this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
82 points (98.8% liked)

News

37703 readers
1704 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
82
In first few months, Richmond’s red-light cameras caught 18,137 vehicles (www.richmonder.org)
submitted 2 days ago by Wuddi@lemmy.zip to c/news@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 71 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

My understanding is that US municipalities do red light cameras like this:

  1. The city hires a contractor, a for-profit service, to install and operate the cameras. That's appealing for the city because the contractor deals with the up-front costs. The service gets paid some fraction of each ticket it issues.
  2. Part of the contract gives the contractor control over the lights themselves.
  3. The contractor shortens the yellow lights (and may manipulate other timings besides) to ensure more tickets.

People will tell you that red light cameras make roads less safe because they make drivers panicky. I think most drivers have no idea the cameras are there, I think the situation is simpler: Shorter yellows are dangerous. This is literally "Profit > Your Life."

Traffic cameras should be a good idea. But if they're operated as a profit center, they probably won't be.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 day ago

It's worse than that. I'm my area, they found that the company that manages the cameras had timed them to film a little longer than the yellow, so they were capturing a small, but significantly higher number of fraudulent violations.

Then when they added cameras to school zone signs, it was found that they activated outside of the official school zones, also giving them a huge profit windfall.

These companies are predatory and parasitic, and EVERY time they do this stuff, they manage to make a mistake that benefits them, at our expense.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

2 and 3 require CEO jail time in my humble opinion

This isn't about making traffic safer, this is about making traffic riskier, risking deaths, to make a CEO slightly richer

Jailtime

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

And if the company does it again, every shareholder goes to jail for an amount of time proportionate to shares owned. Or something, I dunno, I just feel like if we only hold CEOs accountable, companies will start just using the position as fodder so long as it is still more profitable to break the law and accept the punishments.

[–] Tiral@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Just like car insurance. I agree everyone should have it legally, but then have it controlled by for profit companies is a fucking horrid idea.

[–] TrollTrollrolllol@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I'd apply that to any and all insurance.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Most drivers I talk to, even the most clueless of drivers, seem to be aware of red light and speed cameras. Some people are aware they go up, but once someone gets a ticket mailed a month later by surprise, the news spreads like wildfire. Plus, many devices can locate them. My non-internet dashcam came loaded with their locations, surprisingly. And yes, I'm reasonably sure it has an internal database, because I bought it a couple years after my region banned cameras and removed the equipment.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It’s a good thing to know they’re out there. The goal shouldn’t be profit for the company installing them, nor should it be tracking your movements, but they need to be for safety.

Zero tickets is a desirable outcome, assuming it means drivers stop at red lights properly and it results in fewer pedestrian and cyclist injuries

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

The world is so broken

[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Just another tax on the poor and working class.

[–] DerHaseWillSchmako@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did I miss something here? You could just not drive over a red light. Or are they shit and not working properly?

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Its that the fines are fixed. For people who cant afford it an 80$ ticket means something else has to go. Your eating ramen and beans or your going to be late on a bill, and that may have additional fees. To those who can afford it, the 80$ ticket is the cost of a nice dinner you were going to anyway, its not impactful enough to change your behavior.

This is why in some nordic countries serious traffic violations fines are based on a % of your income. Plus taxes are high enough that the governentn does not rely on them as a primary revenue source.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

While a reasonable point, it’s not really relevant here. Your argument applies generally to all fines , regardless whether there are red light cameras

[–] DerHaseWillSchmako@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ok, that's a valid point. I like the concept of income dependent fines. The traffic lights in the USA are flawed in my opinion. In Europe, most of the time, the traffic light is directly behind the stopping line. Easy to see and react. I always found it inconvenient and not as easy when I was driving in the states. But that was only for a week and I was not completely used to them...

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah I have to admit to going through a red light about a year ago - it was a massive intersection (my side was 5 lanes) and the lights are misaligned so they’re not in front of the lanes they regulate.

The lights in front of me were green …… but they were for the right turning lanes, and lights for through lanes were off to the left. I can’t argue my fault but at the same time, wtf?

And in before “are you blind?” ….. yes I am. The lights did have arrows but the intersection was so big, the lights so far away on the opposite side of all that pavement that I didn’t notice until I was in the intersection.

Anyhow, the point is wtf , why does someone place lights where it increases the possibility of dangerous mistakes?

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I just want to know how accident rates were affected. Red lights don't exist because they are good in and of themselves, they exist to prevent accidents. This statistic tells me nothing of use, other than a rough estimate of how much money was extracted from the pockets of drivers and funneled through private industry to extract a profit, with the remainder deposited to the police budget.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I support safety initiatives but when private companies are involved and additionally it’s a revenue source, I wonder if they’re using the old chestnut of lowering speed limits without traffic calming and then putting speed cameras, or shortening yellow light duration and putting up red light cameras.

When private company is involved, it necessarily stops being about safety as, done correctly, the number of tickets issued approaches zero. But that means the company isn’t earning money. Do the math.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

In case it wasn't clear from my comment, we are in full agreement.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was in a panic because I live in Richmond until I realized different state. Red light cameras are illegal in Texas as of 2019.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Those flock cameras could be used to infer speeding based on implausible times between cameras based on distance and speed limits. They won't do it because then most people would be against them. I could see them selling that information to insurance companies though.

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It was a long battle here in Texas that went all the way to the Texas Supreme Court. I think the legal claim was that we have a right to face our accuser and a camera can not take the stand or testify.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Poor writing from the people pushing it then. Usually they get around that with weasel words making it a civil fine rather than anything with legal merit.

Among the consequences are a few outliers racking up tens of thousands in fines for repeat offenses but where there is no legal justification for arresting them or taking their license

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago

Four locations, in case anyone is wondering.