Red-Light Cameras
Do they help or are they a problem?

By Vincent G. Oliveira
The Virginia General Assembly has decided to end the ten-year “photo-red” program that started in 1995. The main objective was to reduce the number of vehicular accidents by discouraging and reducing the amount of red lights being ran. The final say came from The Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee, who have opposed other similar bills in the past.
I am a U.S. Marine stationed in Chesapeake Virginia. I have been in the U.S. Marines for six years and I am currently a Cadre Instructor Trainer for the Marine Corps Security Forces Training Company. I instruct Marines and Sailors in training management, physical security/law enforcement, unarmed self-defense, anti-terrorism, and small arms training. I have an Associates of Arts, a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice, and I am currently working on my Masters of Science in Criminal Justice.
Before going in front of the committee “police Sgt. Mark Summerell said a telephone survey of 300 Virginia Beach residents in October and November showed that 86 percent knew the red-light cameras were in place and 84 percent approved of them.” Out of the 300 people who were surveyed 62 percent thought that red-light running is a serious problem and 88 percent thought that red-light cameras would help the situation. The local survey is a little higher than the survey conducted in 2001 by Roper Starch Worldwide. Sixty-five percent of 1,017 men and women agreed with the use of red-light cameras. “Studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have suggested that red light cameras are effective in reducing red light running by as much as 40 percent and significantly reduce crashes resulting in injuries associated with red light running.”
However, not everyone thinks that these red-light cameras are all that great. “Opponents said the cameras are a violation of privacy, will not stop red-light runners and are used only to raise revenue for government. They added that the cameras flip the burden of proof from the government to citizens.” Others worry about the cameras malfunctioning, getting rear-ended when stopping at a fast yellow light, and claim that they are being denied their right to confront their accuser.
Not all of these claims are unfounded; in some cases “the traffic engineers who install these cameras are all-too-frequently tempted to reduce the amount of time that the traffic light stays "yellow" before turning "red." Precisely because it will likely increase the number of drivers who run red lights, this alteration allows the surveillance system attached to the traffic light to catch more red-light runners, and thus generate more revenues for the state.” However, because people can be tempted minimum standards are put into place; “the minimum yellow light interval shall be 4 seconds for intersection signals on streets with actual 85th percentile approach speeds of 30 mph, or less. The yellow light interval shall be increased ½ second for each 5-mph increase in 85th percentile approach speeds above 30 mph.”
“Unlike police officers, photographs or videotapes taken by surveillance cameras can be relied upon to attend each and every court date, to remember the exact time and place of the traffic violation, to positively identify the license plate number of the car that committed it, and to never change its testimony. And yet, the actual cameras that took the pictures cannot be brought before the court and asked to testify. As a result, the right to confront one's accuser (habeas corpus) is violated.” While the burden of proof lies in the hands of the state and the individual does have the right to confront their accuser, how can a person argue about a picture? The state pays for the camera, the personnel, and the picture in order to provide their proof of the violation.
In order to prevent the inevitability of time and age on the cameras “trained officers and other officials review every picture to verify vehicle information and ensure that the vehicle is in violation. Tickets are mailed only to those drivers who were clearly running the red light. Those drivers, who were inadvertently in an intersection when the signal changes to red, are not considered to be red light runners.” These trained personnel help prevent a person from being a victim of a malfunctioning red-light camera.
Anyone can see inside of a vehicle at almost anytime, “Red light cameras are not considered to be a violation of privacy because of the fact that driving is a regulated activity on public roads. When they obtain a license, motorists agree to abide by certain rules; red light cameras allow violations of those rules to be observed and documented.” It might be a good thing that when the camera takes the picture that you can see the driver, especially if the driver isn’t the owner. Sometimes people have too much privacy, which might have something to do with all of the problems that we have.
If you are concerned about red-light cameras causing you to be involved in an automobile accident follow some simple tips, guidelines, and laws: “Allow ample time to reach your destination safely. Don’t speed to compensate for lost time. Be extra cautious during twilight hours. Never drive when you are tired or fatigued. Remember—speed kills. Stay alert when driving at all times—don't be distracted by phone calls, reading, or other activities. Always wear a seat belt, in front and rear seats. Keep a safe distance away from the vehicle in front of you. Turn lights on if your windshield wipers are on. Don’t drink and drive. Don’t drive over the posted speed limit. Adjust your maximum speed for prevailing weather and traffic conditions. Right turn on red—after stop” You can always call your local law enforcement department for additional information.
While some individuals do not see the positive results and the positive possibilities of the red-light cameras, in the Washington D.C. District from August of 1999 to January of 2005, the “automated red-light enforcement” program has made some impressive results: “reduction in red-light violations at intersections with cameras installed: 77.6 percent decline—equivalent of 29,300 fewer violations a month” with 39 red-light camera locations.















References:
Insurance Research Council. (2003). Many Americans Support the Use of Camera Systems for Traffic Law Enforcement. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.ircweb.org/news/2001-09-26.htm

Jenkins, Chris L. (2005, February 5). Va. May End Trial Use of Red-Light Cameras:
Legislators Table Bills To Extend Programs. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64763-2005Feb4.html

Jones, Matthew. (2005, January 5). Beach chief makes case for red-light cameras. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=80077&ran=165149

MPDC. (n.d.). Automated Red-Light Enforcement. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/traffic/redlight.shtm

National Motorist Association. (n.d.). Model Red Light Camera Law. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.motorists.com/issues/enforce/rlcmodellaw.html

Not Bored. (2003, September 6). on the use of surveillance cameras to enforce traffic laws. Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://www.notbored.org/traffic-cameras.html

SecurityWorld.com. (n.d.). Red Light Cameras. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.securityworld.com/library/automotive/redlightcameras.html