When the first red light camera is activated, there will be a 30 day warning period for drivers. What does that mean? It means the cameras will be functional and red light violators will be identified and issued warning Notice of Violation (similar to a civil summons). This will allow drivers to have a grace period for getting used to operation of the cameras and allows the Police Department time to ensure equipment and procedures are in place and working correctly.

The purpose of the red light cameras is pretty straightforward—reduce red-light running at camera monitored intersections and reducing angle collisions. The simplest way to understand an angle collision is to envision the front of one vehicle impacting the side of another vehicle. There are more technical aspects to explaining an angle collision, but it would only muddy an otherwise easy explanation. Red light cameras are on standalone mounts at select intersections. There will be advisory signs letting motorists know an intersection has a red light camera operating; there is nothing secret squirrel about the location of the cameras. We are attempting to reduce accidents, not generate revenue.

Before we explain how red light cameras work, we must make sure certain facts are understood. The first thing we need to understand is what is considered running a red light. To be considered as running a red light, the vehicle must enter the intersection after the light has already turned RED. The intersection is defined and generally marked with solid white stop bar on each road entering an intersection. Running a yellow light or the light turning red while a person’s vehicle is trapped in an intersection awaiting an opportunity to turn (e.g. waiting to turn left) will not register as a red light violation. Also, if a right turn on red is allowed at an intersection, the motor vehicle operator must come to a complete stop at the stop bar line, before making the turn. A complete stop means total cessation of movement. Now that the criterion for running a red light has been explained, we will explain how the red light camera operates.

Clarksville’s red light cameras are set up to automatically photograph the rear license plate when a driver runs a red light. The red light camera is also set up to both photograph and video the red light violation. The red light camera is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors that monitor traffic flow at the crosswalk or stop line. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal 24/7, and the camera itself is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a pre-established minimum speed and following a specified time after the signal has turned red. The video typically runs for a total of 12 seconds. A second photograph typically shows the red light violator in the intersection. Cameras record the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, and vehicle speed.

Once a red light violation takes place, the process in place prior to actually issuing a Notice of Violation (similar to a civil summons) involves multiple reviews by Redflex and law enforcement. It all starts out with the recording of a red violation at an intersection. The details of the violation will be automatically electronically downloaded to a REDFLEX Traffic Systems Database. REDFLEX does an initial review of the data to see whether there are violations which meet the exemption criteria, such as: emergency vehicles operating with emergency equipment (lights and sirens), vehicle clearing an intersection allowing emergency vehicles through, funeral processions going through an intersection, etc. Also, during this time frame, vehicle registration information is looked up to determine who the registered owner of the vehicle is. The violations appearing to be valid are electronically sent to the Clarksville Police Department for review and validation. After validation, the information is electronically sent back to Redflex. Redflex sends the Notice of Violation by mail to owners of the violating vehicle following review by trained police officers of the photographic evidence.

After the violator receives the Notice of Violation, they can send the payment to the address in the packet or there are options available to dispute the citation. The violator will be able to review the photographic information associated with the red light violation via any computer connected to the internet or they can come by Clarksville Police Department to review the photographic information on Wednesdays from 1 p.m. – 4 p.m. or Thursdays 9 a.m. – 12 p.m. unless it’s a holiday. . Each person will be provided a password to allow them to review the information online. Also, each person has an option to have their case heard by a judge. The paper work is located in the packet with the Notice of Violation. There must be some type of action completed within 30 calendar days from issue of the Notice of Violation. If there is not some sort of disposition in 30 days, a Final Notice of Violation will be sent to the violator. If there is no action taken within 15 days after the Final Notice, the data will be turned over to a collection agency for action.

The citations are considered non-moving violations and there are no points assessed against the licenses and are not reported to the state or the insurance company. The tickets will cost $50.00. If a person wants to contest the violation and the case is heard by a judge and found liable (guilty), the cost will be $135.75.

If a claim is made by the vehicle owner that someone else was operating the vehicle at the time of the red light violation, they can submit an affidavit identifying the vehicle operator’s information. The citation will be issued to the individual identified as the operator and they have the same options available as anyone else that was issued a citation.

The Clarksville Police Department will closely assess the success or failure of the red light cameras to determine whether they are accomplishing the desired intent—reducing accidents. Lt Gary Hurst will oversee the Clarksville Police Dept’s Red Light Camera Program. He can be reached at 931-648-0656, ext 2111.

About Jim Knoll

Jim Knoll is the Public Information Officer for the Clarksville Police Department

In our society an innocent person does not have to fear the intrusion of government into their lives. They won’t be followed by dark men with dark intentions unless of course they commit a crime. Automated enforcement cameras will change our free society to one where everyone is constantly watched, a potential criminal.

We all feel a guilty pleasure when we see someone who proceeds through a signaled  intersection while we stop, getting pulled over for a ticket. There is even a term for it… Schadenfreude: Happiness at the misfortune of others. While it might feel good, these cameras come at a cost: your money, your civil rights, and your civil liberties.

The first cameras have not yet been installed, however, city officials hungry for easy revenue have announced that they already plan to expand their camera programs. They have already authorized red-light cameras, and are now considering installing mobile and fixed speed cameras, and stop sign cameras. These cameras don’t stop accidents; they simply allow the city to profit from technical violations  the vast majority of which, do not result in accidents. The sad thing is these cameras have a rather nasty side affect, they increase accidents, damage, injuries, and fatalities. Don’t take my word for it, go and read the studies for yourself!

Why stop there when enforcment cameras can be used for many other purposes?

Current speed cameras measure your speed at a fixed point. Newer speed cameras can track you between cameras and measure your speed over time. If they decide you momentarily exceeded the speed limit, they can ticket you. They can check the depth of your tire treads, and ticket you if your tires don’t meet their criteria.  I imagine that it will not be too long until they figure out how to check to see if your car’s window tint is a touch too dark.

Cameras can read your license plate as you drive by and charge you a fee for driving when big brother doesn’t want you to.

Cameras exist to detect gun shots, loud arguments, party noise, or that TV that momentarily goes a bit too loud when obnoxious advertisers crank the volume level up during a commercial break.

Cameras can be used to allow the police to track potential criminals, or a crooked politician can use them to track their political opponents every move, all without even leaving their desk. These traffic enforcement cameras can recognize your face and automatically track and record your every move and association, even if you are happen to be in another state, or clear across the country.

Cameras can monitor your behavior and if its algorithms thinks that you are acting in a suspicious manner it can then notify the police. I guess we all better start practicing how to be normal!

Cameras can be placed on residential streets to peer through your windows into your living room or bedroom.  Heck cameras can even peer through your walls,  or clothing.

