BY MIKE CETERA
At today's Finance Committee meeting, Aurora aldermen once again are scheduled to discuss the installation of red-light cameras at various intersections. The cameras would be used to catch and fine motorists who run red lights.
Critics have suggested the cameras are more about money than safety. This is a legitimate criticism, although I have no problem with the city making a buck on people who can't follow the law. Consider it another sin tax. What should concern all of us, however, is whether these cameras are even necessary or constitutional.
Indeed, there are many unanswered questions that should be addressed prior to any vote.
Has there been an increase in accidents associated with red-light violations that is prompting this move? Which intersections have the highest ratio of accidents to vehicles? The Beacon's own story said the cameras will be placed at the most dangerous intersections, which haven't yet been determined. How is this possible that police don't know this already? Will cameras be placed at high-volume intersections that don't have an accident history? Was there any data collected in Aurora that shows how frequently motorists drive through red lights?
Since this newspaper editorialized in favor of the red-light cameras last year (an editorial I authored), my own feelings have become fuzzy (I am not speaking for the entire editorial board here). The evidence both for and against the cameras is not as black and white as some would like you to believe.
Critics love to cite an Oct. 4, 2005 Washington Post article that makes the strong case that red-light cameras make intersections more dangerous. The "analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras," according to the article. "The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices."
However, the article also highlights research suggesting -- as Aurora police have pointed out -- red-light cameras help reduce the frequency of dangerous side-impact crashes.
Advocates for the cameras point to research such as a recent national study by the Federal Highway Administration that showed the number of broadside crashes dipped 25 percent at sites with cameras. The study found that rear-end crashes rose 15 percent at camera locations. But because broadside crashes are more dangerous and cause greater damage, the study concluded that the cameras can help reduce the costs of traffic accidents.
And the Post -- the same newspaper that seemed to be critical of red-light cameras -- in 2006 urged Virginia lawmakers to support the installation of red-light cameras at accident-prone intersections.
The police department also reports that red-light cameras are making would-be scofflaws think twice about racing through intersections with dubious claims to the right-of-way. Last month the District's red-light cameras issued 66.2 percent fewer tickets in monitored intersections than when cameras were installed. At New York Avenue and Fourth Street NW, the intersection that got the city's first red-light camera, the number of violations decreased from 7,598 in the first month of the camera's operation to only 1,493 last month, the police say.The city's data jibes with national studies. A Federal Highway Administration examination of red-light cameras shows the devices reduce both red-light running and dangerous crashes in monitored intersections.
For perhaps the best summary -- pro and con -- check out this 2005 New York Times article.
Some questions:
Are these cameras safe? The evidence is mixed, which suggests to me the city has some liability questions to answer before moving forward. The Washington Post article, and a number of studies, show there may be dangers associated with red-light cameras. However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety -- a research group that is backed by the insurance industry and has its detractors -- has a fascinating Q & A on the subject that reaches a different conclusion:
Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) recently reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light camera effectiveness in Australia, Singapore, and the United States.9 Using techniques of meta-analysis, the authors estimated a 16 percent reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24 percent reduction in right-angle crashes.
Are they legal? There are some challenges, including a Minnesota case that found "that the cameras violate people’s rights because drivers are issued tickets without videotape evidence of who was actually driving the car at the time the photo was snapped."
Finally, are they necessary? Nobody, to my knowledge, has come forward to claim that Aurora has a particular problem with dangerous intersections. If there is a problem, acknowledge it.
The ultimate question: Will the cameras save lives or endanger them? The answer determines the value of this tool.
Leave a comment