thought this was interesting read.
By
Ashby Jones
Updated Feb. 27, 2014 4:11 p.m. ET
Local and state governments across the country are tapping the brakes on red-light cameras.
After a decade of steady growth, the number of communities using cameras to catch drivers who run stoplights has fallen about 6% since 2012, to 508, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by the automobile-insurance industry.
Seven states currently ban them altogether, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and several more, including Ohio and Florida, are considering such prohibitions.
Studies of whether cameras, typically mounted on fixtures beside the road, improve traffic safety are numerous and often point to contradictory conclusions. Many locations, including some big cities, have no plans to get rid of them. And suppliers of the cameras say the total number of cameras in use continues to grow, largely thanks to some larger cities, such as Washington, expanding their programs.
"Opponents of the industry would like the story to be that the demise of the red-light camera is upon us, but nothing could be farther from the truth," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for Tempe, Ariz.,-based American Traffic Solutions, Inc., a leading camera contractor.
But an increasing number of city and county officials are questioning their worth—and pulling the plug. They cite the hassles of dealing with erroneous tickets and complaints from drivers, many of whom perceive the cameras as invasive. Mostly, however, officials point to studies that claim the cameras do little to reduce accidents—and in some cases may increase them.
"It was time for them to go," said John Ducey, the mayor of Brick, N.J., which officially dismantled its red-light camera program last week, despite the cameras filling town coffers.
Mr. Ducey cited city statistics showing a rise in accidents at intersections where cameras were added in 2010, as part of a state pilot project. "The only justification for them is to improve safety, but it seems ours were doing exactly the opposite."
Red-light cameras have been in use since at least the 1990s, but widespread adoption didn't come until the last decade. There were 540 communities using them in 2012, more than 10 times the number in 2001, according to the IIHS. They include a number of big cities, such as New York, Chicago, Atlanta and Phoenix.
The rapid growth was accompanied by aggressive marketing on behalf of camera contractors, including American Traffic Solutions and
Redflex Holdings Ltd. based in Australia. The companies say their cameras catch more drivers running red lights, which deters careless driving and cuts down on accidents.
And many cities and towns have found another benefit: more ticket revenue without the need to hire new police officers.
Mr. Ducey, the mayor of Brick, said its cameras brought the town and state $813,000 last year—"vastly" more than likely ticket revenue if the cameras hadn't been in place. Miami brought in $5.8 million from camera violations in fiscal year 2012-13, a study commissioned by Florida's legislature said.
The contractors and supporters of the cameras say the safety benefits are well established. Russ Rader, an IIHS spokesman, pointed to a 2011 study by the group, its most recent on the issue, that showed significantly lower fatal-crash rates at intersections in cities with cameras than in those without them.
"I'm a big fan," said Jim Simms, a councilman in Amarillo, Texas, which installed cameras at five intersections in 2007, and recently decided to add them to four more. Mr. Simms said city records show that accidents at the five intersections fell from 69 in 2008 to 25 in 2013. "The records don't lie—these things make our streets safer," he said.
But many elsewhere disagree and have moved to get rid of them. Voters in Houston banned them in 2010 after a four-year run. Los Angeles ended its program the following year citing in part a lack of evidence that the camera program, in place for more than a decade, was making intersections any safer. El Mirage, Ariz., and Pasadena, Calif., ended their programs in 2012; San Diego, Poway, Calif., and League City, Texas, followed suit last year.
More programs could see the ax in 2014. Courts in Missouri have recently deemed red-light camera programs invalid because they conflict with traffic laws enacted at the state level. And legislatures in a number of states are considering bills to do away with them, partly because of the financial costs they impose on drivers.
"Red-light cameras are backdoor tax increases, plain and simple," said Florida Sen. Jeff Brandes, a Republican and sponsor of a bill that would outlaw them statewide. "They're sold as safety measures, but they're really more about revenue."
Mr. Brandes pointed to the state study released this month showing that rear-end collisions at red-light-camera intersections on state roads increased 35% since 2010, when cameras were introduced in Florida, and that crashes overall jumped 12% in the same period.
Critics in Florida and elsewhere flag other hitches with red-light cameras. In most places, cities mail notices of violations captured on camera to the owner of a vehicle, rather than to the driver, a process that can cause headaches for owners who weren't driving.
The systems can also prove tricky for places with nuance in their traffic laws. For instance, Florida law allows drivers to make right turns on red in a "careful and prudent manner," without requiring drivers to come to a full stop. Recognizing the ambiguity, the city of Clermont, Fla., earlier this month rescinded dozens of tickets issued to people who made rolling right turns on red lights.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