Check out this video and you will see where this can end up, if we idly stand by and do nothing.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The sad thing is all this can be done without a judge issuing a single warrant.

We have all seen movies like Demolition Man where fleeting moments of profanity are instantly issued fines. Or Tom Cruise’s movie Minority Report where intrusive surveillance is constant and police robots are allowed to enter your home at any time without any repercussions.

This is the future we face people, however we stand at a pivotal point in time where we still can say no.

Take Action

Call your City Council members, the Mayor, your State Legislators, and your Congressmen and tell them all over and over again that we don’t want our hard earned liberty giving way to a constant surveillance society! It’s time to ban automated enforcement cameras before they get entrenched.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Gallatin is not alone. At least nine other communities in Tennessee, including Knoxville, Chattanooga, Germantown, Murfreesboro, and Jackson currently operate these devices.¹ Other Tennessee communities considering their use include Clarksville, Morristown, Cookeville, La Follette, and Oak Ridge. Additionally, Chattanooga, Jackson, Mount Carmel, Red Bank, and Selmer have begun using speed cameras, similar devices used to capture speeding motorists.²

Four companies provide most of the red light camera systems used in Tennessee. Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions installed the systems in Gallatin, Jackson, and Red Bank.³ Another company based in California, Redflex Traffic Systems, contracted with Kingsport, Knoxville, and Mount Carmel to provide similar services.⁴ Murfreesboro uses TraffiPax, a subsidiary of a German company.⁵ Germantown has the longest-running system, put in place in 2002 by Rhode Island-based Nestor Traffic Systems.⁶

What is a Red Light Camera System?

Red Light Cameras are sophisticated surveillance systems designed to catch drivers who run red lights. Though the majority of the systems in Tennessee focus on red light runners, some police speed limits, while others do both. They work through a complex system of triggers, cameras and computers.⁷

Drivers “caught” typically receive a citation by mail within a few weeks of the incident. These citations are a cash cow for municipalities. In 2007, the City of Gallatin issued almost 20,000 citations, a number equal to more than half the town’s population.⁸ The City collected nearly $1 million in fines attributable to the cameras, not including court costs associated with defendants who chose to appear in court and contest their fines. According to the citations, defendants must pay the fine. The only other option is to assign liability to another party by submitting an affidavit stating that the defendant was not driving the vehicle at the time.⁹

The Stated Justification

Red light camera systems attract the attention of communities looking to reduce their operating expenses. In theory, the systems reduce the number of paid officers on duty, thereby decreasing overhead expenses. Additionally, the devices work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with little or no maintenance. A single officer typically reviews the film footage before citations are sent.

Communities implementing these systems primarily cite safety as the reason to install the cameras. According to these cities, the cameras will punish those who create dangerous conditions by running red lights, encouraging them to act more cautiously in the future. Further, the known existence of the cameras is said to encourage drivers to begin braking when the light turns yellow, rather than increasing their speed to “beat the light.”

Follow the Money: The Real Reason

While cities claim that safety, deterrence, and cost-reduction are their ultimate priorities in camera system installations, revenue statements indicate otherwise. Cities that employ the devices see a dramatic spike in revenue for traffic violations. Revenues collected by the City of Kingsport during the 2006 calendar year, just before camera installation, totaled $342,150 for traffic fines, parking fines, and code enforcement fines.¹⁰ From 2001 to 2006, such fines ranged from $167,998 to $358,014 per year.¹¹ Traffic cameras were installed on Dec. 27, 2006.¹² Not surprisingly, fines skyrocketed. Kingsport collected $1,529,823 in the year after the cameras were installed, more than four times the revenue from the previous year (see “Figure 1: Kingsport Fine Collections,” right).¹³

The most alarming aspect of this revenue generation is where the money goes. The camera companies enter into agreements with the cities, install the cameras, and sit back and let the cities do the dirty work. After collecting the fines from unsuspecting drivers, each city remits from 45 to 85 percent of the money to the companies. Thus, the cities’ actual revenue generated typically amounts to less than half that collected in fines (see “Figure 2: Fines Remitted by Municipalities to Camera Companies,” below).

The Problems: Collusion, Safety Decline, Constitutional Violations

Collusion

It is common for government to contract with private companies to provide services or goods to the public that the government ordinarily would supply. In fact, numerous private companies provide public services such as corrections facilities, fire and rescue service, and trash collection. Most often, privatized services are far more efficient and cost-effective than government could provide. According to a study conducted by the Reason Foundation, the federal government has saved taxpayers $7.2 billion over the past five years by privatizing services.¹⁴

However, when a private company obtains its entire profit from fines collected through traffic violation enforcement, many serious problems arise. Even more troubling is that, in certain cases, companies themselves are responsible for conducting police business. The agreement between the City of Germantown and Nestor provides that the company, not the city, is responsible for mailing citations and attempting to collect the fines.¹⁵

Since the contracts between the Tennessee cities and the camera companies stipulate that a large portion of the fines collected are to be remitted to the companies, the companies certainly have a strong interest to encourage a large number of fines. In many cases, the companies are reimbursed on a fine-by-fine basis. The cities pad their coffers with the remaining revenue generated by the systems. Hence, the two entities claiming to reduce the number of intersection accidents by deterring red light running have a vested interest in an increase in the number of drivers running red lights.

Simply put, increased obedience to traffic signals would significantly reduce revenues for both parties. If safety is truly the primary objective, these systems should eventually work themselves out of business, since red light running would end. Of course, that is not the goal of either the companies or the cities.

Unfortunately, the problem extends well beyond the local level. A May 2001 report by Dick Armey, then Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, concludes that citations generated by such cameras are a “federal issue and not just a local one.”¹⁶ The federal government is partially funding their implementation based on the purported “safety” benefits.¹⁷ Thus, not only are cities fining motorists to boost corporate revenues for companies based in other states and countries, but Congress is spending tax dollars to implement the systems.

Safety Decline

Numerous concerns also arise out of the traffic accidents associated with installing these camera systems. Various studies, including the Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras, by the Federal Highway Administration, arrived at two conclusions: the devices reduce right-angle (Tbone) collisions, but increase rear-end collisions.¹⁸ Further, as one commentator suggests, the accuracy of statistical information disseminated by red light camera proponents is dubious. Engineer Dale Gedcke, PhD, noted in a report earlier this year that statistics related to red light cameras are problematic for two reasons. First, the “number of accidents reported before and after [red light camera] installation is so small that the statistical uncertainty in those numbers obscures any trend.” Second, “there are so many confounding variables [weather, day of the week, traffic flow, construction projects, etc.], that it is extremely difficult to extract the true effect of [red light cameras] without removing the effect of those confounding variables.”¹⁹

Keeping this statistical uncertainty in mind, data provided by Tennessee cities using red light cameras showed no significant overall decline in the number of accidents at camera-stationed intersections. Accidents reported by the City of Chattanooga declined at certain intersections, while increasing at others between January 2006 and May 2008.²⁰

The Armey Report identifies a “Dilemma Zone” in which drivers cannot properly go or stop. It concludes that the zone, in concert with improperly adjusted yellow light duration times, is responsible for an increase in the numbers of accidents at intersections having red light cameras.

