Red Light Cameras Stir Controversy

Proponents Say They Are For Safety, Critics Say They Are Intended For Revenue Purposes

(CBS)  It's a decision many motorists face while driving: when a traffic light turns yellow, do we apply the brake or the gas?

Today, if the wrong choice is made at some intersections, the likely result is a ticket given not by a police officer, but a camera. It happened to The Early Show correspondent Susan McGinnis and it's also happening in 100 cities across the United States.

It seems like red light cameras are going to become a standard. At the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas, Cobra, which makes radar detectors, unveiled a new system to alert drivers where traffic cameras are in use. Those devices should be available in the spring.

Philadelphia's Roosevelt Boulevard has been known for some of the most dangerous intersections in the nation. To slow speeders and prevent accidents, the city installed cameras that catch drivers who run red lights.

"We've seen people tear up here like it's a drag way. Running red lights is a big problem," Sgt. Christopher Bee, who supervises the automated ticketing system.

Bee said the cameras are intended to reduce accidents, increase safety and re-educate drivers about being careful on the roads.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, red light cameras work. They have reduced side impact accidents by an average of 24 percent and accident injuries by 16 percent.

Here's how it works: once a traffic signal has turned red, cars entering an intersection illegally are photographed several times and from several angles. The pictures, and a ticket are automatically mailed to the vehicle's owner.

But not everyone is willing to pay. That' s because cameras like those at a Chicago intersection, are focused on the car and not the driver. Irv Binder is an electrical contractor who owns several vehicles. And although it was one of his employees who ran the light, Binder got the ticket.

"It's not fair the hold me responsible for someone else's actions," he said. "We hired a lawyer and started a class-action lawsuit."

That suit, now in a federal court, argues the $90 tickets don't name or identify the driver of the vehicle, and deny the owner a request for a jury trial. So far, the arguments against red light cameras have only been won on a state level. In both Minnesota and Iowa, judges have ruled the cameras violate state motor vehicle law, which considers running a red light a criminal offense as opposed to a civil one.

"I expect everybody should be reimbursed," Binder said.

Binder argues that money, not safety that has motivated cities to use traffic cameras. After all, several of the nation's mayors have successfully relied on the revenue of red light cameras to help balance their budgets.

Chicago expects to earn $14 million from red light violators this year, while New York City hopes to pull in $13 million. Both cities have more cameras on the way.

But Bee says, first and foremost, this is a public safety issue.

"Is there revenue generated? Sure there is," he said. "But this is strictly a re-education for drivers and safety."

For motorists along Roosevelt Boulevard, more re-education is on the way as Pennsylvania legislators debate another camera system — one designed to photograph and ticket speeders.

[jjreding-2009]

I have no sympathy for people who whine about red-light cameras. If you don't do anything wrong, you should never even know they're there.

[pghlady3]

socrates577 read the newspaper.com article. The drivers in the rear can see the light changing too and by law are to be in control of their own car. If they rear-end some one, then they are at fault. They will be given a ticket and it has absolutely nothing to do with cameras, if they are tailgating, eventually they will hit someone.

[socrates577]

North Carolina rear end collision KILLS 3.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1523.asp

[socrates577]

This story will educate the ones of you who wish to be.

Weekly Standard 2001 on Washington DC cameras.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/078ftoqz.asp

[socrates577]

Redflex camera official convicted on FRAUD charges.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1563.asp

[socrates577]

Even though you elected Bush last time around, I now have faith that you can still be taught.
No go sit in your car that you can't drive and pout.
Posted by ndg1979 at 03:38 AM : Jan 23, 2007
---------------
What the heck does a conversation about red light cameras have to do with the President????

You are the one in need of an education sir.

[socrates577]

There are a multitude of INDEPENDENT studies which show that the cameras have absolutely NO EFFECT on changing driver behavior. This include admissions from officials in the UK and Australia where they have been in use for years. The person performing the "studies" for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (which is FUNDED by INSURANCE COMPANIES) is a man named Richard Rettig. This man worked as the head of the transportation dept of New York, and is credited with being the father of the red light cameras because he is the one which brought the cameras to NY. Having him do a "study" is like having the CEO of Ford doing a crash test study and claiming that Ford has the best numbers.
Plus, a recent study shows that 85% of infractions were within one tenth of a second after the light turns red. This is the dilemma zone and we all have been there.
If you want to know more check out "thenewspaper.com" and actually research what you are defending and don't be a sheep and just go along with it. We all hate runners, but the cameras are NOT THE ANSWER.

[socrates577]

There are a multitude of INDEPENDENT studies which show that the cameras have absolutely NO EFFECT on changing driver behavior. This include admissions from officials in the UK and Australia where they have been in use for years. The person performing the "studies" for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (which is FUNDED by INSURANCE COMPANIES) is a man named Richard Rettig. This man worked as the head of the transportation dept of New York, and is credited with being the father of the red light cameras because he is the one which brought the cameras to NY. Having him do a "study" is like having the CEO of Ford doing a crash test study and claiming that Ford has the best numbers.
Plus, a recent study shows that 85% of infractions were within one tenth of a second after the light turns red. This is the dilemma zone and we all have been there.
If you want to know more check out "thenewspaper.com" and actually research what you are defending and don't be a sheep and just go along with it.

[ndg1979]

For all of you who have apparently forgotten, which is just about everyone - THE ABILITY TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE IS A PRIVILEGE - NOT A RIGHT!!!!

