http://www.redding.com/news/2011/oct/30/peter-edridge-red-light-cameras-real-payoff-is/
 

Peter Edridge: Red-light cameras' real payoff is cash, not safety
Posted October 30, 2011 at midnight
 
Guess who have been buying red-light camera companies recently: Wall Street investment banks. Goldman Sachs bought into ATS, the country's largest camera company, and sensing an opportunity two other Wall Street investment banks have spent three years trying to take over Redflex, the company running Redding's red-light cameras. Wall Street wants into law enforcement, naturally, for the public's benefit. But when any corporation borrows a badge from law enforcement and heads out into the general public, the question seems to spring to mind — "What could possibly go wrong?"

Actually, it went wrong from the start. Lost behind the controversy about the tickets these cameras churn out was the simple but surprisingly overlooked fact that they do nothing to improve safety. In multiple, independent studies from across the nation, the conclusion is red-light cameras cause just as many accidents as they prevent. Some studies show a slim decrease in accidents (Federal Highway Administration), while others (University of South Florida, Virginia DOT, University of North Carolina, Ontario Ministry of Transportation) show a noticeable increase in accidents. Oddly, only the studies entirely financed by the camera companies show a marked decrease in accidents.

If red-light cameras are proven to do nothing to make our streets safer, why install them in the first place? The answer to that can be seen whenever you glance up at a red-light camera. Think Armani suits, golden parachutes and year-end bonuses. These expensive systems have been sold to well-intentioned politicians by professional sales people with glossy brochures and cherry-picked data to prove their case. As ours were sold to our city four years ago, when they came with the promise of safety and revenue. They have provided neither.

Far from being what we fear the most — a drunk speeding through an intersection five seconds into the red — the profile of the offender these cameras catch is an overly cautious 70-year-old, a tenth of a second late into the intersection. Speeding drunks don't notice much at all, including red-light cameras, but the rest of us are being trapped between the increasingly short yellow lights (about 30 percent shorter in the last 30 years) and the big business of these cameras. This squeeze was first revealed in 2001, when Dick Armey, as majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, issued a report, "The Red Light Crisis: Is it Intentional?" This report outlines the manipulation of highway policy to the benefit of the red-light camera companies. It is so simple: Shortened yellows lead to more accidents and more red-light running and therefore a need for more red-light cameras. Brilliant.

The real advantage these cameras provide has never been to drivers but to cities. The cameras enable cities to walk away from their responsibility to better engineer roads and intersections (the proven, cheaper way to reduce accidents) and instead turn these trouble spots into profit centers. It has created a perverse financial disincentive.

In Redding, the poster child for this is the right turn lane at North Market onto Lake Boulevard. This single turn lane produces approximately $1 million a year in fines, almost half the revenue from the all cameras in Redding and without which the red-light cameras would be bankrupt in this town. This one camera single-handedly bails out all the other cameras in the city. So it shouldn't be a surprise that not only is this arguably the worst engineered turn in the city but since the installation of the camera there have been no engineering improvements to it.

Adding insult to injury, the city is also mired in an increasing debt of obligation to Redflex, currently standing at $360,000. This is, technically, not a debt to the city's general fund since it was hoisted onto the general public. Each month the cameras fail to generate sufficient income the shortfall has been added to the carried debt, and at the end of the contract the cameras are set to continue operating for a further year, fining motorists until this debt is paid off. This is what has been referred to as "revenue neutral."

With the majority of independent studies concluding that there is no safety benefit, dozens of California cities have decided to reject red-light cameras and are doing just fine without them. The world did not end. And considering that the only sure things these cameras produce are the thousands of tickets — well, that and a $360,000 debt — as a community we might as well stand around poking each other in the eye and hoping that will make us all better drivers.

We should be looking for ways to make our streets safer, but this technology — a profit center for a corporation sucking $2 million dollars out of our community — has not been the answer. With the city's contract with Redflex coming up for renewal, maybe we should take that badge back, while we can still afford to.

Peter Edridge lives in Igo.

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