Red Light Camera News Frontline: City council should have asked voters about traffic cameras, should cancel contract after
Frontline: City council should have asked voters about traffic cameras, should cancel contract after
(Thanks to www.stpetecameras.org for the link!)
The Western Front Blogs
Frontline: City council should have asked voters about traffic cameras, should cancel contract after election
Written by Editorial Board
Friday, 14 October 2011 05:16
Bellingham voters will finally get a chance on Nov. 8 to tell the city council what they think about the proposed installation of traffic cameras.
The advisory vote on Initiative 2011-01, which would require the government to ask voters’ permission before corporations install profit-driven surveillance cameras, comes about a year after the council approved traffic cameras. In May, the council authorized Mayor Dan Pike to enter a contract with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions to install four red-light cameras and two school-zone speed cameras.
It seemed like a win-win deal: increasing traffic safety while generating revenue to help mend the city budget. But the contract, which would cost Bellingham about $342,000 a year, quickly raised suspicions and opposition from citizens who felt left out of the loop.
This editorial board not only opposes the installation of traffic cameras, but faults the city for rushing such a monumental decision without hearing what Bellingham voters had to say.
The contract boasts several unflattering aspects. City councilmember Seth Fleetwood, the lone vote against the proposal, said in an Oct. 11 Bellingham Herald questionnaire that he was concerned with government cameras watching citizens in a free society.
The statement on the ballot against the initiative reads, “…using two police officers to ticket at red lights (one to see it, one to ticket across the intersection) is a poor use of police resources” when cameras will do the job. But after the camera takes the photo, even when the police review photos to determine who gets ticketed, the camera’s capture is not the same as the discretion of an officer on the scene.
Moreover, the photo would be sent to the vehicle’s owner; in a town with many students who are not the registered owners of the cars they drive, this could be a big headache.
The pro-camera councilmembers said they meant to increase safety. But police data is inconclusive on whether red-light cameras reduce crashes at intersections that have them. A 2005 study by the Washington State Department of Transportation found that while traffic cameras significantly decreased right-angle crashes (by about 25 percent), rear-end collisions actually increased by almost 15 percent. When the light is about to turn red, a driver might slam on the breaks, not giving the unsuspecting driver behind enough time to react.
Let’s call things what they are: the city wants to make money. We understand. In Lynnwood, traffic tickets covered 16 percent of the city’s spending in 2010. Most of that money was a result of the cameras.
But Bellingham should be careful about how it raises money. Soon after the city council’s vote, a group called the Transportation Safety Coalition formed to oppose the decision. Volunteers gathered 6,775 signatures (they needed 3,880) and developed an initiative that would require the city to remove the cameras and seek voters’ support to re-install them.
Keep in mind: this initiative is not only about cameras. It is about giving the people a voice.
American Traffic Solutions tried to get an injunction to keep an anti-camera measure off Bellingham’s November ballot. A company that tries to shut down citizens’ opposition is deplorable; this kind of aggressive corporate bullying has no place in Bellingham. The state appeals court said the initiative can remain on the ballot but it will not legally bind the city council to take any action. The court also imposed a $10,000 fine on the company under a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation suit.
The city’s contract with American Safety Solutions requires the cameras be activated for one year as part of a pilot project. But if the initiative passes, the pressure could persuade the council to cancel the deal.
In the same questionnaire by The Bellingham Herald, councilmember Barry Buchanan acknowledged that the city rushed into the contract. He said about the initiative “…I think this vote is important, that we see what the public has to say, and I will be inclined to listen to what the voters say.”
Call us picky, but we find this logic flawed and backward. Every councilmember had a vote in the November 2010 decision. If they didn’t quite know what they were doing, they shouldn’t have done it.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
