Dan wrote:
You raise some great points. Many of them are why I'm relucantant to fully endorse the red-light cameras. Overall, they're a great idea but only in certain ways. The law shouldn't be used as a means of bringing in revenues. That shouldn't be it's primary purpose. The city can do some things to try to be fair. THey could have MnDot or the Feds or some 3rd party come in the certifiy the traffic lights are set up properly (yellow light timing, etc). Also, any deals for equipment should not be funded by borrowing against future revenue brough tin by the tickets. Nor should any deals for the equipment involve giving a percentage of the revenues to any part that maintains the cameras. It's tempting to do it that way. YOu can put more cameras in faster cuz it doesn't tie up cash flow. But it helps to ensurs that the people maintaing the cameras don't have any incentive to tinker with them. And having a 3rd party acting as a trustee to keep an eye on things helps to provide another check in case there are some shady dealings going on. There are other possibilities, too. I'm not saying any of them are infalliable. But what's to say with a lil' pressure some cops on the street couldn't start handing these tickets out when people were only running yellows? It's not like the courts are going to put a lot of resources into these offenses.The same can be said for red-light cameras. Everybody sees this plan, and thinks, "wow! what a great idea!" free up cops for more important things, reduce light-running and accidents, AND make money for the city! But at what cost? What are the unintended consequences of automated law enforcement?
Studies in Australia, Virginia and North Carolina all found an increase in accident-injuries where these systems have been installed. A study in Ontario, Canada found a 50% increase in rear-end collisions, and a 5% increase in fatal rear-end collisions where the cameras were used. Many cities have seen tinkering with light timing to maximize revenues. Don't be so naive as to think Minneapolis can (or will) do it better.
What happens if the cameras actually start to have a desired effect, and the revenue (that the city is now dependent on) from the cameras dries up? That has been happening in DC. Their answer? Automate more law enforcement to make up the revenue gap. Now they have stationary radar/camera combos that issue speeding tickets, and have to continually expand the red-light camera plan to keep revenues coming in. DC is addicted to automated citation money. If the cameras work, and reduce violations, then, do we start tinkering, to boost revenues (change yellow timing, etc), or seek a new revenue source? Would we maintain the cameras if they were losing money?
What else will red-light cameras lead to? How long before bio-metrics technology will allow enforcement of other laws with cameras? And what other behaviors may be monitored? What will a future administration use the technology for? What new laws might be enacted which may be enforced electronically? The city government's answer would be "don't be silly. We're just doing the red-light camera thing, and then we'll stop." It never stops. One thing always leads to another. That's precedent. What's next?
Dan McGrath
Longfellow
http://www.smokeoutgary.org
As for the question of the decrease in offenses, I hope it happens. The primary purpose of these systems should be to discourage folks from running a red light. One would hope it would slow people down. But I suspect there will still be a large number of folks who will do it no matter how many tickets they get and no matter how clearly the intersections are marked. Some people are just that way. It happens with parking tickets. It happens with speeding. For example, there's a spot on University Ave SE that's listed on some web sites as a known speed trap. Yet any time of the day or night cops can go sit there with a laser and catch speeders. If they're picky, it'll take 10 - 20 minutes to get someone going 45, 42, etc in a 30. If not, a matter of a couple minutes before they could get someone going 35 in a 30. And they do this all the time, the information is published and yet all sorts of people do it.
That's why I see the cameras as giving people what they've got coming to them. I know some people on this list have complained some lights turn red too soon. Personally, I think they're full of it. I have yet to come across a traffic light in this city that as long as you're paying attention and going to the speed limit doesn't have a yellow light that gives ample time to stop before it turns red. And what's the alternative to punishing people for these infractions? How did they all get started? Once people started to figure out that they a ticket wasn't a given if they cheat and floor it for that yellow turn light so that by the time they enter the intersection it's red, they kept doing it. Then others noticed that and started doing it. The same with no turn on red signs and other similar infractions. We could put more cops on the street. We could spend $150,000 / year per intersection to have a cop on duty just sitting there watching. I'm completely guessing on that cost so don't take it as anything more than a guess on salary and benefits for a couple officers to run shifts. But the city has trouble with spending it's money wisely the way it is to keep the officers they have. So if something is to be done, the red-light cameras are a good solution for their costs.
One other option I haven't seen tossed around are something that I believe are called "blue lights". Boise, Idaho is trying these out right now. All they are is a lil' blue light that shines perpendicular to the durectional that they're associated with. So, let's say you put them in at Hennipen and Franklin. A cop eastbound on Franklin would see the blue light shine when the lights on Hennipen were red. It would light up at the same time the lights on Hennipen turned red. This way, they can be sure of when Hennipen turned red. They would then be able to see if someone entered the intersection after th elight turn red. I don't remember the details, it was in an article in the Idaho Statesman. But I think they got a federal grant to try them out. This may be a good solution in terms of ensuring there isn't a precidence for cameras + keeping a human involved in the immediate judgement of the offense. The drawback is that it only works when there is a cop at the intersection.
Allen Graetz Lowry Hill
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