This makes sense. The yellow light exists to provide drivers time to make a decision. If they have enough time, drivers should come to a safe stop at the intersection. If not, drivers should have just enough time to continue through the intersection before the light turns red. Shortening the yellow light time forces drivers into even quicker decisions. Accordingly, the likelihood that drivers will make the wrong decision increases.

Interestingly, most controversy surrounding yellow light times coincides with the locations of intersections with red light cameras. Shortening yellow light duration to less than three seconds is a violation of Tennessee state law.²¹ Nonetheless, some Tennessee communities have tampered with the duration of yellow lights at intersections with cameras, creating inconsistency. In early 2008, Chattanooga was forced to refund $8,800 to defendants when the discrepancy was discovered.²²

Nashville also is suspected of shortening yellow light duration. In 2006, Nashville resident Joe Savage clocked inconsistent durations of yellow lights in the Capital City.²³ The Nashville Scene later confirmed his findings.²⁴ Not surprisingly, Tennessee has plenty of company. Other communities around the country – including Springfield, Missouri; Lubbock and Dallas, Texas; and Union City, California – face similar charges.

Predictably, an increase in yellow light duration time by only one second has been shown to reduce accidents by up to 40 percent.²⁵ In the city of Mesa, Arizona, a one-second increase in the duration of yellow lights yielded a 73 percent decrease in the number of citations issued by red light cameras.²⁶ Other areas experienced similar declines in revenue through increasing yellow light duration times, including Fort Collins, Colorado, and the Commonwealth of Virginia, which experienced a 94 percent decrease of citations by increasing yellow light durations by 1.5 seconds.²⁷ Virginia has since halted the use of red light cameras.

The mere presence of the watchful cameras encourages drivers to attempt to stop at yellow lights even if passing through the light would be safer. Coupled with a decrease in yellow light timing, this can readily explain the increase in the number of rear-end collisions that occur at intersections with red light cameras.

Unfortunately, most cities that use the cameras have failed to acknowledge the simple solution of yellow light timing, and as Dr. Gedcke suggests, those cities place enforcement over more practical engineering solutions. In fact, “when [cameras] show up as a proposal, engineering studies and solutions are almost never referenced,” notes Dr. Gedcke.²⁸ His theory is that the cameras, primarily enforcement tools, are marketed directly to law enforcement officials, such as the city police chief. “Consequently,” states Gedcke, “the police department becomes the passionate advocate to the exclusion of the traffic engineering department.”²⁹ As a result, city leaders place potential revenue over safety.

Constitutional Infringement

Constitutional rights are infringed upon by the enforcement of the camera programs. The programs have faced numerous constitutional challenges. These challenges often fail on non-substantive grounds or are scoffed at by judges as titular and inconsequential, especially given the relatively small penalties involved.

A strong case can be made for constitutional violations on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedural challenges range from evidentiary matters to sufficiency of notice. Substantive issues include the Confrontation Clause, self-incrimination, search and seizure, equal protection, and most significantly, due process, by shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant to prove non-guilt.

Gallatin’s program is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by Wayne Detring, an attorney from Hendersonville who received two such citations in the mail. As of this publication, however, it appears likely that the case will be dismissed as moot because the city voluntarily dismissed the citations, presumably in an attempt to avoid an unfavorable ruling on the A.C.E.S. program. Such actions make it all the more difficult to challenge the legality of the programs.

The number of successful challenges to the tickets proves this point. Of the 15,133 fines issues by Kingsport in 2007 and 2008, only nine defendants were found not guilty. That makes for a 99.9 percent guilty rate. The sheer unlikelihood of successfully challenging the fines contributes to the continuity of the programs.

Despite this hurdle, in March 2008, Judge Thomas Philips of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee sent a clear message regarding the constitutionality of these devices in Williams v. Redflex. In his order granting dismissal of the case on procedural grounds, Judge Philips stated, “Although this plaintiff lacks standing, the court is constrained to observe that the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program raises numerous constitutional questions.”³⁰

Most communities have drafted civil, as opposed to criminal, statutes to prosecute these cases. Civil infractions are not reportable on driving records; hence, these communities count on Tennesseans not to challenge the system. Further, this linguistic maneuvering permits cities to skirt various constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants (including motorists cited for speeding violations) that are not invoked in civil cases. However, Tennessee case law negates this criminal versus civil distinction. Rather, the question turns not on the language used, but on whether the fine serves to remedy a violation (civil-like, and thus fewer constitutional implications) or whether it is punitive in nature (criminal-like, and thus invoking additional constitutional rights).³¹

Red light camera citations certainly fit within this criminal paradigm, because fining an individual who has already run a red light punishes that person for doing so, even if the end goal is to deter future running of red lights. Further, once the light has been run, the specific violation itself cannot be remedied. Contrast this from building and zoning violations, where civil fines properly entice violators to correct existing violations. This corroborates the notion that, although cities deem these fines to be civil, they are actually punitive, and additional constitutional protections should apply. Judge Philips made note of this Williams, stating that “[t]he key issue which must be resolved in these cases is whether the penalty imposed is civil or criminal. If the penalty is indeed criminal, then a panoply of federal constitutional rights, including rights to confrontation and rights against self-incrimination [will attach].”³²

For tickets issued prior to July 1, 2008, a crucial issue is the lack of service of process. The Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure require all complaints (including citations) be served upon defendants either personally or through certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. All cities in Tennessee that mail red light camera citations use regular mail to do so. This less protective process can lead to motorists being held liable for something they had no knowledge of whatsoever. It contravenes the entire notion of justice and fair play that serve as the basis for providing adequate notice to defendants in lawsuits.

The Tennessee General Assembly recently made it easier for municipalities to serve defendants with citations. As of July 1, 2008, cities operating camera programs no longer must comply with the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure regarding notice of service of process. Rather, they may send the citations via regular mail, without the protections the Rules are designed to afford.³³ This codification of bad policy makes it all the more difficult for private citizens to challenge the actions of municipalities.

