Police Details, Cameras, & Enforcement Methods

[sneijder]

Translation: Seems like the majority of people in Massachusetts will be punished for their lifestyle choices with potentially overzealous and corruptly-implemented automated fines!

Representative of Chicago Area Red-Light Camera Company Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison

CHICAGO —A sales agent for a Chicago-area red-light camera company, Company A, has been sentenced to more than five years in federal prison for conspiring to pay bribes to a public official and for filing a false tax return.

www.justice.gov

In the Boston urban core (which is the topic of this forum, and where most of these cameras will be installed), more than 50% of trips within city limits are done outside a car. I'd estimate its more like 60-70%. If we had better bike, ped, and transit infrastructure, this could easily be 80+% (a lot of people take ubers and what not because transit is not reliable and biking is unsafe). How about the majority not be in constant state of danger from 2-ton metal boxes just because people can't be bothered to follow the actual law?

 

[DZH22]

+11 is hard to actually hit in the city with 25 limits......

I regularly see people blasting down the section of Beacon between the Public Gardens and Mass Ave. That's a good place to start as they are easily hitting 40-50. I was also downtown one evening a few years ago when there was like an entire street racing ring going on in the financial district. It felt like I was in the middle of a Fast and the Furious movie with all these souped up cars revving their engines and absolutely BLASTING down the roads. I think they ended up taking it to a parking garage and racing there as well, even scarier than the roads honestly. It's the one time I found myself looking for a police officer and unable to find one anywhere.

 

[Equilibria]

In the Boston urban core (which is the topic of this forum, and where most of these cameras will be installed), more than 50% of trips within city limits are done outside a car. I'd estimate its more like 60-70%. If we had better bike, ped, and transit infrastructure, this could easily be 80+% (a lot of people take ubers and what not because transit is not reliable and biking is unsafe). How about the majority not be in constant state of danger from 2-ton metal boxes just because people can't be bothered to follow the actual law?

And how much of Massachusetts' population and area are located in the Boston urban core? We're talking 60-70% of trips taken by probably about 1/6 of the population.

The forum is about Boston. The law is for the whole state. We're discussing the law.

 

[bigeman312]

And how much of Massachusetts' population and area are located in the Boston urban core? We're talking 60-70% of trips taken by probably about 1/6 of the population.

The forum is about Boston. The law is for the whole state. We're discussing the law.

Read the article. The bill is to "allow cities and towns to deploy speed cameras to help catch and ticket heavy-footed motorists."

If speed cameras are unpopular in a rural suburban town, there is a strong incentive against the leaders of that town deploying speed cameras.

It's up to municaplities to decide whether to deploy speed cameras or not. I certainly hope they are deployed in Boston. I don't give a fuck if they are deployed in Gosnold. Gosnold is a distraction.

This forum is about Boston. We are discussing the effects of the passage of this bill on Boston (and Cambridge, Somerville, etc), not Gosnold.

 

[thepixelnation]

Translation: Seems like the majority of people in Massachusetts will be punished for their lifestyle choices with potentially overzealous and corruptly-implemented automated fines!

Representative of Chicago Area Red-Light Camera Company Sentenced to Five Years in Federal Prison

CHICAGO —A sales agent for a Chicago-area red-light camera company, Company A, has been sentenced to more than five years in federal prison for conspiring to pay bribes to a public official and for filing a false tax return.

www.justice.gov

If we didn't do things because a guy in the field tried to bribe a Chicago politician, we wouldn't do anything in this country.

 

[Stlin]

The opportunity for corruption comes from the fact that once this is legal, companies that manage these cameras and often collect the fines will start hitting up every municipality in the Commonwealth hawking their system and the revenue it would generate. In that environment, graft is inevitable. My read is that folks here wouldn't care about that, because the negative incentive for driving only gets stronger as the fines get higher and the thresholds on the cameras get even more hair-trigger.

Keep in mind that in MA, unlike most other states including IL, our towns and cities basically don't get to keep any of the revenue generated from tickets, written by cops or otherwise. They get a "reimbursement" from the RMV for costs, but it's a fairly token amount - for example, Cambridge received 95k in 2023, against 10.5M in parking ticket revenue. The same applies to these cameras - net of expenses, any revenue is to be deposited in the MA Transportation Trust Fund.

 

[Equilibria]

Read the article. The bill is to "allow cities and towns to deploy speed cameras to help catch and ticket heavy-footed motorists."

If speed cameras are unpopular in a rural suburban town, there is a strong incentive against the leaders of that town deploying speed cameras.

