Are red light cameras ethical?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Inspired by the discussion about killing babies as well as a hypothetical scenario on a podcast I listen to, here's a real-life application of some of the ethical issues involved: red light cameras.

Red light cameras tend to decrease the frequency of angle ("T-bone") collisions while increasing the frequency of rear-end collisions. Depending on the crash characteristics of the intersection (specifically the percentages of rear-end and angle collisions), installing red light cameras can reduce the overall collision frequency for the intersection.

Also, on average, angle collisions tend to be more severe than rear-end collisions: an angle collision is more likely to injure or kill you than a rear-end collision (though injuries and deaths from rear-end collisions still happen).

Let's assume that we have an intersection like this: one where red light cameras will be effective at lowering the overall collision frequency and improving the average level of safety for drivers going through the intersection. If we install them, fewer people will be in collisions and fewer people will get hurt, but there will be people - people who have done nothing wrong... certainly nothing where a car collision would be a just punishment - who will be involved in collisions who weren't involved in them before as a result of installing the red light cameras.

This is just an example; there are all sorts of engineering decisions where reducing overall risk means increasing risk for one group even though the average risk goes down.

So... with all that in mind, are red light cameras ethical? Is it ethical to increase risk for one group of people in order to decrease average risk overall?

 

[Awoon]

Ever been to Las Vegas, NV? The intersections would be blocked forever if they activate the cameras.

 

[Falvlun]

I never knew that red-light cameras had the effect of reducing accidents. I thought they were more a lazy way to be able to write more tickets, and as such, I thought they should be abolished.

As for the scenario as you presented it, I think that's fine: If the overall effect is to reduce car accidents, then good. There isn't really a moral dilemma for me regarding people who might otherwise not have gotten into an accident since that is not the direct intention. I think if you were intentionally causing some people to get into accidents in order to prevent more accidents, that would be more morally impermissable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I never knew that red-light cameras had the effect of reducing accidents. I thought they were more a lazy way to be able to write more tickets, and as such, I thought they should be abolished.

As for the scenario as you presented it, I think that's fine: If the overall effect is to reduce car accidents, then good. There isn't really a moral dilemma for me regarding people who might otherwise not have gotten into an accident since that is not the direct intention. I think if you were intentionally causing some people to get into accidents in order to prevent more accidents, that would be more morally impermissable.

It's for goverment revenue. Make no mistake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never knew that red-light cameras had the effect of reducing accidents. I thought they were more a lazy way to be able to write more tickets, and as such, I thought they should be abolished.

I can't say that they're never used that way, but when they're being used properly, they're about preventing collisions by deterring red light running.

As for the scenario as you presented it, I think that's fine: If the overall effect is to reduce car accidents, then good. There isn't really a moral dilemma for me regarding people who might otherwise not have gotten into an accident since that is not the direct intention. I think if you were intentionally causing some people to get into accidents in order to prevent more accidents, that would be more morally impermissable.

Out of curiosity, what was your answer for the "would you kill baby Hitler?" hypothetical scenario?

I guess I don't see what you mean by "directly". In this scenario, even if I can't identify the specific people who would be harmed as a result of this decision, I can reasonably foresee that people would get into rear-end collisions who wouldn't have gotten into one if I hadn't intervened. The only real difference I see between that and the "baby Hitler" scenario (besides the fact that I'd save many more lives by preventing the Holocaust than I would by installing a red light camera) is that killing someone with your own hands is more personal. The idea of murdering a baby is more repellent to me at a gut level, but I'm not sure what the ethical difference would be.

BTW: the podcast I mentioned talked about two hypothetical scenarios involving a runaway train car. In the first one, you're standing at a switch. A train car with 10 people on board is rolling toward you. If you do nothing, the car will roll off a cliff and everyone will die; if you throw the switch, the car will be diverted onto a siding and everyone on the train will survive, but one person standing on the tracks will be killed.

In the second version of the scenario, you're standing on a bridge over the track, and instead of having a switch to throw, you're standing next to someone. If you throw him over the side of the bridge onto the tracks, you'll block the track and save the passengers but kill the one innocent person.

On the podcast, they said that when these scenarios were actually presented to people, the majority would throw the switch in the first case, but very few would throw the person over in the second case. The podcast then discussed their opinions on the reasons for this difference.