Another key issue is the lack of compliance with the Federal and Tennessee Rules of Evidence, which require a party offering photographic evidence into trial to authenticate the photograph. Those who have chosen to fight their red light camera citations in court have almost always found a very relaxed standard to meet these evidentiary requirements. In most instances, judges do not require the municipality to lay any evidentiary foundation before the photographs are admitted as conclusive evidence that the defendant is guilty of the violation. Such a lax attitude violates individuals’ rights, erodes the integrity of the judicial system, and could lead to egregious practices by city officials. In an extreme case, with photo-shopping techniques, it is not unforeseeable that city officials in custody of the photographs could use technology to their advantage to create the opportunity for more revenues. The rules of evidence are designed to protect against this possibility, and their abandonment or even relaxed enforcement increases the likelihood of abuse.

The most insidious issue arising from the application of these cameras is the unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. A prevalent notion in the American criminal justice system is that defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Here, when defendants are presumed guilty until they prove otherwise, they have little chance of succeeding in court. This affront to both the United States and Tennessee constitutions makes challenging the legality of red light cameras all the more necessary, yet very difficult at the same time.

Conclusion

As the Armey Report notes, fixing the problems associated with these systems is more difficult because they generate millions of dollars in revenue. This conflict of interest creates no incentives for communities to solve the problem of red light running using other proven means, such as longer yellow light times.

To achieve actual reductions in red light running and related accidents, Tennessee cities should look to states such as Texas and Virginia, where red light cameras are being disassembled, and yellow light durations extended. A simple one-second increase in yellow light duration has proven to be a far safer alternative to red light cameras. If cities really wish to increase the safety of their citizens, they should utilize this simpler and more cost-effective option.

Lawmakers must realize the importance of constitutional safeguards and critically reevaluate the supposed benefits of red light camera systems. If the General Assembly and municipal governments are serious about the safety of Tennesseans, they should work to guarantee safety, not reduce it. If our state’s legislative bodies continue to tread on citizens’ rights, then it becomes imperative that state and federal courts breathe life into the Constitution. A properly engaged judiciary is one that takes people’s rights seriously and bucks the trend of legislative deference. Government policy should never serve to the detriment of the citizenry just to make a quick buck.

About the Authors

George Shifflett is a research associate at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. He can be reached at george at tennesseepolicy dot org.

Justin Owen, J.D., is the Director of Legal Policy at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. He can be reached at justin at tennesseepolicy dot org.

About the Tennessee Center for Policy Research

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization dedicated to providing concerned citizens, the media and public leaders with expert empirical research and timely free market policy solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee.

The Center generates and encourages public policy remedies grounded in the innovation of private enterprises, the ingenuity of individuals and the abilities of active communities to achieve a freer, more prosperous Tennessee.

Guarantee of Quality Scholarship

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is committed to delivering the highest quality and most reliable research on Tennessee policy issues. The Center guarantees that all original factual data are true and correct and that information attributed to other sources is accurately represented. The Center encourages rigorous critique of its research. If an error ever exists in the accuracy of any material fact or reference to an independent source, please bring the mistake to the Center’s attention with supporting evidence. The Center will respond in writing and correct the mistake in an errata sheet accompanying all subsequent distribution of the publication, which constitutes the complete and final remedy under this guarantee.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research is properly cited.

Copyright © 2008 by The Tennessee Center for Policy Research,

Nashville, Tennessee
P.O. Box 121331
Nashville, Tennessee 37212
(615) 383-6431 · Fax: (615) 383-6432

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org ·

References

• 1 “Communities using red light and/or speed cameras.” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 05 Aug. 2008.
• 2 Ibid.
• 3 “Red Light Camera Program.” City of Red Bank, Tennessee. 26 June 2008. ., “Open house held at GPD related the red light camera enforcement system.” Gallatin Police Department. 06 Sept. 2006. 26 June 2008.
• 4 “North American Presence.” Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., North America. 26 June 2008.
• 5 Willard, Michelle. “Red-light cameras go online Sunday.” The Murfreesboro Post 27 May 2008.
• 6 Garlington, Lela. “Germantown will add third traffic-light camera.” Commercial Appeal 25 Oct. 2007.
• 7 Harris, Tom. “How Red-light Cameras Work.” HowStuffWorks.com. 15 April 2008.
• 8 Storment, Corporal W. “Gallatin Police Department Interview.” Telephone interview. 25 Apr. 2008. Interview conducted by George Shifflett.
• 9 “City of Jackson Notice of Violation.” City of Jackson Police Department. 17 May 2008.
• 10 “Records Division.” Kingsport Police Department. 7 Mar. 2008. 20 Apr. 2008.
• 11 Ibid.
• 12 Agreement between Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. and Kingsport, Tennessee, ¶ 1.
• 13 Ibid.
• 14 Gilroy, Leonard C., ed. Annual Privatization Report. Rep. Reason Foundation. 2008. p 5.
• 15 Agreement between Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. and Germantown, Tennessee, Exhibit A, Section 3.
• 16 Armey, Rep. Dick. “The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?” Highway Robbery. May 2001. 10 June 2008.
• 17 Ibid.
• 18 Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. April 2005.
• 19 Gedcke, Dale. The Placebo Effect and Red-Light Cameras. 8 June 2008.
• 20 Data submitted by City of Chattanooga pursuant to open records request. Compiled by Ben Taylor, Traffic Engineering Department.
• 21 TENN. CODE ANN. § 55-8-110 (2008).
• 22 “Six Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit.” National Motorists Association. 26 Mar. 2008. 10 June 2008. light-times-for-profit/>.
• 23 Ibid.
• 24 Tobia, P.J. “Yellow Light Blues.” Nashville Scene 11 May 2006.
• 25 “Protest Red Light Cameras!” American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. 1 Nov. 2006. 15 June 2008.
• 26 Ibid.
• 27 Ibid.
• 28 Gedcke, Dale. Red Light Cameras (RLCs): Why Does Enforcement Trump Engineering? 22 June 2008.
• 29 Ibid.
• 30 Satterfield, Jamie. “Judge rejects red light lawsuit.” Knoxville News Sentinel 22 Mar. 2008.
• 31 City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248 (Tenn. 2001).
• 32 Satterfield, Jamie. “Judge rejects red light lawsuit.” Knoxville News Sentinel 22 Mar. 2008.
• 33 2008 Tenn. Pub. Acts 962.

Those who warned of the civil liberties issues with these cameras were 100% correct that they could be used to track and database the movement and associations of law abiding citizens. Why is this dangerous? Let’s say one day the government does something that you don’t like. Then, lawfully exercising your right to free speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance, you protest it. Suddenly you have popped up on the government’s radar screen. The government can then check the voluminous records they have already started keeping on Americans, such as travel and flight records.

