(Thanks to www.stpetecameras.org for the link!)

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2012/01/18/opinion/613437.txt
 
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:08 AM EST
A time to be camera-shy

The idea of stationing cameras at intersections to catch red-light scofflaws ought to offend everyone's liberty-loving sensibilities. Alas, people too often are swayed by politicking, biased research and that laziest of arguments: If it saves one life, it's worth it.

Politicking has begun anew for red-light cameras in Connecticut, with Democratic legislative leaders and New Haven Mayor John DeStefano pushing a bill that would authorize cameras as a down-and-dirty way of extracting three-digit fines from motorists who run red lights.

Mayor DeStefano's advocacy here is hypocritical to say the least. On the one hand, he would enlist Big Brother to nab red-light violators; on the other, he flouts federal law by making New Haven a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and even proposes giving them the right to vote (for him) in municipal elections. But we digress.

Citing a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, proponents says cameras save lives, reduce injuries and property damage, and improve the quality of life. But some transportation experts have questioned the institute's methodology, as well as its objectivity since insurers will charge higher premiums to motorists photographed running red lights. They say more objective research, including a study by the Federal Highway Administration, found cameras lead to more frequent and severe rear-end crashes. (Take it from us: Rear-end accidents can lead to lifetime suffering.) Those conclusions were confirmed by the Institute of Transport Engineers in its review of numerous studies on red-light cameras. And a Washington Post investigation found "the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled," while crashes with injuries and fatalities increased 81 percent.

Better, cheaper alternatives to cameras are available, says the National Motorists Association (NMA). Longer yellow lights reduced red-light running by as much as 95 percent in one Virginia study. Research by Michigan's AAA found leaving all signals red at intersections for a second or two while the lights are changing allowed traffic to clear, and reduced accidents by 47 percent and injuries by 50 percent. Making traffic signals more visible — larger lights, metal backers, etc. —and installing warning lights near high-speed intersections to tell motorists of pending light changes curbs red-light running, crashes and injuries. "Engineers can adjust the timing of traffic lights to reduce the number of red lights a driver encounters," the NMA said. "This process of signal optimization reduces congestion, travel time, gas consumption, and driver frustration. It also helps to reduce red-light violations."

Cameras are mostly about increasing government revenues. Fines would generate many millions annually for state and local governments in Connecticut. But cash-strapped governments across America have been caught shortening yellow lights by two seconds or more at camera-equipped intersections to entrap motorists and maximize cameras' revenue generation. This has led to numerous class-action lawsuits alleging mass constructional-rights violations.

Equally unsurprisingly is cameras' biggest supporters are insurers, firms that install and maintain the equipment, and greedy politicians. Cameras aren't about saving lives or improving public safety, but saving Big Government from making overdue spending cuts; the elimination of rampant waste and fraud alone would save many times the sums raised by red-light cameras. Because of the injuries that cameras cause and the rights they violate, governments must know they deploy cameras at motorists' and taxpayers' peril.

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Title
Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Email
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (registered users only)
	Add Comment Preview