White is right: Cameras at traffic lights can save lives

Clay Robison writes that red light cameras can help protect us from some of the most dangerous people we will ever encounter

Whom do you fear the most? A two-time ex-convict on the prowl for easy money to feed a drug habit? Or a suburban soccer mom running late for a movie?

How about a deliveryman with too many stops on his morning route, or a salesman with too many appointments on his daily calendar?

The addicted ex-con probably would cause most people the most anxiety because he clearly is a threat to public safety and people like him get a lot of well-deserved bad publicity.

In terms of simple statistics, however, you are much more likely to be killed or injured by the soccer mom, the deliveryman, the salesman or anyone else in a hurry behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

And if you are going to be hurt by the ex-con, it is more likely to happen in a traffic collision than in a back alley mugging.

Politicians love to bash murderers, muggers and robbers because being "tough on crime" is a popular stance. Dealing with dangerous drivers, however, is more ticklish because they are friends, neighbors, political contributors and familiar faces in the mirror.

Houston Mayor Bill White is to be commended, though, for reopening the debate over installing cameras at problem intersections to crack down on the dangerous practice of running red lights. What have we been waiting for?

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, 1,417 people were murdered in Texas in 2003. In all, 122,108 people were victims of violent crime, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

In 2001, the most recent year for which the DPS has complete traffic data, 3,739 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in Texas. That was more than double the number of murder victims in 2003. Another 340,554 people were injured in traffic crashes, almost three times the number of violent crime victims in 2003.

Many traffic casualties are caused by people driving too fast, driving while intoxicated or talking on a cell phone, following too closely behind another car or recklessly weaving their cars, pickups and SUVs in and out of traffic.

Some 28,711 wrecks in Texas in 2001 were caused by running a red light or a stop sign. Some 220 of those were fatal, and 20,146 produced injuries.

The Texas Legislature has attempted to crack down on drunken driving and has imposed some potential safeguards on teenage drivers. But lawmakers haven't been sufficiently impressed by the carnage to slow down motorists who regard traffic lights as minor bumps on their private speedways.

Most recently, the House voted overwhelmingly in 2003 to kill a bill that would have authorized cities to install cameras so that criminal citations could have been mailed to people whose cars were photographed (and identified by license plate numbers) racing through an intersection on red.

But unbeknownst to most legislators, a provision was slipped into a separate bill to give cities the authority to regulate transportation problems as civil matters. White is asking the Houston City Council to install cameras at intersections with high accident rates, so that violators can be assessed civil fines by mail.

It's a good idea but is predictably generating some moaning and groaning, mostly from people who will be in a hurry some day to get to their own funerals. (Just don't try to hurry the rest of us to ours, please.)

No one has an unrestricted right to drive a car. Government, in the interest of promoting public safety, already has the long-established authority to set age and competency requirements for driver licenses, impose traffic laws and require drivers to have insurance. Using cameras for enforcement is a reasonable extension of that authority, provided the city imposes adequate safeguards on how the cameras are operated and revenue collected.

Similar cameras already are being used in many cities outside Texas and have been credited, in some cases, with signficant decreases in traffic light violations.

"Driving a motor vehicle is going to be the most dangerous thing you're going to do today," noted DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange.

Ok, ok. Everyone get their flame guns ready and tell me why I've lost my mind, because I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

I don't oppose the enforcement of traffic lights but I do oppose automated ticketing systems.

Why? You asked why cops spend time chasing down speeders instead of sitting at intercetions to nab people for running a red light. First off, let's be a little practical, shall we? A cop waiting for speeders is usually in a spot where you can't see him until it's too late. If you're speeding and he's got his radar on you, you won't have time to slow down (assuming you don't have a RD). They hide because obviously you would slow down if you saw him way down the road. How effective would they be at getting speeders? Not very. The idea is to catch people doing what they would be doing if they DIDN'T know a cop was present. Now then, such a scenario at a 4-way intersection is simply not possible for a number of reasons. There is no place to "hide". Who in their right mind is going to run a red light with a cop sitting there in broad daylight? Additionally, even if someone did run a red light, with traffic going in 4 different directions a cop could only practically go after offenders going in the same direction as he is pointed, or perhaps in one additional direction. What a waste. Do you REALLY want a cop sitting at an intersection waiting for people to run a red light? Wouldn't you be saying to yourself "man, what a waste! nobody is going to run a red light with him sitting there! he should be out looking for real criminals!"??? But if there was a cop who happened to be at an intersection and he saw someone nearly crash into you by running a red light, and the cop gave that person a ticket, would you have a problem with that? Or would that be "big brother" in action? And if you don't have a problem with a cop giving a ticket to someone running a red light, what difference does it make if the cop saw the infraction sitting in his car a few feet away, or on a camera in the station a few hundred feet away?