Therefore, is you perform badly, rules are imposed, or the privilege is taken away. With so many of you performing badly (STUPID), it is no wonder these are necessary.

I have owned 3 cars so far, a 1975 Buick LeSabre, 1976 Dodge Monaco and now a 2006 Charger. I have learned how to drive all three properly and though I am not perfect (I have to be at work on time like everyone else), I still DO NOT TAKE CHANCES!!!!

And until you come up with a better solution to make others better drivers - YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING!!!! Only the privilege to say something allowed by the constitution. It is time to suck it up America. Grab your go-nads and say it with me - "I will no longer be an a**h*le!" I knew you could.

Even though you elected Bush last time around, I now have faith that you can still be taught.

No go sit in your car that you can't drive and pout.

[cinwisc]

Anyone who buys and licenses a car assumes responsiblity for whoever drives it. Business vehicle drivers who break the law and incur a ticket in the business name could be docked on payday.
I am amazed that people actually want the RIGHT to run red lights! Causing an accident that injures others, self, car and contents, and perhaps being sued by injured parties would be more costly than a ticket--and could include a lifetime of guilt---or a jail sentence.

[linfinster]

Anyone who owns a car that goes thru a red light shoud know who was driving it when. That should remove the confusion of getting a ticket when you were not behind the wheel. Anyone caught would pay the fine, having signed a contract with the owner of the car. Seems like that might work. I hope they keep the cameras. People should slow down and drive more carefully. Insurance rates and medical expenses are through the roof and this could go a long way in reducing my insurance premiums. then again, it would probably just mean more money in the pockets of the rich company owners .. tsk tsk.
Hmm wonder how I got so negative.

[dhague]

Most of the comments seem to center on the prospect of a rear-end collision because the lead car "suddenly" stopped at a changing light. In point of fact, the driver of the car behind is the one responsible for maintaining proper distance... and since the traffic light is visible to that following driver as well, the excuse that the car in front "suddenly" stopped is pure baloney.

The argument that a camera identifies a car and not a driver is only valid if the camera isn't set up to record the driver's face, as they are here in Europe. I'd think that even in an American court, that should hold up as well as, say, a surveillance camera tape of a robbery for identifying the "perpetrator".

As for a lack of officer discretion, I've yet to hear of an automated traffic ticket here that can't be challenged. Here, they can be challenged in writing when the bill is received and if necessary appealed in a court of law. As a rule, the system is more than reasonable (I have successfully challenged two tickets I believed to be in error with simple written statements of the facts.

If there is an accident involved, there will be an on-scene investigation by the police. There is almost always a cop around when you really need one because they're not sitting around with radar guns or watching intersections.

[suiteo1]

cbscrash07: I'm sure you already figured out I'm also in one of those fabulous California cities!


iambaker: Good catch! Can't wait to hear what you have to say when you actually read the article.

[iambaker]

And red lights are not capable of handing out anything...

Wow. I give up. Haven't even read the article yet!

[iambaker]

Also, "no where" should be "nowhere."

Does CBS proof its stuff?

[iambaker]

Just thought you should know that the byline on the homepage misspells brake as break.

Well done.

[Syndicate]

J14-E: My wifes car is my name I never drive it.

There is aslo evidence that municipalities have shortened the yellow light time to increase revenues.

Suiteo1: my feelings exactly. Here in california cities are required to set their lights up to improve the flow of traffic. Few do that and some use them as speed control devices. I am waiting to get a ticket in their city then we are going to have some fun. I think I will have to execute my constitutional right to a Jury trial in any matter involving more than $20.00

[roo1974]

hi there,i have just seen this segment in australia, and i find it hard to believe that its taken this long for the states to use these cameras. australias been using them for years, of course we dont like them, but we accept them because the laws the law.
the police here give people with multiple vehicles to get the driver to accept responsibility for the crime they have committed. if not the owner accepts it, as if they dont know with a logbook who is driving a company vehicle, what are they doing in business?
i think any way to stop americas hostilities i experienced on the road when i was there would be a massive blessing.
maybe theres some people in the american society that need to learn to obey the law to protect innocent peoples lives, especially those who dont understand the consequences if you happened to kill someone running a red light.

[suiteo1]

It%u2019s the ugly head of greed!

If these cities, including mine, would spend the money to correct all the out of sync lights to conform to traffic load instead, we would have fewer people running red lights. But cities won't do this because it means extra income for them from the citations that get issued. Now they use these cameras for even more income!

I for one am tired of being the last car to cross the intersection only to have the light suddenly and unexpectedly change yellow to red just as I'm about to cross! How many times do you just take off from a red light only to be stopped the next block for yet another one? Why does the green %u201Cturn%u201D arrow only let about a quarter of that traffic lane through before turning red again? It%u2019s frustrating. No wonder so many people are racing red lights, their tired of being stopped every block!

A friend of mine who works for the city told me of a meeting they had where workers were asked what suggestions they had for reducing the wear and tear on city maintenance vehicles. Apparently they had to replace worn out brakes far too often. My friend told them the same thing, to synchronize the lights so the main flow of traffic doesn%u2019t have to %u201Cstop and go%u201D so much. That was 10 years ago, do you think they listened? What a joke!

[brucesmall]

Red light cameras do indeed cause a slight increase in fender benders, but that is nothing compared to the serious smashups they deter. The rate of serious accidents and injuries go way down with red light cameras.

As to driving on slippery roads and being "forced" to run the red light, baloney! If the road is that slippery you'd better slow down so you can maintain control over your vehicle. That is the legal standard.