I was reading over the agenda for the City Council meeting tonight, and this caught my eye: “2010 Legislative Agenda Items.” It’s described as “a list of items [that] are submitted to our local legislators with the expectation that the items will be reviewed with possible action taken in Springfield.”
One of the items on that list is a request that Peoria be able to use red-light cameras:
9. Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Technology/Red Light Running Expansion.
Current law allows for a governmental agency in a municipality or county located in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Madison, St. Clair, and Will Counties to establish an automated traffic law enforcement system, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency that produces a recorded image of a motor vehicle’s response to a traffic control signal. The technology is designed to create a clear recorded image of the vehicle and the vehicle’s license plate. It further provides that the owner of the vehicle used in the violation is liable for the violation if the violation was recorded by the system, with exceptions. This legislation would give Peoria the authority to operate automated traffic enforcement technology for red light running.
On the one hand, I can understand the reason for the request. Since the City Council has cut dozens of police officers, the police department is having to look to alternative methods of law enforcement, including automation. These red-light cameras would allow intersections to be monitored without any officer present at all. If a vehicle runs a red light, the camera snaps a picture and the driver automatically get a traffic ticket in the mail.
On the other hand, however, photo enforcement is a bad idea. Consider this Chicago Tribune report that came out just over the weekend:
If improved safety is the goal of red-light cameras, then it is a mission largely unaccomplished for the first crop of area suburbs that raced to install the devices after they became legal in 2006, according to state data.
Accidents rose — in some cases, significantly — at half the 14 suburban intersections outfitted with traffic cameras by the end of 2007, the data show. The number of crashes fell at just five of those intersections after cameras went in, while two showed little change.
These findings aren’t unique to Chicago. In fact, numerous independent studies have shown an increase in traffic collisions due to red-light photo enforcement. Peoria (Arizona) saw the number of accidents double this past year at intersections where red-light cameras were installed.
Of course, these statistics are routinely ignored by municipalities because of another, more compelling statistic: increased revenues. Photo enforcement can be a cash cow for municipalities. A physical police officer at an intersection can only catch so many people in a day running red lights, whereas cameras catch every person, every time. That means a tremendous increase in the number of traffic citations, and hence, a windfall of revenue. A report by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, for example, found fine collections in Kingsport (TN) quadrupled after cameras were installed.
It’s because of this conflict of interest (revenues vs. safety) that many people are opposed to photo-enforcement.
The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, and some municipalities with red-light cameras have allowed themselves to be corrupted by the love of money. The National Motorists Association reported in 2008 that six cities were caught shortening the length of yellow lights at photo-enforced intersections in order to increase revenue. In some cases, the yellow lights were so short that they were actually unsafe — i.e., drivers got caught in a situation where they were too close to the intersection to stop safely, but too far away to make it through before the light turned red. Thus, these municipalities were blatantly trading safety for revenue. In other cases, the municipalities simply tried to trick motorists by making the yellow light durations shorter at photo-enforced intersections and longer at non-enforced intersections.
Yellow light duration turned out to be an interesting topic when looking up information on red-light cameras. Several sources cite studies that show longer yellow light durations are more effective than photo-enforcement at increasing safety and reducing red-light running. So if safety is really the motivating factor here, perhaps instead of asking legislators to approve photo-enforcement in Peoria, the police department should ask the Traffic Engineering division to increase yellow phase duration at intersections.
This info is interesting. I do believe that red-light running is a big problem in Peoria. Is the shortening of the yellow lights the reason for the increase in crashes? I can see why there would be an increase in revenue initially after installing the cameras, but wouldn’t people catch on and stop running the red lights (making driving in Peoria safer and eventually decreasing revenue)?
Considering most (not all, but most) traffic signals in Peoria have pedestrian countdown timers that countdown until the yellow light comes on, there’s few reasons to run reds in this town.
That being said, it should be only fair then to make sure these countdown timers are installed and functioning properly at any intersections considered for red light cameras to be used as a motorist aid as well as to improve pedestrian safety. The countdown timer effectively adds another light to the red/yellow/green scheme, warning when green turns to yellow.
Does this not smell like Big Brother to anyone? If this was about safety this would not even be considered since the evidence points that these increase the likely hood of accidents.
If accidents increase at intersections that will police away from patroling the more dangerous areas of town. This is nothing more but a revenue scheme dressed in the name of public safety.
If the state does anything with red light cameras it should be to outlaw them.
They didn’t say it was about improving safety – what’s wrong with it being strictly about revenue? I don’t think it’s any worse than other revenue sources the city has tried. Not likely given what choices the city council seems to amke with funds that are available but maybe just maybe the red light revenue could fund some police officers, or street repairs or salt (instead of sand) for the streets.
Is anyone not concerned about big brother?
The cities revenue problem will not be fixed with numerous band-aid approaches. Its going to take cutting corporate candy (enterprise zones, tifs etc.) and scrutizing every service to see if that should be a govt responsiblity.
Sad the city can’t get there neighborhood cameras working and expand that system. they were granted $$$ from Illinois American water for that system. What has become of that system?
I work downtown and walk 3 blocks to get my car everynight. I probably see someone run a red light 3 out of 5 nights a week. This is at 5 pm. Everyone is in such a hurry to get home, they disregard the lights.
I lived in Chicago before coming to Peoria and there are red light cameras all over Chicago. I see nothing wrong with them. I don’t think you should expect a right to privacy on the streets. I don’t see this as a big brother issue at all.
Rear end collisions increase dramatically because people are literally slamming on their brakes in order to avoid a possible ticket.
I lived in Madison County where there are red light traffic cameras installed. I will say that it does force people to stop when the light is yellow, so for some areas it may have a calming effect on traffic.
I agree with one; doesn’t anyone care about the city government watching your every traffic move? I agree that people should respect the City’s traffic laws, but I am not for having someone looking over my shoulder all of the time. I left my parent’s house along time ago, I don’t need to have someone else take over!
One other thing: normally citizens are willing to trade a little freedom for safety. With photo enforcement it looks like we lose some of our freedom, and get nothing in return!
For those of us who are against red light traffic traffic cameras forget about lobbying the city council. Without one person advocating them 7 members of the council in key test vote, voted in favor of them. After all they (the city council) are to stubborn to ever learn from their mistakes look at them standing by the Marriot despite all the Midtown evidence.
We need to be concerned about what the state does. Lets lobby our state senator or representative in a RESPECTFUL AND EDUCATED MATTER. There is seven of them and thousands of us citizens. There is strength in numbers.