Lacey's red light cameras head to court

Yesterday, as my wife and I drove through Lacey, we watched as several citizens were photographed running solid reds at Sleater-Kinney and Pacific. The darkness of overcast skies accentuated the flash. They're working, I thought. As in, the cameras are on. But are they really working?

The Olympian reports this morning that the first batch of citations have entered the court system. So far, not so good, at least from an enforcement perspective:

The nine people who appeared Friday before Thurston County District Judge Susan Dubuisson were the first to go to court to challenge the $124 tickets issued under Lacey's red-light photo enforcement program.... Dubuisson ended up upholding the full fine for just one person, Evaline Fuik of Olympia....

She dismissed three tickets. John Kenney, an elderly man who's hard of hearing, testified that his caregiver, not he, was driving the car at the time of the infraction; under the law, the cameras can only take pictures of the license plates and not the occupants. Lacey city prosecutor Joe Svoboda moved to dismiss and said the caregiver could receive a ticket.

We have no idea, right now, how many citations have been issued, and whether the cameras are anywhere near cost-effective, never mind effective, never mind fair from a due process standpoint.

Any system that drags the geriatric owner of a vehicle into court when the caretaking driver is at fault has a few flaws. My wife, furthermore, is certain that a few red light runners were missed by the system. If the error rate potentially tops 33%--that's simply unacceptable.*

Here's another bothersome point:

American Traffic Solutions is charging the city $9,200 a month to operate the two cameras. The city will receive money only if fines collected cover the fees and unpaid balances. The city needs to collect fines from 75 violations each month to pay costs.

What we don't need: extra pressure on our judges to meet a subtle quota.

Longer yellows are just too cheap and efficacious, I guess.




Oh, and the tacky tie is Thursday's. I wore it for "Do Work Day." I dressed, appropriately, as a judge.


*Of course, not knowing how many citations aren't being challenged, this number is a total back-of-the-envelope calculation; it could be a wild overestimate, or, depending on how many violators the system misses, it could be an underestimate. That we don't know the number is problematic enough on its own.

red light cameras: no deterrent this time

The Olympian is still optimistic, now that the cash is about to flow from Lacey's red light cameras.

Cameras have become a necessity given the epidemic of red-light violations in the South Sound region.

Greg Cuoio, Lacey city manager, defends the move to cameras, saying, “We’re not entering into this to generate revenue. It’s truly a safety issue.”

And that’s why red-light cameras are a good thing. If they prevent just one high-speed T-bone accident with injuries or death, they will be a success. And if they convince motorists to obey the law and stop for every red light, well, that’s an added bonus.

Tell that to the guy in the Terminix truck early this afternoon. I drove into the intersection at Pacific and College just as the light turned yellow. Fearing a short yellow, the kind cities institute to instigate offenses, I accelerated slightly, not going to be the chump with the ticket. Good thing, too. Terminix Truck Guy was running the light, camera be damned. He nearly rear-ended me. In the rearview, I saw him chatting on his cell phone, oblivious.

Yep. Those red-light cameras are the answer.

red light cameras redlighted

One of the best summaries of the red light camera debate is available from MSNBC today:

Last week, Dallas officials reviewed the numbers and decided that a quarter of the cameras they had installed to catch motorists running red lights were too effective. So they shut them down.

They are not alone. Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to cameras at intersections — resulting in fewer ticketable violations and ever-shrinking revenue from fines — municipalities across the country are reconsidering red light cameras, which often work too well.

When they don't work, which is also often, they're either counterproductive or just too expensive. We're right back where we began.

(Longer-lasting yellow lights, on the other hand, are safe--and cheap.)

red light cameras make things worse

My skepticism about red light cameras only grows. A careful study of multiple datasets reveals a painful truth:

Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Florida’s elderly drivers, the researchers recommend.

The report was published this month in the Florida Public Health Review, the online journal of the college and the Florida Public Health Association.

“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.

“Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”

Worse than useless. Counterproductive--and harmful.

[Via the inimitable Radley Balko]

red light cameras under fire in Ohio

This blogger is quite skeptical about the relative efficacy of red light cameras (click here and scroll to see skepticism in action). Most of my doubt is empirical: ticketing red-light runners might reduce some red-light running, but not as much as lengthening light times, and at the risk of increasing rear-end accidents and expanding the ever-bloated nanny state.

In Ohio, though, the cameras are under legal fire for creating a conflict between jurisdictions.

At issue before the Supreme Court is whether the city's use of civil fines for traffic infractions captured on camera lodged against the vehicle's owner and not the driver, violates state home-rule laws.

Stephen Fallis, a city of Akron assistant law director, told the justices that the local laws established with the traffic cameras are a complement to existing state laws and help ensure safety around schools and high-accident areas.

Akron attorneys Warner Mendenhall and Tony Dalayanis argued that the camera laws are in direct conflict with existing state statutes. They contend local governments are exceeding their authority by creating a branch of civil penalties attached to existing traffic laws.

They also said the civil penalties assessed by the city circumvent state laws that call for points being placed on a driver's license and fines being paid through local courts.

The argument of constitutional issues such as due process protections were not part of the arguments before the Supreme Court. That could come later.

The ruling is expected in about 3 months. Though Washington, to my knowledge, has no similar legal situation, let's hope the publicity of the Ohio case spurs citizens to ask tough questions of revenue-hungry municipalities.

[via Popular Mechanics via Instapundit]

but Jesus paid my toll, officer

When examining The Olympian's ill-informed support for Lacey's red light camera experiment, I never even mentioned the possibility of wrongful ticketing. The paper's "trust the government" stance doesn't go off quite as well in today's story about the new Tacoma Narrows toll bridge:

Bickle, who drives tractor-trailer rigs across the bridge on a regular basis, said he has a transponder in his rig, but got a ticket for the trailer. Sensors in the roadway are supposed to count tractor-trailer axles and automatically debit individual toll accounts for the correct amount.