The government can go back and go through your call logs, Internet traffic, movement logs, and other electronic traces with a fine tooth comb looking for things that woud allow them to harrass or intimidate you.

There are millions of laws on the books, many of them complex and hard for the average person to understand and follow. How many of these laws are you aware of? How many of them have you inadvertently broken? How many others exist that you don’t even know about!

Tracking movements and associations is especially useful when turning the power of  government against it’s citizens.

In order for cyberspace to be policed, Internet activity will have to be closely monitored. Ed Giorgio, who is working with ( Michael “Top Spy”) McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer, or Web search. “Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation,” he said. Giorgio warned me, “We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.’” – Wired Magazine: NSA Must Examine All Internet Traffic to Prevent Cyber Nine-Eleven, Top Spy Says

For example, after checking on your life, they may find out that your best friend is a member of several environmental groups, one of them suspected of links to environmental terrorism. You or someone you know were in close proximity to a drug dealer, or that mafia guy, or while at the local convenience store you spoke with a guy who recently got busted for breaking into homes.

Even though you are a law abiding citizen, can you be sure that every single person you ever have come in contact with is, or was, as well? That is the true danger of this: guilt by association or proximity.

It is time for the Clarksville City Council to rescind their red-light camera program and not install these spy cameras in our community.

Vendors plan to add spy technology to existing red light camera and speed camera installations.

Private companies in the US are hoping to use red light cameras and speed cameras as the basis for a nationwide surveillance network similar to one that will be active next year in the UK. Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the top two photo enforcement providers in the US, are quietly shopping new motorist tracking options to prospective state and local government clients. Redflex explained the company’s latest developments in an August 7 meeting with Homestead, Florida officials.

“We are moving into areas such as homeland security on a national level and on a local level,” Redflex regional director Cherif Elsadek said. “Optical character recognition is our next roll out which will be coming out in a few months — probably about five months or so.”

The technology would be integrated with the Australian company’s existing red light camera and speed camera systems. It allows officials to keep full video records of passing motorists and their passengers, limited only by available hard drive space and the types of cameras installed. To gain public acceptance, the surveillance program is being initially sold as an aid for police looking to solve Amber Alert cases and locate stolen cars.

“Imagine if you had 1500 or 2000 cameras out there that could look out for the partial plate or full plate number across the 21 states where we do business today,” Elsadek said. “This is the next step for our technology.”

ATS likewise is promoting motorist tracking technologies. In a recent proposal to operate 200 speed cameras for the Arizona state police, the company explained that its ticketing cameras could be integrated into a national vehicle tracking database. This would allow a police officer to simply enter a license plate number into a laptop computer and receive an email as soon as a speed camera anywhere in the state recognized that plate.

Such programs would be fully consistent with existing law on searches and seizures. In the 2003 case Washington v. William Bradley Jackson, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that police could not use a physical GPS tracking device to monitor a suspect’s movements without first obtaining a warrant. No warrant would be needed or restrictions applied to license plate tracking systems which do not require any physical contact. Instead, individual police officers could monitor the movements of suspected criminals or even their wives and neighbors at any time.

In the past, police databases have been used to intimidate innocent motorists. An Edmonton, Canada police sergeant, for example, found himself outraged after he read columnist Kerry Diotte criticize his city’s photo radar operation in the Edmonton Sun newspaper. The sergeant looked up Diotte’s personal information, and, without the assistance of electronic scanners, ordered his subordinates to “be on the lookout” for Diotte’s BMW. Eventually a team of officers followed Diotte to a local bar where they hoped to trap the journalist and accuse him of driving under the influence of alcohol. Diotte took a cab home and the officers’ plan was exposed after tapes of radio traffic were leaked to the press. Police later cleared themselves of any serious wrong-doing following an extensive investigation.

In the UK, officials are planning to dramatically expand the use of average speed cameras that track cars over distances as great as six miles. Records on all vehicle movements taken from a nationwide network of cameras will be stored for five years in a central government Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) server, allowing police to keep tabs on criminals and political opponents. Work on the data center in north London began in 2005 and officials expect real-time, nationwide tracking capability to be available by January.

Source: The Newspaper, Photo Ticket Cameras to Track Drivers Nationwide

About The Newspaper

The Newspaper is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective.

The company our city is currently favoring is Redflex, an Australian company. They have been the vendor in charge of the City of Knoxville’s red-light camera system that is until August 1st. Redflex missed a filing deadline to renew their contract. Reflex lays the blame for the missed deadline on the Federal Express package courier company.

The City of Knoxville has had mixed results with their experience with Redflex and could have opted to allow Redflex to file their bid late but chose specifically not to do so. This is a clear indication of their dissatisfaction with the company.

Clarksville frequently holds the city of Knoxville as an example the city of Clarksville should aspire to. So perhaps we should delay awarding a red-light camera enforcement contract to a company that they are in the process of dumping.

Tennessee: Redflex Misses Camera Contract Deadline

An Australian red light camera operator lost the ability to issue tickets in Knoxville, Tennessee because it failed to send the required documents to the city on time. The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that officials have flatly refused to consider renewing a multi-million dollar contract with Redflex because the company did not properly file paperwork by July 31.  “They busted the deadline,” city purchasing agent Boyce Evans told the Knoxville News. “I was very surprised. … Redflex knew that was going to be due before anybody.”

In May 2006 the Melbourne-based company first installed the red light camera network that now covers fifteen Knoxville intersections. The devices last year generated $2,599,732 in revenue, with Redflex pocketing over sixty percent of the annual take. Because the original contract will expire on November 8, the city gave Redflex until July 31 to submit a proposal for a three-year extension that included a few revisions that the city wanted to make.

Redflex blamed FedEx for delivering the package on August 1, while FedEx apologized for an unexpected problem in getting the package delivered. “Unfortunately, the FedEx vehicle transporting the shipment from our facility to our Los Angeles sort facility arrived later than scheduled and missed the outbound flight,” a FedEx customer relations employee wrote to Redflex. “Regrettably, efforts to expedite the shipment have been unsuccessful.” FedEx will refund the shipping cost of just over $30, which is scant consolation to the Australian company that lost the opportunity to take $5 million from Tennessee drivers.

