The red light traffic surveillance cameras used at busy intersections across
the nation issue citations to drivers who run red lights. Sensors buried in the
crosswalk trigger the cameras, which are mounted on traffic signals, to capture
the date, time and speed of the red-light violating vehicle. Advocates of these
live traffic cameras assert that the system is a cost-effective way to catch red
light runners, make the roads safer, and allow law enforcement officials to
focus on other tasks.
In December 2004, a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council
showed a reduction in vehicle crashes at nearly all of the red light
surveillance intersections. Also, in a 2002 California audit of red-light
cameras, accidents caused by drivers running red lights decreased with the live
traffic camera installation. Opponents of the red light traffic cameras contend
that the cameras are chiefly used as a money-making device, they give too much
control to the live camera company, and they cause rear-end collisions because a
driver may stop too abruptly before a red light.
Recently in Northern Virginia, the red light traffic camera program ended
after a ten-year run. The state legislature opted not to renew the live traffic
program, which issued drivers with $50 fines sent through the mail. Roughly 75%
of those drivers paid the fine. State Senator, Jeannemarie Davis says, "It's
impossible to have enough police officers out to enforce red-light running. It
clearly works. It clearly changes behavior."
Others might not agree. Many lawmakers from rural parts of Virginia voiced
their concerns that the traffic cameras resembled "Big Brother" and that it was
an expensive traffic program that did not recoup its costs. In fact, three of
the six governments that implemented the surveillance program in Northern
Virginia lots tens of thousands of dollars because the revenue did not cover the
traffic program's costs.
Administrators in California are studying some of the red light traffic
program's pitfalls that occurred in other Californian cities. For example, in
San Diego a judge agreed that the live traffic company was given too much
control, so a state law went into effect requiring live traffic camera companies
to charge cities a flat rate, instead of a per-ticket commission. The law also
requires that police officers review and approve the traffic citations. After
San Diego's red-light traffic program was revised, drivers stopped complaining
about the cameras.
In order for the driver citations to be fair and accurate, a clear photo of
the driver must be captured, along with the license plate. If the photo doesn't
match the owner of the vehicle, the driver should not be responsible for the
ticket. Although most drivers can't argue against a photo showing them running a
light, some drivers will give valid excuses that may cause the police to
reevaluate the photos. For example, one driver in Montclair, California told the
police officer she couldn't see past a truck that turned in front of her on a
double lane signal. The officer threw out her ticket.
The debate over the use of red light traffic cameras at intersections is far
from over. Both sides have valid concerns that should be resolved with more
study and research at cities where driver surveillance cameras are both showing
positive and negative results.