"I really don't want to waste a day off to go fight a ticket I shouldn't have gotten in the first place," he said.

More than 12,000 tickets have been issued for failing to pay the $3 cash or $1.75 electronic toll on the bridge since the Washington State Patrol began enforcing toll violations July 22, a week after the bridge opened.

Most of those citations probably are legitimate, said Chuck Ramey, administrator for Pierce County District Court, which is processing the tickets.

But some aren't. And no one knows yet how many drivers have gotten tickets they don't deserve.

In its defense, at least the Lacey camera scheme provides an easy way to check and challenge a citation.

The Olympian loves Big Brother

The paper comes out in favor of Lacey's red light camera experiment, giving no thought to the solution that would almost entirely eliminate the problem--longer yellows and longer four-way reds--and adopting wholesale the tenets of the surveillance society.

Under the state law authorizing red light cameras, the equipment can only capture video of a vehicle and its license plate, not the occupants. That should silence some of the opponents who see the cameras as an invasion of privacy.

But let's face it. Cameras are everywhere in society today.

Pull into a gasoline station and you are on video. Grocery and convenience store cameras capture our every move. Many merchants use video cameras to nab shoplifters. Intercity Transit recently installed cameras in an effort to hold rowdy passengers accountable. And we all know that cameras are a crucial part of the security systems at casinos and banks. Even homeowners have cameras in place as part of their security systems.

Monitoring intersections is a natural extension of cameras.

That's how rights are lost: as a "natural extension" of other losses.

Even if you're unafraid of further surveillance, though, you have to wonder why the city is so bent on a costly solution. It costs nothing to make intersections safer.

the real success of red light cameras

Seattle sees a 33% drop in red-light violations, and calls its camera ticketing scheme a success:

As of May 31, Seattle police issued 13,966 citations based on footage from the cameras, after screening 14,672 incidents.

The resulting fines — at $101 per citation — resulted in $901,056 in revenue, which goes to the city's general fund.

"So far, everything that we've looked at, from reducing the amount of injury, to the level of injury, has been successful," Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said.

He said he wants the program to grow.

Increasing yellow light times by even 1 second could reduce violations by 53%, though--and even just improving signal visibility would cut violations by a quarter. The real success of the program isn't a modest decrease in risk, but a major increase in revenue. Safety second.

red light cameras vs. longer yellows

Why I'm even more skeptical of Lacey's plan to add red light cameras: in Lubbock, the city is gaming the system, shortening yellow light times below safety thresholds.

More interesting, that same city engineer promised the Lubbock city council last year that he wouldn't increase yellow light times at intersections with cameras. In a telling moment of candor, Jere Hart told the city council that though the public prefers longer yellow cycles, and though studies show longer yellows dramatically reduce red-light running and collisions, lengthening them would cut into the expected revenue the cameras are expected to generate.

Why don't we go with what's cheap, and actually works?

(Don't answer. Rhetorical question.)

red light cameras ticket wrong cars

When I first read that Lacey is adding red light cameras to reduce red-light-running (after installing useless and expensive "blue lights" that stop no one), I was skeptical. What's the rate of effectiveness? Are there false positives?

In today's paper, a Mike Carrington of Lacey bashes the decision.

Concerning the cameras at street corners, unfortunately, published articles have been devoid of facts citing the numbers of the dreaded T-bone accidents that the cameras are hoping to prevent. Exactly how many accidents of this nature have really occurred at these intersections and what was the total cost versus cost of new cameras and their maintenance and monitoring?

The powers that be seem willing to be led by the hands of the camera sellers and justify their positions with, “Everyone else is doing it.” That’s anemic rationale. The problem is with traffic control. Lights that stay red when no autos are coming are prevalent and should be remedied.

Commenting on the story, reader Do It writes,

Don't run the red light and you won't get your pic taken nor get a ticket. Run the red light and you get what you deserve. How simple is that!

But consider the problem Cleveland drivers have with the lights.

Bill and Sue Faber of Massillon said they haven't been in Cleveland for six months, but the city sent them a ticket.

"No way we could be in Cleveland," Faber said.

"Do you have witnesses for that?" Pohlman asked.

"Yes, we do," Faber said.

Yet Cleveland sent the ticket showing a car speeding, but the plate belongs to the Faber's truck.

Pohlman said you can't read the license in the picture at all. He said it appears Cleveland guessed and sent the ticket anyway.

"I always thought we were always innocent until proven guilty and now I find it's guilty until I can prove I'm innocent," Faber said.

After NewsChannel5 got involved, the city backed off, writing a letter informing the Fabers that the city made a mistake.

Think it's just the guilty who have to watch out? Think again.

red light? green light!

Lacey is another metropolis succumbing to the lure of red-light cameras.

A Lacey City Council committee has authorized Police Chief Dusty Pierpoint to start the enforcement program. Pierpoint said he'd like the program up and running by July with cameras monitoring two intersections - likely ­Sleater-Kinney Road and Pacific Avenue, and Martin Way and Marvin Road.

Remember those blue lights that were installed at the intersection of Martin and Pacific? They were supposed to do the same thing. From The Olympian, April 22, 2003:

The police department has a new tool to deter motorists who run red lights. Called red-light indicators, these blue lights attached to traffic signals make catching violators easier. The light is attached to the back of the traffic signal and turns on the same moment as the red light.

They worked so well.

Anyhow, here's the funniest line of the story: "...the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - which describes itself as an independent, nonprofit organization funded by auto insurers..."