Using of Red Light Cameras in America - Pros and Cons - Research Paper Example

The use of red light cameras in America and elsewhere is controversial, to say the least. The people who are anti-red light cameras complain that the cameras are an affront to basic liberty and due process, are unconstitutional, (Waller, 2009) and are nothing but revenue enhancers. The people who are for red light cameras state that they are not implemented to increase revenue, but to save lives (Q&A, 2009). Are the majority of the people for these cameras? The jury is out on this. Some studies say that the overwhelming majority of people support the red light cameras (Q&As, 2009), other studies say just the opposite (Tucker, 2009). Do the cameras really save lives and reduce accidents? Maybe - some studies say that they do (Quain 2008), and other studies state that accidents increase when the red light cameras are installed (Tucker, 2009). Many municipalities issue the tickets for red turn violations that are shown not to be a safety issue (Connell, 2008). The fact that many studies state that broadside accidents decrease, while rear-end accidents increase, because of people slamming on their brakes when they know that a camera is present (Bulkeley, 2009),suggests that the whole issue of red light cameras represent a Faustian bargain. The only thing that is clear about this issue is that nothing is clear. Red light cameras are cameras that are connected to a traffic signal and monitor traffic flow through the intersection. The cameras are only triggered by vehicles that enter the intersection on the red light – not vehicles that enter the intersection on the yellow light, and the light turns red while the car is passing through the intersection. These cameras record “the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, vehicle speed, and license plate.” (Q&As, 2009). One controversy is the fact that, in many states, the vehicle owner gets a ticket, whether or not he was driving. Illinois is one such state – in fact, it prohibits taking a picture of the driver of the car. (George, 2009). To say that it is a bit unfair to get a ticket because you made the mistake of lending your car to your irresponsible younger brother, because he had no other way to get to work, is an understatement. This is also where the due process violation comes in, as the person is guilty until proven innocent, and unfortunately, being proved innocent rarely happens. (Tucker, 2009). While it would seem that such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional, in that the vehicle owner really does not have a defense, because he cannot prove that he was not driving the car if the camera does not take a picture of the driver, lawsuits arguing the constitutionality of the practice have been unsuccessful. (Waller, 2009). For instance, a federal judge in New Orleans dismissed a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs who complained that the red light cameras were unconstitutional. (Waller, 2009). It is unclear whether other courts would rule the same, however, as this is just one court in one city, but it does set precedence on the issue. At the time of the writing of the Waller article there were state challenges pending, but it is not clear how those turned out. (Waller, 2009). One of the controversies surrounding this issue is that red light cameras are revenue-enhancers, not just for the municipality in question, but for the companies that make the red light technology. For instance, RedSpeed, an Illinois-based company, has photo-enforcement cameras at 117 intersections in 52 suburbs in Illinois. They charge a monthly fee of $1,499 per camera, plus a percentage of all tickets issued. (George, 2009). One camera at one intersection in the village of Schaumburg, Ill. issued $1 million in fines in just three months.(Bulkeley, 2009). The city-parish of Baton Rouge, Louisiana collected $3.1 million in revenues from their cameras in less than a year. (Ward, 2009). The for-profit companies who operate these cameras make around $5,000 per camera per month. (Bulkeley, 2009). Ironically, another beneficiary of the red light cameras are companies who manufacture items that are designed to thwart these cameras. One such company is Phantom Plate, Inc., a Pennsylvania company who sells a spray and a shield that are designed to make the license plate unreadable. Another such company is one who makes a free iPhone application that allows drivers to use their cellphones to monitor the locations of speed traps an traffic cams. (Bulkeley, 2009). The $449 Escort Passport 9500i, a “radar and laser detector with a built-in GPS antenna” allows the owner of this device pinpoint where the red-light cameras are, as it beeps and displays an LED warning when approaching these intersections. (Quain, 2008). Are the red-light cameras merely a revenue-enhancing ploy, or are they legitimately installed to save lives and increase safety? The true motives of the municipalities and states that install these cameras are difficult to discern for the most part. However, the fact that rolling right turns on red are considered an infraction in many places, when it