Some of these drivers themselves have claimed to be unfairly treated by the Redflex cameras. In 2006, a judge tossed out a red light camera ticket issued to an innocent man because the Redflex camera misread his license plate. Although victorious, the motorist was not compensated after losing $160 in wages to defend himself against the $50 citation. An even more blatant error was uncovered when a man was ticketed for stopping at a red light by the camera in February 2007. Another ticket in May 2007 accused the owner of a BMW convertible of running a red light in a pickup truck that she had never seen in her life. Georgia-based Lasercraft and Germany’s Traffipax both succeeded in ensuring their bids arrived on time and the city will choose which of the two it prefers to take over the program.

Source: Late delivery stops Redflex (Knoxville News Sentinel (TN), 9/4/2008)

About The Newspaper

The Newspaper is a journal covering motoring issues around the world from a political perspective.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I just love the fact that the above video points out that the Albuquerque Mayor claims cameras have reduced accidents by 20%, while multiple independent reports show they increased by 20%, this sounds a lot like Knoxville… One side has to be lying! Who might that be? I vote for the city since they are receiving a financial benefit from the cameras that they would lose because if the citizens knew these cameras increased accidents, they would be demanding they be removed. Lets avoid this issue in Clarksville totally by saying no to traffic enforcement Cameras!

Remember our city officials want to install the type system here and our lights are still timed to cause more congestion not less. How many times have we all seen Riverside drive back up over 1 mile from the Riverside Drive intersection clear to McGregor park. North Second street back up clear up Emerald Hill towards Forbes and Marion. Kraft street backed up almost to Lincoln Homes. All because New Providence BLVD is backed up all the way to Peachers mill.

This leads to frustrated drivers trailing through the intersections whom with the cameras the city will likely be able to profit from.  Do you really think they will have any incentive to fix the clear problems with our roads when it’s generating a profit for them? Nope and their contract will likely prohibit road improvements if it impacts camera profits. A common feature in contracts of this nature, unless of course the city agrees to pay the for-profit camera vendor to make up the difference.

The Redflex web site proclaims nearly 1,000 people are killed by red-light runners in the United States every year. However in 2003 there were 196 million drivers and 231 million motor vehicles.  This means that you are more in danger of being struck by lightning than being injured or killed by a red-light runner in our city. Now I wouldn’t begin to offer odds anywhere else in Clarksville for that I think you are at a much higher risk, and these cameras won’t help you with that at all.

During the last year in the entire city of Clarksville there were 1,470 accidents at intersections throughout the city, there were an additional 1,274 citations issued for either running a red light or stop sign. There are over 85 intersections in Clarksville which have traffic signals.  The entire city averages averages approximately 4 accidents at intersections per day. At Riverside Drive alone, during the last year over 39 million vehicles passed through that intersection. - Clarksville, TN considering red light cameras: Things the voters should consider

Does Clarksville’s accident level seem high enough to justify traffic enforcement cameras when they are proven to increase the likelihood of you or a loved one getting injured or killed when you get rear ended at one of these for-profit camera intersections?  If the city wants to make our intersections safer they would try engineering, before resorting to enforcement. Of course doing things like that wouldn’t put more of your money in our city officials hands. Contact your city council member and let them know that you strongly oppose their dangerous revenue generating scheme!

The fact is that Red-Light and Speed cameras result in the roads where they are present becoming less safe. You are more likely to be injured or killed at a intersection after these cameras are put into place than you ever were before. Read this news report, and the study which follows it, then be sure to contact your city council member and tell them in no uncertain terms that you strongly oppose their dangerous revenue generating scheme.

Here’s a recent real life example from the Kingsport Times News reprinted with their permission. Some reports say this happened at a red-light camera intersection.

Video report – Wreck at Stone-Clinchfield intersection

Kingsport city firefighters worked to extricate an injured person from a blue Honda that tried to stop for a traffic light Tuesday at the intersection of Stone Drive and Bloomingdale/Clinchfield Street.The Honda stopped short, and a tractor-trailer behind it was unable to stop in time before hitting the vehicle.Two people were transported to the hospital. Officer Dale Farmer said their injuries were minor, and each were released Tuesday afternoon.

Photo by Erica Yoon.

There’s a video on their site as well, and I recommend everyone watch it. If Clarksville succeeds in putting into place red-light cameras this may well end up being you, or someone you love.

This is a study done by Professor Barbara Langland-Orban for the Florida Public Health Review a a joint electronic publication of the University of South Florida College of Public Health (USF COPH) and the Florida Public Health Association (FPHA).

Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase (Florida Public Health Review, 3/7/2008)

Introduction

Running a red light can cause severe traffic crashes especially when one vehicle runs into the side of another (i.e., an angle crash). Red light cameras photograph violators who are sent traffic tickets by mail. Intuitively, cameras appear to be a good idea. However, comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.

The National Motorists Association (NMA) represents driver interests and opposes cameras. In addition to concluding cameras do not improve safety, the NMA is concerned that local governments will not use effective methods to reduce red light running when earning money from cameras. For example, lengthening yellow light timings at traffic signals is effective in reducing red light running (NMA, 2008).

Nearly 80% of red light running occurs in the first second after the light changes (Office of the Majority Leader [OML], 2001). In addition, highspeed red light camera technology can identify splitsecond technical violations that are not visible to the human eye. Police in one community concluded that nearly 90% of infractions at a trial camera were splitsecond violations visible only to the camera lens, which would not result in a ticket from an officer(theNewspaper.com, 2006).

The majority of the red light running safety issue can be resolved through inexpensive engineering remedies that address infractions in the first second after the light changes. Inexpensive interventions include lengthening yellow light timings and/or adding a brief all-red light interval, which permits traffic to clear the intersection prior to releasing cross traffic (Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [FHWA/NHTSA], 2003).

Camera fines have raised large amounts of money for cities and counties. San Diego, California, collected nearly $30 million in 18 months, with one camera alone generating almost $7 million. Smaller cities have also raised millions of dollars annually from cameras. Some jurisdictions have been accused of setting shorter yellow light traffic signal timings at camera intersections in order to increase tickets, thereby collecting more money from fines. Insufficient yellow light timings can create a dilemma zone where the distance is too short to stop, yet proceeding into the intersection results in running a red light (OML, 2001). Lending support to this concern, hundreds of camera citations in San Diego were dismissed after a judge concluded improper timings were set by the camera vendor (Fields, 2001).

The primary advocate for cameras is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS, 2007; Federal Highway Administration, 2008). As the IIHS openly admits, they are wholly funded by automobile insurers. However, their major study, concluding cameras improve safety (Retting & Kyrychenko, 2002), has been criticized for research design flaws and not actually measuring changes in crashes and injuries at camera intersections (Burkey & Obeng, 2004). While insurers may not set out to increase crashes and injuries, increases in crashes and injuries indirectly contribute to automobile insurance’s performance as a growth industry. Increases in crashes can raise the risk rating of drivers in a community, which can lead to disproportionately higher automobile insurance premiums, and, subsequently, rising profits for insurers.

