Posted on 12/17/2004 12:14:25 PM PST by weegee
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.
Unfortunately, many people still drive as if they don't believe it.
Robison is chief of the Chronicle's Austin Bureau.
clay.robison@chron.com
Anecdote: I have a good friend of mine who would always come back home using the same route (same speed limit). One day they changed the speed limits. He got pulled over and ticketed by the sheriff. He got home, took his camcorder and recorded more signs being put in that day. He also caught the sheriff stop another car and letting the driver go with a warning. He asked the judge for a trial. At the trial date (the same day) the judge pulled him aside and told him the tape was inadmissible! Since it was his only evidence, he was convicted. This little anecdote showcases quite a few potential traffic court horrors:
-The cops never gave any warning of the speed limit change to residents (most people get on auto-pilot when they use the same route every day; there's no way they would notice a changed speed sign)
-Cops do not treat people equally
-Judges are far from objective in traffic court
-Decent citizens end up wasting half a day of work (huge cost) in order to fight a small fine. Most people would rather pay up rather than fight, even if they're innocent.
Seeing cops camped at 15 miles per hour roads ON THE WEEKEND is absolutely disgusting!
Right. Let's spice up the thread with hysterical accusations.
I've heard that the duration of yellow lights have been deliberately reduced at some camera intersections in order to increase revenues.
Cops ticket speeders because THEY determine who the offender is. They don't pull over all speeders, they point a laser/rader gun at a single car and get their number to cite him with.
Sit at a red light and you don't know IF there will be an offender (there is not one every cycle and there could be several).
I oppose this 100% in my town.
I'm not sure what your point is. Not every speeder is pulled over, either.
Your anecdote is describing systematic abuse. I certainly don't support that. It happens in the criminal justice system unfortunately; however, the answer is to fix the problem, not to quit enorcing laws.
The traffic court system is the only court system where the prosecutor, the policemen, and the judge's salaries are paid by the defendant's fines.
"If the good lord didn't want them to be sheared he wouldn't have made them sheep." or taxpayers
One of the last things caught on a 'test' camera before it was terminally damaged in upper New York State was a ski-masked figure pointing a shotgun at it.
BTW - Haven't been to Outstate New York since I was 14...wasn't me.
A thought that immediately ran through my head:
Columbus has neighborhoods that are unsafe to live in without bars across your windows and the hoods govern the streets. The police response? Let's put cameras at intersections to catch red light runners.
The company's proposal included the potential $4.5 million of annual revenue to the city. The city politicians may have a fleeting thought of despair for a life lost to a traffic accident. They will mourn for years over lost revenue they can not spend.
A guy I work with is a 2nd generation immigrant from Norway. His extended family is still there. He goes back every year. They keep lowering the speed limits and adding checkpoints so that no one dies on the road. Helmets and an 8 point roll cage may not be too far behind. Let nanny staters get into power, the results are mind boggling
My point is that I would trust the enforcement of the law if the inherent conflict of interest is resolved. As long as it's there, it gives incentive for abuse. This in turn, makes the public resent policemen (seen as tax collectors) instead of feeling safe when they see one.
Wait until they start turning long existent freeways into toll roads... There are always new "revenue" sources for bankrupt politicians.
So are you saying that you don't have a problem with cops using a machine to catch speeders, but you do have a problem with them using a machine to catch people running red lights?
I'm so glad the uber liberals haven't gotten these cameras in where I live. Let the coppers catch you fair and square. Not some Big Brother camera
The "machine" for speeders is MANNED by a person. I would oppose an automated system for ticketing speeders as well.
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.