It's up to municaplities to decide whether to deploy speed cameras or not. I certainly hope they are deployed in Boston. I don't give a fuck if they are deployed in Gosnold. Gosnold is a distraction.

This forum is about Boston. We are discussing the effects of the passage of this bill on Boston (and Cambridge, Somerville, etc), not Gosnold.

My initial comment was a response to the tone of the comment it quoted. The details of this law as I read them (and thank you to those who have provided additional context) seem workable to me, but we aren't really debating the merits of the proposal, so no need to continue this argument.

 

[Jeremi]

Like I was saying, though, graft is possible in basically any government program. That doesn't make those government programs bad. The graft is bad. For example, we can have an MBTA and still prosecute anyone trying to bribe the MBTA. Likewise, we can have traffic enforcement cameras and prosecute anyone from those companies trying bribe government officials.


The camera system will not penalize someone for simply driving. It would ticket someone if they are speeding. You will still have a right to drive. You do not have a right to speed. Speeding is against the law.

Driving isn’t a right, either. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked (and which should be revoked much more frequently).

 

[TallIsGood]

Wasn't familiar with any other tax raising proposals except for making candy subject to state sales tax, from which it's currently exempt. Obviously the revenue generated from the traffic cameras would fund the capex and opex of these systems. Generally I think Healey has been pretty clear that new activities are not being funded by new taxes, and that the "new" $1M+ tax is being allocated to either schools or transit per statute.

With the speed limit buffers (11 over or 6 over) there seems to be some leeway for "normal" drivers.

New taxes on candy, local option taxes on hotels, taxes on synthetic nicotine products, and taxes on drug manufacturers. In addition to red light, school bus and speed camera which are more about revenue raises.

Remember read end crashes increase after red light cameras are installed.

 

[TallIsGood]

Driving isn’t a right, either. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked (and which should be revoked much more frequently).

Lots of these rules are written just like zoning codes - to allow selective enforcement, pretextual stops and raise revenue. For example, speed limits are not necessarily tied to a road’s engineering design limits.

 

[Jeremi]

Speed cameras reduce speeding, reduce crashes, reduce injuries, and reduce fatalities.

Report: Speed cameras in NYC cut major crashes; spark debate as Albany weighs renewal

A new report by the NYC DOT shows that speeding has reduced in areas where speed cameras in NYC are present.

www.amny.com

You could take the revenue raised from the citations and burn it. Speed cameras would still be a blessing.

 

[as02143]

Remember read end crashes increase after red light cameras are installed.

But the frequency of deadly T-bones drop precipitously.

 

[HenryAlan]

The tone of the post I was originally responding to referred to "anyone outside of a car" as if that's the majority. Allowing for how everyone is a pedestrian at least briefly in any trip, they are a definite minority.

This neglects that actual purpose of most public laws, which are specifically intended to protect minority rights and enhance safety. Pedestrians and bike riders might represent a minority of road users, but that does not mean they should not be protected. It's dishonest to spin these rules as question of convenience or inconvenience. They are about the right of minorities to be safe.

 

[Equilibria]

This neglects that actual purpose of most public laws, which are specifically intended to protect minority rights and enhance safety. Pedestrians and bike riders might represent a minority of road users, but that does not mean they should not be protected. It's dishonest to spin these rules as question of convenience or inconvenience. They are about the right of minorities to be safe.

Public laws are about maintaining public order and the social contract. I'm no Republican, but if you start making laws explicitly to favor minorities at the expense of freedom to live the lifestyle you choose... that's a balance that has to be maintained carefully to avoid a popular backlash (again, Trump got elected twice by running on this very point).

 

[737900er]

Read the article. The bill is to "allow cities and towns to deploy speed cameras to help catch and ticket heavy-footed motorists."

If speed cameras are unpopular in a rural suburban town, there is a strong incentive against the leaders of that town deploying speed cameras.

It's up to municaplities to decide whether to deploy speed cameras or not. I certainly hope they are deployed in Boston. I don't give a fuck if they are deployed in Gosnold. Gosnold is a distraction.

This forum is about Boston. We are discussing the effects of the passage of this bill on Boston (and Cambridge, Somerville, etc), not Gosnold.

The most contentious stuff will be on stroads that are used by people getting through a city or town to another and don't have a say. E.g. the parts of Boylston Street/Route 9 in Brookline that are signed at 30/35, but used by people to get from Newton, Wellesley to Longwood.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The most contentious stuff will be on stroads that are used by people getting through a city or town to another and don't have a say. E.g. the parts of Boylston Street/Route 9 in Brookline that are signed at 30/35, but used by people to get from Newton, Wellesley to Longwood.

