Citizens For Safer Streets
The Issues
PHOTO ENFORCEMENT FACTS
Cameras Can't Prevent Accidents
Even the companies that sell cameras to cities are being forced to admit that a camera can't prevent an accident. Charles Territo, an executive at camera company ATS admitted in the media that "The cameras can't prevent accidents". The fact is, most red light violation accidents are caused by things cameras have no effect on such as; intoxication, weather conditions, emergency vehicle action or distracted driving. A camera can only stand by quietly and watch the accident unfold.
Cameras Have been associated with an Increase in Accidents
Numerous impartial studies have come out indicating that installing cameras are very likely to cause more of the problem they are supposed to cure. Here in Texas we saw accidents increase in Houston, Baytown and League City. Lubbock saw an increase in accidents as well and were smart enough to get rid of the program after they saw how dangerous they made their intersections.
There are Better, Less Controversial Methods
If safety were truly the focus of cities that install cameras they would exhaust all other methods that are proven to reduce violations and accidents. Rarely, if ever, do they explore other options. There are several proven engineering improvements that improve safety. Simply lengthening the yellow light by one second has reduced violations and accidents as high as 96%! Several cities have removed cameras after lengthening their yellow timing and saw violations fall to nearly zero! You can read about the importance of signal timing along with real world examples HERE
Photo Enforcement Programs Violate Our Rights
Running a red light or speeding is normally a crime. Not so if you are accused by a camera instead of a police officer. If you are unjustly accused of a criminal violation the state has to prove their case against you in open court and you have the right to a jury trial. In Texas a camera "ticket" really isn't really a ticket at all. It is a "notice of violation". You are accused of violating a city ordinance, not the state law against running a red light. The way the law is written for red light camera "tickets" they do not even have to prove you were driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. In fact, if the notice of violation gets lost in the mail (they are sent regular mail, not registered or hand delivered) the law says failure to respond is an admission of liability! That's right, you are assumed guilty until you prove your innocence! That isn't very American.
Photo Enforcement Benefits The Worst Drivers
The problem is, when cameras go up the worst red light runners quickly catch on to the fact that they can simply throw away their ticket and keep running red lights without any real penalty. Red light camera violations are civil, not criminal. That means those that don't pay won't get arrested, have their vehicle impounded and won't even have it go against their credit or driving record! Worse, many cities have seen a reduction in officer initiated traffic stops for running red lights after they installed cameras. With fewer officer initiated stops there are fewer opportunities for the officer to check for arrest warrants, illegal drugs or weapons and actually take that red light runner off of the streets. Due to a fault in the way red light cameras are designed violators can run a red light long after the light is red and never even trigger the camera! The entire system is built on the fact that generally law abiding people will send in their fines. Those drivers aren't the ones creating most of the accidents but are the ones paying most of the money in.
Photo Enforcement is against the will of the people
There have been enough public votes around the country that we can confidently say that photoenforcement is not supported by the American public. Photo enforcement has NEVER survived a public vote. Not even once. The idea goes against our American ideals of freedom, privacy and undeniable constitutional rights. Nearly every vote on the cameras had a camera company commissioned poll claiming wide support for cameras. In every case their polls were proven to be wrong. Yet they still quote polling and claim they have public support for their programs.
The Fox is Guarding the Hen House
The entire red light camera program is sold, installed, enforced and maintained by for profit corporations, not safety professionals or law enforcement officers. They put up the equipment, they send out the notices and they collect the fines. The last thing these corporations want is for red light running to go down. They don't care how many red lights someone might run as long as they pay. The more people run red lights the more revenue they get. These corporations have a proven track record of manipulating or even fabricating statistics in order to make their programs look better than they are, all so they can pitch their cameras to the next town with half truths or outright lies. They spend millions of dollars on PR campaigns, astroturf organizations, lawsuits and lobbying politicians in order to protect their interests and get favorable legislation. They sue and harrass individuals that dare to speak out against them or try to stop their programs. They do not care about our safety.
