | link
One option for those cash strapped folks would be to stop running red lights. How many fines does it take before you say, "Gee, maybe I should stop doing that."
But if we assume that all demographics have similar offense rates (any data on this?), then people living near intersections with cameras are going to to be fined more often.
Here's a list of camera locations. Obviously you want to site them at locations with the highest offense rates. Which means at the busiest intersections. Many of which are in poor neighborhoods. Leading to a regressive impact. Fair or not? More importantly, is it good for overall health of our city and its neighborhoods?
... said -B on Dec 2, 2016 at 11:20 AM | link
I still can't even begin to wrap my head around this idea that we should have different consequences for breaking the same laws based on how much money we make.
... said JayK on Dec 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM | link
@-B You raise a valid point in terms of the regressive fines. But let me counter by saying that residents in the poor neighborhoods with busiest intersections have the most to gain from improved driving habits in their neighborhoods, especially by non-residents (maybe suburbanites?) careening through their neighborhoods where their kids play and cross the streets.
... said chrisck on Dec 2, 2016 at 12:25 PM | link
JayK - thing is, consequences are already very different. Same fine can be a matter of going out to a less fine restaurant for one family, and struggling with paying for groceries for the other.
But at the end of the day - what is the ultimate goal, punishment or safety? If safety... I am not sure hungry kids make for a safer city.
And I looked through Rochester report, and closed it with the feeling that someone worked hard to obscure the data. They advertise huge improvements, but looks like only 2 or 3 intersections actually worked - out of 40..
... said Mike on Dec 2, 2016 at 1:33 PM | link
"It's the nature of all fines to hit hardest "people who can least afford to pay them" "
Nonsense. It depends on what things carry fines and how the fines are structured. In the USA we have a strong tendency to define antisocial things ordinary people do as "crimes". When rich people do antisocial things we don't label it a crime.
Some jurisdictions do indeed charge different amounts for the same offense based on ability to pay. I think that makes a lot of sense. if you work as a cashier and you get hit with a $50 speeding ticket, that hurts. yes, you probably deserve it but $50 is a lot for that person. If you are a stockbroker, $50 is a lunch. How about a $500 fine? The effect would be similar.
... said Stan on Dec 2, 2016 at 1:39 PM | link
@ JayK - There is some good logic behind the concept.
The fine's purpose is to cause the offender to consider the error of their ways so they don't repeat the action. To do so, the fine should be of an amount sufficient enough to discourage a repeat of the bad behavior. However, the fine should not be so exorbitant that it financially cripples the offender, nor should it be so small as to not even register as an inconvenience.
There is a justification for having a sliding scale for the amount of the consequence. Someone driving a Ferrari 120 miles per hour in a school zone likely won't "feel" the inconvenience of a $125 ticket. However, for someone earning minimum wage, that ticket could result in the offender missing a rent payment. In neither case is the intent of the fine achieved, therefore, a sliding scale is warranted.
Keep in mind, what we're discussing is the amount of the consequence, not whether or not there will actually be a consequence. This is the ultimate in fairness (not equality, mind you). Each offender would receive a consequence that is fair, insofar as it effectively sends the message that certain behaviors should stop.
... said Jay on Dec 2, 2016 at 2:23 PM | link