But those stroads are exactly the ones that need to be slowed down. So let the speeding commuters whine and snivel, so long as they are not killing others anymore..

 

[jbray]

But those stroads are exactly the ones that need to be slowed down. So let the speeding commuters whine and snivel, so long as they are not killing others anymore..

To defend @Equilibria's point here, we've given drivers a social contract to kill people in the name of convenience and, while it should be easy to turn around and say that killing people shouldn't be a right, we have to go against 50 years of societal conditioning politically while making driving suck to actually fix the problem. If we go about it to heavy-handed, there will be political blowback in the style of top down government imposing things like the widening of roads and removal of bike lanes out of spite. We watched it happen in Cambridge when the city council lost its bike friendly majority. I definitely have been watching this conversation and find myself agreeing with you, Jeff, but don't mistake Equillibria's point. If we make Route 9 a non-highway overnight, we lose broad support for the cause.

That said:

Driving is absolutely a lifestyle choice. Millions of people across Massachusetts live in suburban, exurban, or rural environments that have low enough density that it is a necessity for every aspect of life. No matter how much TOD we construct, it is not possible that we will ever in the US have an urban form that looks like the Netherlands, which means that a substantial percentage of the population will continue to live in these areas. And they vote, as we just saw illustrated in November when they rejected progressive ideals in favor of libertarian ones that have a far longer and stronger history in this country (and I hate that outcome).

The tone of the post I was originally responding to referred to "anyone outside of a car" as if that's the majority. Allowing for how everyone is a pedestrian at least briefly in any trip, they are a definite minority.

Allowing that everyone is a pedestrian on every trip and some drive cars, how is driving not the minority? A car is a tool to get from one walking space to another and we shouldn't let it kill people in their end walking space so they can get around faster. The law restricts speeds for 11 miles above the speed limit and 6 miles above in school zones. You realize that you are essentially advocating that we should honor the lifestyle choice of speeding through spaces where children are walking because it's how we've done it for 50 years? Society is allowed to condemn people for being ruthlessly selfish as more data reveals itself. Tickets are the least of the punishments we can bestow. How about we legislate than any pedestrian fatality by a personal vehicle outside of a highway is automatically vehicular manslaughter because the personal responsibility of the driver should be to operate as though their vehicle is a two ton hunk of metal moving through places where humans live? Want to speed? Deal with the consequences. Want to drive a vehicle with low visibility and high impact zones? Personal responsibility. Phone user? Automatic. The onus SHOULD be on the driver in nearly all "accidents" because they are the ones providing the blunt force trauma at speed. Again, an automatic speeding ticket is the least we can do to address the fact that drivers don't want to be held accountable to the laws we already have and you're over here crying "government overreach".

 

[HenryAlan]

Public laws are about maintaining public order and the social contract. I'm no Republican, but if you start making laws explicitly to favor minorities at the expense of freedom to live the lifestyle you choose... that's a balance that has to be maintained carefully to avoid a popular backlash (again, Trump got elected twice by running on this very point).

That's utter nonsense. Just about every law restricts people from living a life they might choose. That goes from speed laws all the way up to things like rape and enslavement. Just because some people might choose something does not mean it's okay for them to do it. The common sense approach requires that we strike a balance between personal freedom and harm to others. Now you can argue if you'd like that restrictive speed laws do not make roads safer. I think you'd get a lot of push back on that, but you are free to state that case. But it's not remotely true to say that such laws serve no purpose other than to prevent lifestyle choices. And since you raised Trump and mob mentality, no, it's not okay to allow harm to minorities just because a mob is trying to push things in that direction. Politicians like Trump are too cowardly to protect minorities, instead seeing their abuse as a way to curry favor with others. Let's not make arguments here that push similar points.

 

[thepixelnation]

Public laws are about maintaining public order and the social contract. I'm no Republican, but if you start making laws explicitly to favor minorities at the expense of freedom to live the lifestyle you choose... that's a balance that has to be maintained carefully to avoid a popular backlash (again, Trump got elected twice by running on this very point).

@Equilibria I really think you should drop the "lifestyle" argument when talking about this topic. Speeding isn't a "lifestyle," neither is running red lights, illegally passing school busses, or driving in a bus lane.

If you think breaking the law is a "lifestyle," then sure, but don't lump commuters into the same lifestyle as one punctuated by misdemeanors and felonies.

Commuting to work can be a lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to drive my car wherever I would like. The social contract is that you don't hurt or kill anyone when you're driving your car to work. Drivers are breaking that part of the contract, they are neglecting public order. In these cases you have to find new ways to enforce that contract, to protect that public order.