At present, Florida statutes do not permit red light camera evidence to be used as the sole basis for ticketing drivers for violating the law (Crist, 2005). Legislation to permit camera citations has been proposed since the 1990s, but none has passed to date. This paper explains:

1. red light running trends in Florida;

2. effective solutions to reduce red light running;

3. findings from major camera evaluations;

4. examples of flawed evaluations;

5. the automobile insurance financial interest in cameras; and

6. the increased likelihood of even higher crash and injury rates if cameras are used in Florida due to the high percent of elderly drivers and passengers.

Is Red Light Running a Growing Problem in Florida?

Traffic fatalities due to red light running are not increasing and have averaged 110 per year since 1998, accounting for less than 4% of Florida’s 3,000 annual traffic fatalities. Injuries from red light running crashes have steadily decreased since 1998, as have property damage-only crashes from red light running (Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2006). More importantly, the injury rate from red light running crashes has plummeted by a third in less than a decade, as illustrated in the graph. The statistics and graph suggest red light running is declining in Florida in the absence of red light camera use.

What Solutions Are Effective in Reducing Red Light Running?

Whereas some red light running may be intentional, particularly in traffic congestion, it can also be unintentional and due to circumstantial factors. Contributing environmental factors include yellow light timings that are set too short at traffic signals, obstacles that block a driver’s view of the traffic signal, and wet roads. The first recommended intervention at problem intersections is to conduct an engineering analysis, which will identify why red light running occurs. Intersection improvements should then be made in response to the findings (FHWA/NHTSA, 2003; Hemenway, 2001). For example, studies show that new traffic signals can reduce traffic fatalities by 50 percent, as they can increase visibility of the signal (TRIP, 2005). The following engineering countermeasures are recommended to reduce red light running (FHWA/NHTSA, 2003):

• Improve signal head visibility by increasing size or adding signal heads where one signal head is used for multiple lanes and may be blocked from view.

• Address east-west roads where sun angles silhouette the traffic sign head and add back plates to enhance visibility.

• Set appropriate yellow light time intervals that allow vehicles to clear the intersection or safely stop that is consistent with the speed limit, road grade and intersection width.

• Add a brief all-red light clearance interval to allow traffic in the intersection to clear prior to releasing cross traffic.

• Add intersection warning signs or advanced yellow flashing lights or reduce the approach speed to the intersection.

• Coordinate traffic signals to optimize traffic flow, eliminating interruptions.

• Remove on-site parking near intersections to increase visibility of pedestrians and cross traffic.

• Repair malfunctioning lights and avoid unnecessarily long cycle timings.

If a problem persists after intersection re-engineering, the FHWA and NHTSA (2003) advise the next steps are an education campaign and traditional police enforcement.

What Is Known About Cameras and Safety?

Major evaluations were conducted in Greensboro, North Carolina; Virginia; and the Canadian province of Ontario. The studies used multiple years of before-and-after data at camera intersections and comparison (no camera) intersections resulting in consistent findings. Camera intersections were associated with a significant increase in crashes. Increased rear-end crashes were a particular problem and may occur as drivers attempt to stop abruptly in order to avoid a ticket. The studies also found cameras were associated with increased injury crashes or crashes with possible injuries.

The Greensboro evaluation was conducted by the Urban Transit Institute at the North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University using 57 months of data (Burkey & Obeng, 2004). The study concluded that in many ways “the evidence points toward the installation of RLCs [red light cameras] as a detriment to safety.” Cameras were associated with:

• A significant increase (40%) in accident rates;

• A significant increase (40-50%) in possible injury crashes;

• No decrease in severe crashes.

The Virginia Transportation Research Council (Garber, Miller, Abel, Eslambolchi & Korukonda, 2007) analyzed camera programs in five jurisdictions using seven years of data. The study concluded their findings “cannot be used to justify the widespread installation of cameras because they are not universally effective.” They used a comprehensive statistical method of analysis (i.e., Empirical Bayes) that found cameras were associated with:

• A significant increase (29%) in total crashes;

• A significant increase (20%) in angle crashes;

• A significant increase (42%) in rear-end crashes, which did not decrease over time;

• A significant increase in injury crashes (18%), with the impact on injury severity reported as “too close to call”;

• Increases in crash costs.

A study conducted for the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario by Synectics Transportation Consultants (2003) evaluated two interventions (cameras and stepped-up police enforcement) in six jurisdictions following a public information campaign. Camera intersections had a:

• 16% increase in crashes, compared to an 8% increase at comparison intersections;

• 2% increase in injury or fatal crashes, compared to 10% and 12% decreases respectively at stepped-up police enforcement and comparison intersections.

Why Do Some Studies Conclude Cameras Reduce Crashes and Injuries?

All research studies are susceptible to design flaws, especially observational (i.e. nonexperimental) studies. Some of the major studies concluding reductions in red light running have exhibited such design flaws. One of these was conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and a second was funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Both are explained below.

In the IIHS study, researchers compared Oxnard, California, which installed cameras, with three towns that did not. The first criticism of this study’s design is that camera intersections were not separately analyzed. Instead, crash and injury counts at Oxnard’s 11 camera intersections were added with all 125 signalized intersections in Oxnard (Retting & Kyrychenko, 2002). Thus, the study actually compared differences in crash and injury growth rates between intersections with and without traffic signals, and not between signalized intersections with and without cameras. A further criticism of this study is that the conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis were incorrectly reported. When the results were correctly analyzed for statistical significance, no change in total crashes could be substantiated (Burkey & Obeng, 2004; Kyrychenko & Retting, 2004).

The FHWA study (Council, Persaud, Eccles, Lyon and Griffith, 2005) evaluated seven jurisdictions in multiple states. The analysis concluded cameras were associated with decreased angle crashes and injures. The university professor who co-directed this study and provided the methodological ideas has also conducted research for the IIHS (Persaud, 2007; Persaud, Retting & Lord, 2001; Persaud, Hauer, Retting, Vallurupalli & Mucsi, 1997). The research design and reporting concerns are as follows.

• The researchers listed 15 geographic areas with camera programs. However, only seven areas were selected for the analysis because the researchers concluded “significant effects are likely for all crash severities” in these jurisdictions. The decision to selectively (non-randomly) choose among the 15 areas increases the chance of incorrectly favoring one conclusion over another (camera effectiveness or ineffectiveness). Three areas excluded by the researchers were included in the major studies from Virginia and Greensboro, North Carolina, which did not find reductions in angle crashes.

