How Photo-Enforcement Makes Money

Neither engineers, city councils, attorneys, judges nor police ever foresaw the law being enforced with the precision of a computer. It is within the split-second gap between human ability and computer measurement where photo-enforcement makes money. Had the camera systems exercised the discretion of most police officers as required by today's traffic control devices, there would be no cameras. There would not be enough money to operate a camera program. Below describes how each type of photo-enforcement exploits flaws in government operations.

Red-Light Cameras	Red-light cameras are a form of photo-enforcement that makes money off of systematic math errors made by traffic engineers when they calculate the duration of the yellow light. A short yellow causes drivers to run red lights. Over 90% of red-light running is caused by the errors. These math errors are elementary and objective. Anyone can discover the errors on his own. The errors attempt to enforce a pseudo-physics that is contrary to the physics of this universe. No driver can conform to the traffic engineer's pseudo-physics. Engineers introduce the errors into every signalized intersection. The errors cause unavoidable red-light running. Red-light cameras will ticket entire city populations within a handful of years. The errors cause unavoidable crashes. In the presence of a camera, the best a driver can do is slam on his brakes. Slamming on the brakes avoids some of the more serious T-bone crashes but causes more rear-end crashes. This is what the data shows and what red-light camera firms admit. Crashes continue as demanded by the laws of physics. For the attorney out there, the traffic engineer's yellow light practice is a "standard of practice", not a "standard of care." It is a critical legal distinction. The standard of practice is not an engineering practice because its misapplications of math oppose the statutory definition of an engineering practice. It is not a standard of care because no engineer other than traffic engineers would be so incompetent to make these mistakes. In the end, the traffic engineer violates the state's engineering practice act, as does a board of engineers that refuses to discipline the engineer over such incompetency.
Speed Cameras	A speed trap is defined as places where cities post speed limits lower than what reasonable drivers deem natural and safe. Cities systematically do this, and cameras flourish where the speed gap is the greatest. Engineers are tasked with computing the safest speeds. The safest speed is generally the 85th percentile of freely-flowing traffic. On a road with no speed limit signs, no stop signs, no traffic signals and no traffic obstacles, out of 100 cars, 85 travel slower than this speed and 15 cars travels faster than this speed.  When drivers travel at the 85th percentile speed, drivers feel the most natural, the most comfortable and are the most safe. The engineer knows that the 85th percentile speeds varies during the day and from location to location on the same road. He knows that a speed limit does not apply 24/7 365 days a year. For example, a 35 mph posted speed limit may be appropriate during rush hour and 55 mph at night. The engineer is fine with posting a 35 mph limit with an implicit understanding that the police will not ticket drivers for going 55 at night. Cities, as a standard of practice, create speed traps by rounding down the 85th percentile speeds to 5, 15, 25, 35, 45 mph, assuming slower is safer. But such reduced speeds are unnatural for drivers, causing more crashes. Posting a speed limit of 45 mph on an interstate would be dangerous. Even a 25 mph sign is unnatural when the 85th percentile speed is 32 mph. It is well-known to traffic engineers that the posted speed limit is on average about 7 mph less than what engineers deem the most safe. In the end, a city makes money two ways. 1) It exploits the engineer's omission to codify the loosey-goosey nature of a speed limit. 2) It posts a speed limit which is not certified by a licensed professional engineer. When a city posts 20 mph on city streets, you can bet that no engineer signed off on it. A posted speed limit which has not been certified by a licensed professional engineer is an unlawful speed limit.
Bus Stop-Arm Cameras	Bus stop-arm cameras exploit the errors of bus operators. Passing drivers are not the problem. School bus operators are. The errors of bus operators are so frequent, varied and mostly obvious that the camera company makes the school district sign a contract which forbids bus operators from seeing the photos, lest the operators correct their errors and the camera company makes no more money. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), bus operators are responsible for the vast majority of child injuries. NHTSA reports that bus operators are responsible for 71% of child fatalities. Stop-arm camera companies lie about the frequency of dying children too. They would have you think that a child gets killed every day. But bus-related injuries are not frequent. NHTSA reports that 1 child fatality occurs once every 20 years per state.
Stop Sign Cameras	Stop sign cameras arise from a city subverting a legal precept. The precept is called right reason. Right reason is a foundational principle of Western law. The precept was established over 2000 years ago by Marcus Cicero, a lawyer in the Roman Empire. Right reason is common sense. You know what this is already. Allow me to illustrate: It is the middle of the night.  You are driving down a lonely road. No one is around but you. You see a stop sign.   You have a clear view of the intersection and you see no one within a mile of the intersection. Is there a reason for you to come to a stop? Is there even a reason for you to do a California stop? Is there a reason for you to stop one inch before the stop bar? Your answers should be "No." There is no right reason to stop. The right reason to stop would be "for my safety or the safety of others", but safety is not an issue in your situation. Cicero would argue, "Because there is no right reason to stop, there is no justification for the law in this situation, therefore the law does not exist in the situation, and therefore you cannot be punished." There are many wrong reasons why you would stop. If you think any of the following reasons are right reasons, you fall prey to camera firms, greedy governments and dictators: "Because the law is the law." "Because the stop sign is there." "Because a speed camera is there." "I am a law-abiding citizen." Stop-sign cameras enforce a law 24/7, a law which cannot be justified by right reason 23/7.

Correlation is not causation. Red-light cameras correlate drivers to red-light running. But drivers do not cause red-light running. The math errors of traffic engineers cause red-light running.

Speed cameras correlate drivers to speeding. But cities post unnaturally-slow unsafe speed limits that frame reasonable drivers. Bus stop-arm cameras correlate drivers to passing a school bus. But bus operators, by imprudently extending their stop-arms, cause reasonable drivers to inadvertently pass the bus. Stop-sign cameras correlate drivers to rolling through stop signs. But enforcing a law meant for safety when safety is not at stake, causes reasonable drivers to roll through stop signs.