|
Red-light cameras are sold to the public as a way for police to catch dangerous red-light runners and protect the public. What they are, in fact, is a way for private companies to make millions by ticketing the public en masse, often for barely perceptible infractions, while violating fundamental civil liberties -- with no demonstrable safety benefit.
Red-light cameras don't make us safeR
Supporters of red-light cameras cite a study by the insurance industry that claims the cameras save lives and reduce injuries. But independent studies and reviews of the statistics in individual cities often find no safety improvements and sometimes report that accidents and injuries increase after cameras are installed.
For example, the Kansas City Police Department recently concluded that accidents and injuries increased at intersections where red-light cameras were deployed. Claims that the city of Los Angeles' now-defunct traffic-light program improved safety were unsupported, according to a 2010 audit of the program. A 2011 municipal audit in Denver concluded that no safety benefit had been demonstrated for red-light cameras and recommended removing them if no safety improvements could be shown.
Red-light cameras are about revenue
The vast majority of tickets issued from red-light traffic cameras are for minor, technical violations of traffic rules that don't threaten public safety, usually for a rolling stop before a right turn on red or even, in some places, for stopping slightly over the white stop line at an intersection. For example, over a three-year period in Temple Terrace, Florida, 93 percent of the tickets issued were for right-turn violations. When the city of Knoxville stopped issuing tickets for right-turn violations based on camera evidence but continued ticketing for other violations, the number of citations dropped 90 percent.
Revenues are important not only to the cities but to the private vendors that operate the camera systems and which are often paid a percentage of the fines from tickets. The Denver audit noted that red-light camera systems "were sold as public safety enhancements but are widely viewed as a cash grab." A study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group warned that "Contracts between private camera vendors and cities can include payment incentives that put profit above traffic safety."
red-light cameras violate our constitutional rights
Red-light cameras take video that shows license plates but can't identify the driver, so the ticket is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. Unless the owner can prove that someone else was behind the wheel, the owner must pay. Contesting a ticket usually involves a trip to court and a day off from work, but the accused party never gets to confront an accuser. In Los Angeles, the courts declined on Constitutional grounds to pursue ticketed vehicle owners.
Also of great concern is the way that the contracts with private vendors allow those vendors to set public policy on traffic enforcement. Some contracts forbid municipalities to take measures, such as lengthening yellow lights, that would improve safety but cut into revenues by reducing the number of violations. According to U.S. PIRG, many contracts require cities to ticket for right turn violations, set ticket quotas, allow vendors to veto camera locations or impose large penalties for terminating the contracts.
Voters are rejecting red-light cameras
Fifteen states already forbid red-light cameras, and there are movements in many others to ban them. Across the country, communities that once embraced red-light cameras are scrapping them.
- The city of Los Angeles abandoned its seven-year-old traffic light camera system in July 2011 after a public outcry and reports showing no improvements in safety.
- In November 2011, voters in Albuquerque called for the removal of red-light cameras that had been in operation for seven years.
- In November 2010, voters in Houston rejected the city's four-year-old red-light camera program by a wide margin in a referendum.
|