is shown that such turns are rarely, if ever, a safety hazard (Connell, 2008), automatically makes these governments motives suspect. These infractions represent the driving force behind revenue and tickets in Los Angeles County and other places, despite the fact that traffic experts are virtually in agreement that these infractions do not pose a safety risk, as right turners are generally going at a slow speed and the resulting accidents are a “sideswipe at most.” (Connell, 2008). Conversely, these red light cameras have been shown to reduce traffic violations and accidents. For example, a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that violations at these intersections reduced by 40 percent, while “t-bone” accidents – front-into-side accidents – involving injuries were reduced by 68% at camera intersections. (Quain, 2008). In one particularly dramatic example, Roosevelt Boulevard in Philadelphia reduced its red light violators from 198 per 10,000 prior to the camera to 1.8 violations per 10,000 vehicles. (Quain, 2008). And there is no doubt that red light runners are dangerous – in 2008 alone, 762 people were killed and 137,000 were injured in crashes involving red light runners. (Q&As, 2009). Perhaps any device that can decrease these alarming numbers would be a good thing. While the above statistics are encouraging to the municipalities who use these red-light cameras, they do not represent the only side of the story. The fact of the matter is, accidents and traffic deaths are decreasing across the nation, and have been for seven years in a row, dropping 10 percent in 2008 and 7 percent in 2009, as of November of that year (Tucker, 2009). Therefore the encouraging statistics must be examined with a somewhat jaundiced eye – the accidents are down at these locations, but accidents are down in general, therefore it is difficult to determine if the accident decrease is because of the red-light cameras, or are just a part of the larger trend. Meanwhile, there are other studies that indicate that red-light cameras increase both accidents and fatalities. For instance, Fairfax County in Maryland saw a bigger reduction in fatal accidents after it got rid of its cameras than did Montgomery County, a county with red-light cameras, during the same time period (Tucker, 2009). The Washington Post investigated red-light camera safety records and found that accidents increased, sometimes doubled, at intersections that installed these cameras. Another study done by Virginia Tech compared camera intersections, intersections with no cameras but longer yellow lights, and intersections with no cameras and shorter yellow lights and found that there was “no statistical difference” between the three intersections. (Tucker, 2009). Perhaps one reason for the increase in statistics is the increase in rear-end collisions, as people slam on brakes when they hit camera-controlled intersections (Bulkeley, 2009). Do the people support these cameras? This, too, is unclear. While some polls show that upwards of 75% of drivers support these cameras (Q&As, 2009), other evidence shows just the opposite – for instance, Sulphur, La., 86% of the populace voted down putting in red light cameras (Tucker, 2009). Perhaps the whole issue comes down to one guy, a Dave Vontesmar in Phoenix, AZ. Vontesmar hates the cameras so much that he wears a monkey mask on his face as he drives to work everyday. Vontesmar has managed to rack up 37 tickets (Tucker, 2009). Vontesmar has run 37 red lights in an apparently short period of time, an astounding figure. It is people like Vontesmar that solidify the argument that these cameras might be a good thing after all, if only to stem the arrogance of people like him, people who believe that the law does not apply to them. This argument is more persuasive than any other, as it is more clear than any other regarding this issue. CONCLUSION Nothing is clear when it comes to red light cameras. Not statistics regarding accident rates, nor polls regarding the popularity. They are unfair in municipalities where the person driving is not photographed, because the owner of the car gets stuck with the ticket, whether he or she is driving or not. They are a huge revenue enhancement for cities, and this fact alone is enough to make populaces angry. However, better enforcement would stop people like Dave Vontesmar from habitually being a scofflaw, as it is people like him who cause the problems in the first place. Unfortunately, it is also people like him who cause laws to be made that state that the owner of the car gets the ticket, regardless, as he dons his monkey mask to avoid getting tickets in a jurisdiction where tickets are not issued unless the persons face is clearly shown. Perhaps the solution is simple – the persons face must be clearly photographed. That way, only the actual scofflaw will get the ticket, and this would definitely be more fair than simply issuing a ticket to the car owner regardless of whether the car owner was driving. The one exception would be for drivers who don monkey masks or anything else that is designed to obscure their face. In their case, the fines should be doubled. Read More