Camera Enforcement - Developing the Factual Picture - Ticket Cameras: Red Light Cameras & Photo Radar

Ticket Cameras

Camera Enforcement - Developing the Factual Picture

Smile. The government wants a nice snapshot of you or, more accurately, your license plate. Camera enforcement in the form of red light cameras and photo radar may be coming to a neighborhood near you. Proponents, including some Government Officials, Police Agencies, equipment vendors, and Insurance interests claim it's for our "safety." "Cameras prevent accidents and save lives."

There is no honest need.
Proponents insist there's a growing epidemic of red light running and speeding caused crashes and deaths. They say, "Red light runners cause 22 percent of all crashes" (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). This is nonsense. Federal Highway Administration statistics show 92,000 red light violation (RLV) crashes in 1999 versus 98,000 in 1996 - a 6 percent improvement. These numbers comprise less than 2 percent of all U.S. crashes. Furthermore, during this same time frame, despite serious growth in drivers and miles driven, fatalities fell 12 percent (from 1066 to 947), or 2.26 percent of all fatal crashes.

The camera or pictures can be wrong.
Over 800 people were improperly cited with photo radar tickets in Beaverton, OR in 1995. Over 20,000 motorists unfairly received RLV tickets in Washington DC before police stopped the camera in May, 2000.

There are reasons to disobey a red light.
It has been documented that there are at least seven valid reasons to violate a traffic signal, including emergencies and officer commandment. Police retain discretion during these instances, cameras don't.

Public acceptance is overstated.
Biased polls (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) claim that two-thirds of U.S. residents support cameras. However, a NHTSA survey (1998) admitted that 35 percent of those polled had never even heard of photo enforcement. Naive and misinformed people "accept" cameras based upon the false notion that "cameras save lives." Over 22 U.S. locations and Ontario have rejected photo radar.

Money! Money! Money!
Proponents of cameras all profit from their operation. Money from fines enhances the coffers of State, County, and City Police; local governments; camera vendors; and insurance companies. Campaign money (from insurance and camera corporations) helps encourage pro-camera politicians. Conflict of interest abounds.

The trouble with traffic control devices.
The alleged red light running problems result, primarily, from improperly engineered traffic controls, not "aggressive driver behavior." There occur 15 documented problematic scenarios which can cause RLVs and accidents, including: unwarranted traffic light installations, signals lacking synchronization, and change interval formula limitations. Over 70 percent of RLVs arise from signal timing deficiencies (usually not enough yellow) and honest human error.

The solution to the problem.
Engineering, not enforcement, has the greatest effect on compliance and safety. In Detroit, Michigan, AAA funded the reengineering of four dangerous intersections, including adding more yellow interval time. The cost: $35,000 per intersection, or less than one ineffective camera. After 27 months, crashes declined by 47 percent, injuries by 50 percent, and RLVs by 50 percent. Programs in Omaha and San Francisco accomplished equivalent positive results.

Conclusion.
Camera enforcement is about power, authority, and money. Safety isn't even in the picture.

This has been a selection of excerpts from Greg Mauz's Report, "Camera Enforcement - Developing the Factual Picture." To order a copy, contact the Greg Mauz at 561/243-0920.

Camera Enforcement - Developing the Factual Picture

Search Ticket Cameras

Information

Related Links

Sponsored Links