... but back to the cameras: would it make a difference if I was dealing with certainties instead of likelihoods? What if I knew with certainty that over the next year, baby Ann and baby Brian would die in angle crashes if we don't install the cameras and baby Cindy would die in a rear-end crash if we do install them. Does it change the ethics of the situation if I know who's death I'm choosing with my decision?

 

[oldbadger]

Red light cameras tend to decrease the frequency of angle ("T-bone") collisions while increasing the frequency of rear-end collisions.

Hi...! We have road-junction traffic-light enforcement cameras here in England. We also have rail-crossing-signal enforcement cameras.

Let me send this past you....... Red Light cameras do not increase rear-end collisions. Even where rear-end crash statistics rise after the installation of a red-light camera. No....they don't! Let me continue this line of thought, please...

If we install them, fewer people will be in collisions and fewer people will get hurt, but there will be people - people who have done nothing wrong... certainly nothing where a car collision would be a just punishment - who will be involved in collisions who weren't involved in them before as a result of installing the red light cameras.

I think that this is wrong, dead wrong. People who crash into the back of other cars are always in the wrong, every time. In many cases (In the UK) people who crash into the back of other cars are convicted of careless driving', and where they cause serious injury or death, convicted of 'dangerous driving'. There is no excuse in UK for rear-end crashes.

This is just an example; there are all sorts of engineering decisions where reducing overall risk means increasing risk for one group even though the average risk goes down.

It sounds as if tail-gating in Canada (like UK) is a serious problem, and therefore it might be a good idea for the government to fund an advert campaign which might shock drivers into safe-distance awareness.

So... with all that in mind, are red light cameras ethical? Is it ethical to increase risk for one group of people in order to decrease average risk overall?

If you lost a loved one because some fool ignored a red-light, you might not even have to think about this. Further, you might feel like asking, 'What is the government doing about this? Why have they ignored this?'

We all hate enforcement cameras, but they have been reducing bad driving and saving life for years now. I don't think that they are easy revenue for governments...... installation costs and servicing costs have been so high in UK that most enforcement cameras were retired, just left as visual deterrents, and the crash rates started to escalate again.

What do you think?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Enforcement cameras are total bs. They just trade off t bone collisions for rear end collisions. They do nothing safety wise. It's just to grab money from you. Everyone runs red lights once in a while because traffic devices are rigged at times to generate cash.

 

[oldbadger]

Enforcement cameras are total bs. They just trade off t bone collisions for rear end collisions. They do nothing safety wise. It's just to grab money from you. Everyone runs red lights once in a while because traffic devices are rigged at times to generate cash.

Do you think red-lights are necessary?
Do you think it's ok to run red-lights sometimes?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you think red-lights are necessary?
Do you think it's ok to run red-lights sometimes?

Yes red lights are necessary and

Everyone that drives runs reds on occasion. It's unavoidable if the yellow is unpredictable and short in duration. Most use caution anyways. Im not referring to those who run reds intentionally.

Enforcrment cameras however are not necessary.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes red lights are necessary and

Everyone that drives runs reds on occasion. It's unavoidable if the yellow is unpredictable and short in duration. Most use caution anyways. Im not referring to those who run reds intentionally.

Enforcrment cameras however are not necessary.

Different countries have different yellow-light durations. I believe that some countries just jump straight to red from green!

Our amber light durations seem to be quite long, and I can't remember when I last saw a vehicle drive through a 'red'. In a place like NY such a long yellow duration might cause grid-locks, I don't know.

Question:- Suppose a vehicle did go through a red...... and killed your partner, or closest relative, or best friend,..... would you be fairly understanding, and not expect that driver to be severely punished? How would you react?

 

[Shermana]

Not when they deliberately shorten the Yellow Lights to get more tickets.

Another strike against the "pro-Local government" position.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Different countries have different yellow-light durations. I believe that some countries just jump straight to red from green!

Our amber light durations seem to be quite long, and I can't remember when I last saw a vehicle drive through a 'red'. In a place like NY such a long yellow duration might cause grid-locks, I don't know.

