| The
idea of putting cameras on street corners to catch red-light runners
is not a new one, although it is growing in popularity. There were some
experimental cameras placed at intersections as early as the 1970’s
in Texas and later in the 1980’s in New York, but all they did was count
the red-light runners. As far as taking pictures of license plates and
mailing tickets, the earliest program I could find was the Stop Red
Light Running Program. Created by the Federal Highway Administration
in 1992 but not fully implemented until 1995, the program kicked off
in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, Florida and Maryland.
Since then, thousands of people have received tickets in the mail. Whether
they were driving the car at the time or not, the owner of the car would
always be the one to get the ticket.
In 1995, there were only five (mentioned above) cities or jurisdictions
involved, which quickly expanded to include thirty-one localities. By
2001, there were over fifty and now there are over two hundred cities
and counties with cameras installed and tickets in the mail. They call
it Automated Enforcement. With a broad title like that, I can only imagine
where it goes from there. Maybe one day there will be a camera on every
street corner, watching everything we do.
Is this an invasion of privacy? I think not. If you are driving on a
public road, how can that be private? By definition, a public road is
public. London, England has over 400 cameras all over town (and over
5,200 cameras in Great Britain). “Big Brother” really is watching everything
over there. Their purpose is to catch speeders, though they catch much
more. An independent audit, published by the (British) government, released
in June 2004, concluded that the cameras have saved over 100 lives a
year and averted over 870 serious injuries (including deaths) annually.
Is it all about the money? Many people think so, including Rep. Dick
Armey (R-Texas). In an article published in the Washington Post, June
2001, he said, “From the federal government on down, sound engineering
practices have been scrapped in favor of camera-friendly regulations.
One wonders if the concern for safety has given way to a greater concern
for profit. It all started a little over fifteen years ago, about the
time New York City first began experimenting with red light cameras.
Officials responsible for writing national transportation guidelines
decided to tell cities that they should shorten the yellow signal times
at intersections. That’s right, they told cities to reduce caution times.
And the cities that followed these guidelines quickly discovered that
they could catch more motorists entering intersections on red.” Can
you believe that? He is actually saying that they shortened the time
of yellow lights, in order to produce higher numbers of vehicles running
red lights. If this is true, then they probably caused some accidents
and maybe even some fatalities. Where is the outrage? Or is all this
just rhetoric?
Are they really putting profit before safety? As investigative reporter
David Goldstein revealed on CBS News Special Assignment: Red-Light Royalties,
which aired on Feb. 20th, 2003, some people think so. Ron Arnone, who
worked for the company that ran the red-light cameras in L.A. said,
“It was all about money as far as I was concerned... I never heard them
talk about safety. It was all about finding good locations to make these
people a lot of money.” At that time, cameras were located at 16 intersections
in the city of Los Angeles. You’d expect them to be located at the most
dangerous intersections in the city, but of the top 40 most dangerous
intersections in L.A., only four of them had cameras. In contrast, according
to Maurey Hannigan, who now works for the company that administers the
program, money is not the first concern, safety is.
Not surprising, I found that the companies who make the cameras and
install them are making a commission from each ticket issued, sometimes
as high as $60 per ticket. The commissions are figured into the fine,
so the violator is paying that cost as well. Some of the fines for red-light
running can be in excess of $300.
Are cameras really making a difference? Yes, and in more ways than one.
Initially, they caught a huge wave of red-light runners, in some cases
as many as 1,000 per month. But within a few months, those numbers on
average went down to around 200 per month, as people figured out where
the cameras were located. Fatalities caused by red-light runners are
down too. Every city that installed cameras reported a decrease in fatalities,
including pedestrians struck by red-light runners. Now that sounds good!
Just like the speeding industry (radar and laser detectors), the red-light
runners of today can easily find help in their endeavors to beat the
law. There are plastic covers you can buy, to put over your license
plate, which reflect light and make it difficult to photograph, although
these are illegal in some states. And there’s a spray-on film you can
buy too, which is probably just as illegal. It’s like an arms race,
each side trying to out-do the other, and with today’s technology, who
knows where all this will end up.
Do Americans support the idea of cameras at intersections to catch red-light
runners? According to a 1996 survey by the Insurance Research Council,
more than 75% do, and in larger cities the approval rate is even higher
at 83%. Of the 17-25% that don’t approve, many of them are probably
upset at all the profit being made in the name of safety. But, if that
is what it takes to save lives, then so be it.
Maybe one day one of these cameras will help catch a kidnapper or a
terrorist. I think they will, especially in light of the fact that they
are constantly adding more cameras. I don’t see it as loosing any freedom
for the sake of security, I see it as gaining freedom to walk across
the street without getting killed.
|
