The Traffic Enforcement Camera Debate

Traffic enforcement cameras have been around since 1910, when Massachusetts began using a device known as a photo speed recorder. More frequent use of these devices began in the 1970s, and have been used extensively accross Europe for three decades. These cameras did not became mainstream in america until the 1990s. Currently used by 20 states across the nation, automated enforcement devices have only been specifically banned in a handful. Increased awarness of these programs has lead to increased public concern. Today they are the topic of much controversy. It is a controversy that should not even exist. Every time an automated enforcement program is up for popular vote it is voted down by the public.

For years politicians have used the guise of "public safety" to push their revenue-generating traffic enforcement cameras. In August 2008 Illinois governor, Ron Blagojevich, admitted planning to use traffic enforcement cameras as a "fundraiser." The fact that he plans to use the funds toward the fight against violent crime in large cities such as Chicago, is nothing more than a political ploy to get much needed public support. First year revenue for these cameras in Illinois is expected to reach 40 Million dollars. The revenue produced by these automated systems should go exactly the same place as the revenue from any other traffic fine. It's the same offense, why should the money be treated any differently. Clearly the major issue here is funds disguised by a smoke screen of public safety.

A study of red light cameras in Washington DC by the Washington Post found that these cameras did not reduce injuries or collisions. The number of accidents actually increased. Red light cameras in Portland, OR produced a 140% increase in rear end collisions. Another study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that though red light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running red lights, they significantly increased the number of accidents overall.

Many believe this increase accidents is due to skittish drivers slamming on their brakes in fear of being ticketed. I can personally attest to these dangerous changes in driving behavior in camera enforced zones. On my daily commute I pass through a very curvy stretch of road monitored by speed cameras. My awareness of these cameras causes me to focus primarily on my speedometer instead of navigating the curves. Fear of being ticketed prevents me from being fully focused on driving.

Another interesting statistic is that most red light violations happen within one second of the light change, indicating most may even be accidental. T-bone accidents happen at 5 or more seconds. A better way to address this problem without the use of cameras is to lengthen the time between one light turning red and the next light turning green. This way the lights in all directions are simultaneously red for at least one second reducing the risk of accidents.

Another solution would be to have a more lengthy yellow light. The standard 4 second length of a yellow light is usually sufficient for a driver to safely stop. There have been several instances of these monitored red lights having a shorter yellow light time. Shorter yellow lights actually increase red light violations. This increase in violations cause an increase in accidents, but increased violations also equal increase in revenue for the city. Can you say fundraiser?

Privacy is another issue that has been raised concerning these cameras. In many states the photos taken by these traffic enforcement cameras are available under state freedom of information acts. Starting in December 2007 the British government began compilling a database of information from thousands of cameras around the country. Using 3.5 million license plate "reads" a day, it will be able to pinpoint the exact location of every vehicle on British roads. Is this really the direction you want our government to take? Many have already began to fight back against this blatant attack on our privacy by using a product called "photoblocker," which is a spray that covers your license plate with a film that is invisible to the naked eye but effectively glares any photo taken of the plate. The fact that this spray has been banned in both Illinois and New York is further evidence that it works. I, personally, do not want to have to resort to this extreme to keep myself protected. We need to take a stand and let our elected officials know that we DO NOT approve!

Sources:

www.iihs.org

www.americanchronicle.com/articles/6071

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766.html

www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/0700trnrv.htm