Question:- Suppose a vehicle did go through a red...... and killed your partner, or closest relative, or best friend,..... would you be fairly understanding, and not expect that driver to be severely punished? How would you react?

Well there are already laws to address tragic accidents. One of the best safety devices I came across are flashing warning signs bout a quarter mile from the light lighting when the signal is about to change giving drivers ample notice to slow down and prepare for a signal change. No tickets and very low accident rates. Thats where I see the objective is safety, and not revenue schemes by corrupt municipalities. IMO.

 

[oldbadger]

Well there are already laws to address tragic accidents. One of the best safety devices I came across are flashing warning signs bout a quarter mile from the light lighting when the signal is about to change giving drivers ample notice to slow down and prepare for a signal change. No tickets and very low accident rates. Thats where I see the objective is safety, and not revenue schemes by corrupt municipalities. IMO.

Wow! That must be a high speed road. We do have traffic lights on dual carriageways...... there's a set on the way into Dover on the A2; the amber lights stay on for several seconds to give drivers time to slow down from 70mph, and there's a high level set of extra large lights so that drivers can see 'em from quite a distance.

We have got rid of most of our speed-cams and junction-cams, but they have been replaced by police van-cams to catch dangerous drivers, wherever there is an accident black-spot. There have to be warning signs displayed anywhere that the Police use cameras, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well there are already laws to address tragic accidents. One of the best safety devices I came across are flashing warning signs bout a quarter mile from the light lighting when the signal is about to change giving drivers ample notice to slow down and prepare for a signal change. No tickets and very low accident rates. Thats where I see the objective is safety, and not revenue schemes by corrupt municipalities. IMO.

Those systems are another tool in the toolbox, but they're not always appropriate. For one thing, to use them, you have to use long distance detection: you have to have vehicle detectors up by that advance sign to ensure that if a vehicle passes the sign when the lights aren't flashing, the signal controller will extend the green interval so the car won't get caught by an unexpected yellow.

Generally, long-distance detection isn't practical in dense urban areas or other certain situations: for instance, I wanted to use it for one intersection I was looking at recently, but (even though it was a rural intersection), there was another very close signal, and long distance detection wouldn't work with the signal coordination they had there.

In any case, the point of my thread wasn't actually about the nitty gritty details of traffic engineering; it was about the larger issue: is it ethical to implement something that's beneficial on average overall but harms a subgroup of people? Do the needs of the many truly outweigh the needs of the few, or is there something unethical about choosing harm for others regardless of the cost-benefit ratio?

 

[oldbadger]

.............. is there something unethical about choosing harm for others regardless of the cost-benefit ratio?

There are many conditions that can cause drivers to slow quickly, resulting in following drivers who are too close to crash.

A parked police car.
A speed camera.
A traffic light camera
A rail crossing camera.
A police officer standing by the roadside.
etc etc the list must be enormous.

Now, how ethical is it for bad drivers to drive too close (and too fast?) to those ahead of them? What, if anything, would you do to deter such careless and dangerous driving?

Also, would you yourself support the use of enforcement cameras?

 

[oldbadger]

Well there are already laws to address tragic accidents.

I had asked:-

Suppose a vehicle did go through a red...... and killed your partner, or closest relative, or best friend,....................? How would you react?

So.... have I got this right....? If you got the chance to talk to this driver, you might say something like ,'Well...... we all do it. Obviously you'll probably get 'done' for failing to sto, etc, but it could have been me......... so I got no 'beef' with you.

Is that about right?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I my neck of the woods, we have caution lights ahead of some intersections that tell us the light is about to change. These have saved many lives and not took a single dollar out of anyones pocket with bogus red light tickets in the mail.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I my neck of the woods, we have caution lights ahead of some intersections that tell us the light is about to change. These have saved many lives and not took a single dollar out of anyones pocket with bogus red light tickets in the mail.

As I said earlier:

Those systems are another tool in the toolbox, but they're not always appropriate. For one thing, to use them, you have to use long distance detection: you have to have vehicle detectors up by that advance sign to ensure that if a vehicle passes the sign when the lights aren't flashing, the signal controller will extend the green interval so the car won't get caught by an unexpected yellow.

