by Gina Williams

In the early 1990s red light cameras (RLCs) began to be used in the United States.  Almost 22 years later, 26 states and Washington DC have implemented these cameras in various major cities. 

RLCs are supposed to prevent deadly accidents by making people think twice before gunning it through a yellow light, or blatantly running a red light.  Their proposed purpose and their actual purpose, however, are two different things entirely. 

Looking at government conducted or funded studies will lead readers to believe that RLCs work.  Digging a bit deeper, however, leads to a different conclusion for two reasons.  First, studies demonstrate that RLCs are associated with increased accident rates at intersections. 

Second, the private companies running the red light programs and our government have a vested interest in ticketing people; they want people to run red lights because they make money from it, and a ton of money at that. 

Sadly, the steps both entities have taken to ensure their own financial benefits pose safety threats to citizens.

Why They Want Us To Run Red Lights

How Things Seem

Here is how RLC programs generally work:  Private companies are contracted by local municipalities to install camera surveillance systems.  If someone runs a red light, multiple pictures are taken of their vehicle.  The pictures are later “inspected” by a law enforcement official; if it is deemed that the citizen ran the red light, they are sent a ticket in the mail.

Sounds straight forward, right?  People who break the law are ticketed and others that would break the law think twice.  Lives are saved.  World peace is probably achieved somewhere in there as well. 

How Things Are

Remember how people always say that nothing is ever as it seems?  That’s the case here.  It seems like our government is trying to protect us, but like everything else in life, the government’s motives are based on financial gain. 

Contracted, private companies, such as Redflex, American Traffic Solutions, and Affiliated Computer Services, actually have quota clauses written in their contracts with municipalities; as a result of that and the desire for financial gain, municipalities gladly take actions that encourage motorists to run red lights. 

According to The Atlantic Cities, “The problem [with RLCs] is that many of the contracts signed with these companies force cities to commit to standards that encourage the running of red lights. Some of the contracts, written by the companies themselves and later signed by municipal governments, require each camera to record a certain number of red light-runners every year and for police departments to issue a minimum number of tickets.

The companies, after all, have a fiscal incentive to have as many people as possible move through the intersection illegally, since they usually pocket a percentage of the ticket fee.”  Municipalities obviously have a fiscal incentive for people to run red lights as well. 

After enduring the initial costs associated with the cameras, every fine they receive for a red light violator is money in the government’s pocket; after all, it’s not like they’ve hired a police officer to sit at every traffic light to ticket red light violators. 

The Dirty Truth – An Example of Governmental Actions that Harm Citizens

A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found that, “An increase in yellow duration of 1.0 seconds is associated with a [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes.” 

Despite this, many municipalities’ yellow lights are actually shorter than what this study and others recommend; this obviously puts citizens in a situation where their chances of an accident are higher than they could be. 

In 2008 alone, thenewspaper.com reported that multiple cameras in the following cities were caught purposely imposing short yellow lights in an effort to boost their earnings from RLCs:

·         Chattanooga, Tennessee

·         Dallas, Texas

·         Springfield, Missouri

·         Lubbock, Texas

·         Nashville, Tennessee

·         Union City, California

And these are only a few of the cities that have been identified for engaging in these types of activities.

The bottom line is this: Governments have a financial interest in ticketing people and have the full power to manipulate traffic lights to ensure that people get tickets.

Gina Williams is a guest post and article writer bringing to us an examination on how RLC’s affect motorcyclists. Gina also writes about motorcycle accident lawyers.

When you declare war on motorists’ rights in your city, you’d better be ready to reap the whirlwind. Michael Bloomberg’s ridiculous statements about wanting “a camera on every street corner” are not earning him any praise in the news media.

If he continues to push this agenda, don’t be surprised to see the New York based parent company of his city’s red light camera provider, Xerox, face a major boycott of their products and services. 

Last year, Xerox acquired Affiliated Computer Services, or ACS, for $6.4 Billion. ACS is the sole provider of red light cameras in New York City.

Here’s the latest example of the backlash against Bloomberg:

National Review

Big Brother Bloomberg
Traffic cameras have no place in a free society.

Charles W Cooke

August 25th, 2011

In keeping with that very modern desire to find complex solutions to problems that don’t exist, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg expressed his desire on Monday to put cameras on “every corner of the city” to enforce observance of red lights and, eventually perhaps, speed limits.

And so, in the same year that the Los Angeles City Council considered the evidence from its trial run and unanimously voted to do away with L.A.’s camera system, explaining bluntly that the “program did not work as anticipated,” Mayor Bloomberg is blithely seeking to expand New York’s camera network.

read more

For someone who says he’s never taken a picture of himself, he sure likes to snap pictures of other people, by the millions.

Photo Courtesy of CBS New York.

by CameraFRAUD