Give a red light to red-light cameras

© 2008 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” – Ansel Adams

My town will soon have red-light cameras. The automated “Robocop” red light and speeding cameras are either a blessing or a curse depending on who you talk to. Which will it be?

The issue has three parts: First, do the cameras do what they set out to do, namely, stop T-bone accidents? Second, are mailed tickets a legitimate action of our government? Third, overall, do the cameras make our streets safer?

We have lots of data; however, the data is not what our leaders want to see. Example: In Lubbock, Texas, their citizen’s panel reviewing the data published a report earlier this year and recommended that the red-light program be discontinued after only six months. Why? Accidents were up 52 percent at the red-light intersections, while the total number of intersection accidents for Lubbock was down 2 percent. Citizens were needlessly getting injured. They paid money to have a problem.

Further, a Washington Post study showed that the technology did not reduce collisions or injuries since the number of accidents increased. Likewise, a report about the cameras in Portland, Oregon, showed a 140-percent increase in read-end collisions.

Is Las Cruces different from these cities? Doubtful. So why will we not get the same results? That is what I want to know.

I agree we need to stop T-bone accidents. The problem is that T-bone accidents on average happen at the five-second mark. Red-light cameras will record the accidents but not prevent them.

It is true that there is no other real way to catch scofflaws who enter the intersection just as the light has turned red. Our angst at drivers who extend the yellow light to red is much different than being troubled by catastrophic T-bone accidents.

Tickets being mailed to citizens do not bother me. We already do that with parking tickets. The core is not whether this is the legitimate role of government, but rather, does it work?

Are we safer?

What we need to assess is: Are we safer with this technology in our town? No.

My objection is that the technology focuses driver attention away from critical areas of the driving situation and is a giant distraction from the total scene. We already have way too much visual clutter at our intersections. Drivers must watch two things: the intrusions from cross streets and the actions of the vehicle ahead. We watch the light, but our attention must be to make sure we take radical evasive action if someone either on foot or in a vehicle intrudes from our left and right.

Drivers get very flinchy about getting an automated ticket, so they focus not on the traffic but on the light and on their speedometer. There is only so much attention available, what are they in risk of doing? They might run over someone stumbling into their traffic lane while they are busy looking elsewhere.

Like taxes and old age, we cannot stop this from happening. But unlike taxes and old age we can react to the data gained. I would like to see an independent citizen review committee with complete access to the data on accidents, tickets and collection issues.

For one thing, we should not learn to like the money from the fines. I think if they want to extinguish the behavior, do not let the scofflaws whip their credit card out. Instead, put the thinking cap on and charge them inconvenience such as having to spend a day for every ticket in an eight-hour class on better driving.

The issue here is that some municipalities grow dependent upon the traffic fines to balance their budgets. Any attempt to extinguish the driving behavior is then in opposition to the needs of the municipality. Not that they will come right out and say so. But, the ticket revenue in some towns is significant and those towns may not have a backup if the drivers stop violating the law.

This is very stupid because there is nothing more important than the safety of the citizens. If towns need the violations to balance their budgets, then they are doing what they are doing for the wrong reason and nothing of importance can be achieved. It is like the old joke: A guy goes into a psychiatrist and says that his brother has thought he was a chicken for the last two years. “Why haven’t you brought him in sooner?” the psychiatrist asks. “We needed the eggs.”

Government action can make things worse

Finally, we need to really look at why people violate traffic laws. There are drivers who consciously violate the law. It is important to find these people and take their driving privileges away until they change their attitude. Others, through inattention and preoccupation with other things, violate unknowingly. Also, sometimes the traffic engineering contributes to the problem.

One study showed that if the yellow light was lengthened by a second, there was something like a 95 percent drop in violations. Why not do this instead of the cameras? Oh, you need the eggs, eh?

If this technology makes our little slice of heaven safer, I will thank our leaders for their insight and leadership. If it does not, I want them to admit it and take the appropriate actions to terminate this program quickly.

We have to admit that government action can make things worse.

Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.

Comments are closed.