Generally, long-distance detection isn't practical in dense urban areas or other certain situations: for instance, I wanted to use it for one intersection I was looking at recently, but (even though it was a rural intersection), there was another very close signal, and long distance detection wouldn't work with the signal coordination they had there.

In any case, the point of my thread wasn't actually about the nitty gritty details of traffic engineering; it was about the larger issue: is it ethical to implement something that's beneficial on average overall but harms a subgroup of people? Do the needs of the many truly outweigh the needs of the few, or is there something unethical about choosing harm for others regardless of the cost-benefit ratio?

 

[idav]

Red light cameras are basically effective for those who are willing to be good when they know they are being watched (which I think is most people). Even if it causes the rear end thing, they are being more cautious because they are being watched. Of course it doesn't stop some person who could care less who is trying to barrel through a busy intersection running a solid red light. Nothing can be completely effective when we have to resort to coaxing people to drive face, similar to no cell phones or gps while driving and things like that. If we are causing people to press that brake a little more it can't be too bad. Just like when when all of a sudden all the traffic slows down to speed limit cause some police cop happens to be hiding up ahead.

 

[Falvlun]

Out of curiosity, what was your answer for the "would you kill baby Hitler?" hypothetical scenario?

I can understand the reasoning behind the choice to kill baby Hitler, but I personally don't think it should be a morally permissible decision.

I guess I don't see what you mean by "directly". In this scenario, even if I can't identify the specific people who would be harmed as a result of this decision, I can reasonably foresee that people would get into rear-end collisions who wouldn't have gotten into one if I hadn't intervened. The only real difference I see between that and the "baby Hitler" scenario (besides the fact that I'd save many more lives by preventing the Holocaust than I would by installing a red light camera) is that killing someone with your own hands is more personal. The idea of murdering a baby is more repellent to me at a gut level, but I'm not sure what the ethical difference would be.

BTW: the podcast I mentioned talked about two hypothetical scenarios involving a runaway train car. In the first one, you're standing at a switch. A train car with 10 people on board is rolling toward you. If you do nothing, the car will roll off a cliff and everyone will die; if you throw the switch, the car will be diverted onto a siding and everyone on the train will survive, but one person standing on the tracks will be killed.

In the second version of the scenario, you're standing on a bridge over the track, and instead of having a switch to throw, you're standing next to someone. If you throw him over the side of the bridge onto the tracks, you'll block the track and save the passengers but kill the one innocent person.

On the podcast, they said that when these scenarios were actually presented to people, the majority would throw the switch in the first case, but very few would throw the person over in the second case. The podcast then discussed their opinions on the reasons for this difference.

... but back to the cameras: would it make a difference if I was dealing with certainties instead of likelihoods? What if I knew with certainty that over the next year, baby Ann and baby Brian would die in angle crashes if we don't install the cameras and baby Cindy would die in a rear-end crash if we do install them. Does it change the ethics of the situation if I know who's death I'm choosing with my decision?

I am with the majority opinion here: Throwing the switch is permissible. Throwing the fat man overboard is not.

Though I worded those as absolutes, of course, no moral dilemma really ever is. There is a lot of grey. Our ethical decisions are not made by formulaic routines, but by context and tiny value adjustments and split second reactions. Maybe there is an instance when throwing the fat man overboard is a reasonable choice, and throwing the switch isn't. Maybe sometimes either choice, either refraining from throwing the switch or throwing the switch, are equally permissible.

I don't think that the needs of the majority should always trump the needs of the few. I don't think that's a hard and fast rule. Sometimes the majority should trump and sometimes they shouldn't. It's a case-by-case thing.

Regarding my use of "direct" involvement, generally, that's how we tend to assign responsibility.

I voted for Bush Jr his first term. Am I just as guilty of the torture of POWs as the person who ordered the torture or as the person who actually performed the torture? And yet, partly as a result of my action, people got tortured.

The further removed we are from the actual action that results in the ethically impermissible action, the less responsible for the action we are considered.

And it makes sense. Because we all set into motion things we don't fully control that cause things we don't fully intend.

After all, if the person who puts up red light cameras should be held responsible for the accidents it may cause, then what of the person who put up the traffic light to begin with? There has to be, and we tend to intuitively feel that there is, a reasonable limit to responsibility.