 

[Equilibria]

Allowing that everyone is a pedestrian on every trip and some drive cars, how is driving not the minority? A car is a tool to get from one walking space to another and we shouldn't let it kill people in their end walking space so they can get around faster. The law restricts speeds for 11 miles above the speed limit and 6 miles above in school zones. You realize that you are essentially advocating that we should honor the lifestyle choice of speeding through spaces where children are walking because it's how we've done it for 50 years? Society is allowed to condemn people for being ruthlessly selfish as more data reveals itself. Tickets are the least of the punishments we can bestow. How about we legislate than any pedestrian fatality by a personal vehicle outside of a highway is automatically vehicular manslaughter because the personal responsibility of the driver should be to operate as though their vehicle is a two ton hunk of metal moving through places where humans live? Want to speed? Deal with the consequences. Want to drive a vehicle with low visibility and high impact zones? Personal responsibility. Phone user? Automatic. The onus SHOULD be on the driver in nearly all "accidents" because they are the ones providing the blunt force trauma at speed. Again, an automatic speeding ticket is the least we can do to address the fact that drivers don't want to be held accountable to the laws we already have and you're over here crying "government overreach".

Lots of people in this City and on this website brag about living a car-free LIFESTYLE. If being car-free is one, then not being car-free is also one.

Again, my point is not that speeding is a lifestyle, and it's not that this is a bad law as written. My point (as you state pretty well) is that speeding is not a crime like rape or enslavement, it is something that every driver on the highway is typically doing 100% of the time. Laws against speeding are meaningless in the United States - actual enforcement is a contract between cops and drivers that the real speed limit is 10-20 mph higher than posted and occasionally some people will get pulled over at a speed trap or something to pretend that the law matters. The other way enforcement actually happens is through the design of roads that make it actively uncomfortable to drive faster than the design speed, but that's not a matter of law, it's a matter of road design. You're expressing your moral opinion here, but this is not the way America has worked for the past hundred years, and trying to change on a dime will probably be unsuccessful and lead to reactionaries erasing all your progress and then some.

I'm all for designing infrastructure that prevents people from being killed, I just think we can do that without demonizing 70% of the population. I understand that that's an unpopular opinion on a website where people suggest responding to tragedies by locking people up without trial.

That's utter nonsense. Just about every law restricts people from living a life they might choose. That goes from speed laws all the way up to things like rape and enslavement. Just because some people might choose something does not mean it's okay for them to do it. The common sense approach requires that we strike a balance between personal freedom and harm to others. Now you can argue if you'd like that restrictive speed laws do not make roads safer. I think you'd get a lot of push back on that, but you are free to state that case. But it's not remotely true to say that such laws serve no purpose other than to prevent lifestyle choices. And since you raised Trump and mob mentality, no, it's not okay to allow harm to minorities just because a mob is trying to push things in that direction. Politicians like Trump are too cowardly to protect minorities, instead seeing their abuse as a way to curry favor with others. Let's not make arguments here that push similar points.

@Equilibria I really think you should drop the "lifestyle" argument when talking about this topic. Speeding isn't a "lifestyle," neither is running red lights, illegally passing school busses, or driving in a bus lane.

If you think breaking the law is a "lifestyle," then sure, but don't lump commuters into the same lifestyle as one punctuated by misdemeanors and felonies.

Commuting to work can be a lifestyle, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to drive my car wherever I would like. The social contract is that you don't hurt or kill anyone when you're driving your car to work. Drivers are breaking that part of the contract, they are neglecting public order. In these cases you have to find new ways to enforce that contract, to protect that public order.

Both of you are functionally making the same argument here. Since all people who drive are taught by life experience (and more or less by driver's ed) that speeding is just a part of driving, then every driver is a speeder. I'm absolutely lumping commuters into a lifestyle punctuated by misdemeanors (though not felonies), because everyone on the highway must commit a misdemeanor the whole time they're on that road to avoid getting honked at and given the finger by people passing them. The suggestion that it is possible for basically anyone to live in a less-dense area and make your critical trips in a car and not ever exceed the speed limit is absurd with the way we have built our society (and the social contract, which speeding is 100% baked into). We're having a conversation about speeding, not running red lights, passing school buses, driving in bike lanes, driving on sidewalks, driving on the wrong side of the road, or intentionally ramming people with your car. They are not equivalent acts, the way the law is currently enforced does not make them equal, and FWIW neither does the proposed law, which limits the size of camera-enforced fines and doesn't allow insurance companies to assign points for them.