Incentives Matter, Red-Light Camera Edition

5 April 2008 at 3:33 pm Peter G. Klein 5 comments

| Peter Klein |

Auto-safety laws have an ambiguous effect on injuries because people drive less carefully when they feel protected from harm. (My former colleague Dwight Lee prefers a more colorful example: Distributing condoms on college campuses may increase the rate of sexually transmitted disease because students less reluctant to, um, engage in certain behaviors when they think their actions don’t carry consequences. Of course, as Dwight points out, the net effect depends on . . . wait for it . . . elasticity.)

Now we learn that red-light cameras, installed to boost city ticket revenues by recording violations and issuing fines automatically, are actually bringing revenues down, as drivers at those intersections learn not to run red lights. Naturally, city governments are upset and plan to remove the cameras. (HT: Anthony Gregory.)

Entry filed under: - Klein -, Ephemera.

Accounting and Modern Management Overheard at Starbucks This Morning

5 Comments Add your own

1. josephlogan | 5 April 2008 at 3:58 pm

I raised a few questions about this last month, particualy in the context of what are and are not unintended consequences. I really don’t think I bottomed out the issue, but I’ve been writing about them here in the UK, including frequent sightings of cameras that have been blown up. It’s particularly unconscionable in my view that jurisdictions achieve the revenue target at these sites and then move the cameras. Doesn’t get much more transparent than that.
2. josephlogan | 5 April 2008 at 4:02 pm

Should have read a few questions. Sorry for omitting the end of the tag.
3. Bart | 6 April 2008 at 1:14 am

Would ‘ve been interesting to hear Milton Friedman on this. See this discussion, which might reveal his position. Any thoughts?
4. Bart | 6 April 2008 at 1:15 am
5. Margaret Klein | 7 April 2008 at 11:35 am

Red-light camera programs may also be unconstitutional, according to a federal judge in Knoxville, Tennessee. “The key issue which must be resolved in these cases is whether the penalty imposed is civil or criminal,” wrote Judge Thomas Phillips recently. If the penalty is deemed criminal, then a panoply of federal constitutional rights arise, including rights to confrontation and rights against self-incrimination.

Running a red light is a crime under state law, but Knoxville’s city fathers blithely got around that with an ordinance making it a civil offense.

There’s more . . . According to Phillips, the melding of a for-profit firm with traffic enforcement has ominous overtones.