For a long time speeding tickets have been looked at for extra tax revenue instead of a real disinsentive for speeding. The lure of easy revenue has made big cities install cameras to automatically catch people and collect big bucks.

So, would you rather have YOUR taxes raised, or would you rather keep having people who break the law to pay fines? Are you opposed to traffic fines for speeding and running red lights? If there are no fines, then what incentive is there for people to obey the law? Yes, those fines pay the salaries of cops and services, but if there weren't fines, then that money would have to come from somewhere else, like your back pocket. Which is the better scenario? And if you aren't opposed to traffic fines, are you just opposed to the laws being efficiently enforced? Would you prefer inefficiency?

We must resist this "big brother" effort at all cost. In the suburbs (where there's little crime) policemen routinely camp out at 25 and 30 miles speed traps in order to wring more money from taxpayers' pockets.

The law is the law. There's a simple solution if you don't want to get a speeding ticket. Obey the law. And if you don't like the law, change it. Get the speed limit raised. Police have been pulling people over for speeding for a long time. Sherrif Taylor in Mayberry, North Carolina on the Andy Griffith show pulled people over for speeding. That's your idea of "big brother"?

Mandatory helmets for drivers and 20 mph speed limits will save lives too.

But that's not the law, is it?

The use of police as tax gatherers is causing respectable middle-class folks to develop contempt for them. This impedes legitimate law-enforcement activities.

Again, I'd much rather have law-breakers pay taxes, than have mine raised. Since when is enforcing traffic laws not a "legitimate law-enforcement activity"? Should there be no traffic laws? It makes no sense to have laws you have no intention of enforcing. If you aren't going to enforce a law, don't have it, period. Or perhaps you want traffic laws enforced, but you don't want police spending an inordinate amount of time doing it? That's understandable. After all, we can't have a cop at every intersection watching for red-light runners, can we? So...if that's not practical, but yet we want traffic laws enforced, what would a solution be? Hmmmm...let's see...what's that? You think maybe they should put a camera up at intersections where there's been trouble??? Hey, that's not a bad idea. You might be on to something...it frees the cops up for "legitimate law enforcement"...people won't run red lights anyway with a cop sitting there...people will probably do it less if they know they might get caught on camera...yeah, I think you've got a pretty good idea there.

Okay, I've got my asbestos suit on...blast away. :-)

OK, I'll try to hit the high points:

1) Under American law, an accused has the right to face his or her accuser in a court of law. If a machine gives you a ticket, who exactly stands up in court if you try to defend yourself?

2) Is the idea of issuing speeding tickets to punish speeders into slowing down or is it to generate revenue for the issuing authority? The former is a legitimate law enforcement activity, but I will maintain that the latter is a tax imposed by regulation rather than by a lawful taxing authority.

3) "Get the speed limit raised." Excuse me, but what color is the sky on the planet you're from? Here on Earth, politicians and bureaucrats set speed limits artificially low to generate revenue from speeding tickets and anyone foolish enough to try to get one raised will be blasted for opposing public safety.

4) Everywhere red light cameras have been installed, there have been complaints that the companies that operate the cameras (who get a large cut of the ticket revenues) have tinkered with the timing of the lights to CAUSE more people to accidentally run them. Generally, this can be done very easily by shortening the duration of the yellow light.

5) No one will release statistics on increases in rear-end collisions at intersections where red light cameras have been installed. However, there is at least anecdotal evidence that there have been a lot of accidents where drivers slammed on their brakes as soon as a "regulated" light turned yellow.

1) Under American law, an accused has the right to face his or her accuser in a court of law. If a machine gives you a ticket, who exactly stands up in court if you try to defend yourself?

The accuser is not a machine, but the police department using a machine. What's the difference between being caught on camera running a red light or being caught on camera robbing a 7-11? Would you suggest that cameras in stores should not be allowed?

anyone foolish enough to try to get one raised will be blasted for opposing public safety.

Well, then perhaps you don't have public support, which in case the speed limit should NOT be raised. Speed limits, especially on highways and interstates HAVE been risen.

there have been complaints that the companies that operate the cameras (who get a large cut of the ticket revenues) have tinkered with the timing of the lights to CAUSE more people to accidentally run them. Generally, this can be done very easily by shortening the duration of the yellow light.

I certainly wouldn't support any "tinkering". Are these just "complaints" or is there any proof?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.