• The researchers called this a “before-andafter” study, yet it appears they did not compare crashes and injuries at intersections before and after cameras were installed. They did not report using the before period data in estimating expected crashes for the after period. Instead, the study made estimates of expected crashes and injuries for the period after cameras were installed using non-camera intersections. Also, counts of crashes and injuries from the before period were not reported in the results.

• In estimating crashes for the period after cameras were installed, the analysis excluded important factors that are known to affect intersection crashes. Changes attributed to cameras could actually occur from these excluded factors, such as differences in yellow light timings and speed limits.

• Although the Methods section identified six types of crashes (for example, red light running crashes), findings were reported for only angle and rear end crashes. Changes in crashes and injuries for the other types, including red light running crashes, and changes in total crashes and injuries were not revealed. This also renders the economic analysis incomplete since it did not include changes in total crashes and injuries.

• Instead of reporting the full results of the statistical analyses, only an example with made-up numbers was provided.

• Crash and injury counts were not reported by intersection or jurisdiction. As such, it is unknown where the favorable experiences attributed to cameras actually occurred. Correct reporting of research findings requires providing sufficient detail to allow other researchers to validate conclusions. It is impossible to replicate this study or to reanalyze the findings.

The public health policy implications are stark. People who are not trained in research methods are unlikely to identify methodological flaws. As such, these studies have been used in decision making. For example, the FHWA conclusions were presented in a legislative analysis of a Florida red light camera bill, along with IIHS research that referenced their Oxnard study (Florida House of Representatives Staff Analysis, 2007).

Of particular importance is the comparison of the research methods performed by the studies that find at best no benefit due to cameras, or at worst increased harm, since these studies did not have similar research design flaws. The studies finding no safety benefit to cameras more readily provided details of their methodology with their appropriate application. They provide sample data that were actually analyzed and reported, and not irrelevant and made-up. These studies correctly take into account statistical error rates and margins of error of their findings. Also, they tend not to pick and choose sample data that support their conclusions, while discarding data that may potentially dilute desired findings.

Another potential research design issue is crash data. Local governments have used changes in violations or profitability as proof of successful camera performance instead of using changes in crashes and injuries. This may occur because local governments do not have accurate counts of crashes before and after cameras are installed. For example, Florida law does not require law enforcement officers to write crash reports for most property damage-only crashes (Florida Statutes, 2007). This allows for large differences in the percent of crashes reported. If all crashes are not reported, it is not possible to correctly determine changes in crash rates associated with red light cameras. An Australian study completed by Andreassen (1995) concluded cameras offered “no demonstrated value as an effective countermeasure”, but also identified concerns about the reliability of lists of accidents at camera sites. The importance of having good data was emphasized.

Why Might Insurers Support Cameras If They Increase Crashes and Costs?

More crashes lead to higher insurance premiums, leading to higher profits, which in turn lead to increases in insurance stock prices. In the absence of crashes, automobile insurance would become superfluous. This is not to say that automobile insurers actively seek to increase crashes, but to point out that an important component of insurance revenue growth is actual and perceived levels of “risk.” Similarly, the tobacco industry has emphasized revenue growth by increasing cigarette sales while downplaying the impact on the public’s health.

With automobile insurance, declining crash rates imply lower risk. In theory, insurance premiums should decline with fewer crashes, thereby reducing insurance revenues. Higher crash rates suggest higher risk; justifying higher premiums and profits. Due to the pricing methods used, automobile insurers do not have a financial incentive to lower crash rates or perceptions of risk.

Also, automobile insurance companies can profit if camera tickets are moving violations that add points to a driver’s license. Moving violation tickets allow insurers to charge higher premiums while incurring no additional cost. For example, if Florida’s proposed camera legislation from 2005 or 2006 had passed, camera citations would be moving violations under the existing red light running statute. Cameras would have photographed the license plate of a vehicle violating a red light and then the vehicle owner would have received a $250 ticket plus 4-points on their driver’s license (Florida House of Representatives [FHR], 2005; FHR, 2006). Even when tickets from red light cameras are not moving violations, an increase in moving violation tickets is still expected from the increase in crashes.

From 2000 to 2004, Florida moved up five spots to become the 6th most expensive state in which to insure a vehicle. A significant increase in moving violation tickets occurred from 2000 to 2004; along with a large increase in automobile insurance premiums. Statewide, automobile insurance premiums increased from $8.7 billion in 2000 to nearly $14 billion in 2004. Automobile insurers paid 73¢ on every premium dollar in 2000, versus 61¢ in 2004. This means the large increase in tickets was associated with increased insurance revenues and profits, while Florida’s crash rate remained the same (Florida Statistical Abstract [FSA], 2001; FSA, 2006; National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 2004).

Are Any Camera Issues Unique to Florida?

Cameras could create an even larger increase in crashes and injuries in Florida since the state has the highest percent of elderly population in the U.S. The elderly have slower average reaction times and may be less likely to stop abruptly as other drivers do so at camera intersections. Further, the elderly are at greater risk for an injury or fatality when a crash occurs due to anatomic and physiologic changes that occur with aging and from the common use of blood thinners that increase the rate of bleeding. In the lower range of injury severity, the death rate for elderly patients hospitalized from a motor vehicle crash is three times higher (4.6%) than adults under 65 years of age (1.5%) (Pracht, Langland-Orban, Orban & Flint, 2007).

In 2001, Florida led the nation with the most older drivers killed in traffic crashes (268 fatalities), a 70% increase in just 10 years. In addition, Florida had the most traffic fatalities where an older driver was involved in the crash (456 fatalities). Among older drivers, 50% of traffic fatalities occur at intersections, which is more than twice the rate for younger drivers. Improved intersection design is known to reduce errors among older drivers. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is a leader in designing state roads that accommodate elderly drivers. The state’s elder driver program has designed and re-constructed state highways and streets to improve safety for older drivers (TRIP, 2003). In 2006, the FDOT Secretary was asked to allow cameras on state roads. The Secretary responded that more research was needed due to the large increase in rear-end collisions and recommended engineering solutions (Stutler, 2006).

Conclusions and Recommendations

The theory behind red light cameras as potentially effective is that they rely on deterring red light running primarily through punishment of a specific driving behavior and secondarily by changing drivers’ experience. By definition, the punishable behavior and resulting potentially harmful action will already have taken place when a ticket is issued. In other words, the crash, injury, and mortality risks do not change immediately, if at all. In contrast, the engineering solutions described above produce immediate reductions in red light running and potential crashes. Thus, even if red light cameras could be effective in the long run, which is debatable, they are associated with an added cost, consisting of fines, crashes and injuries that could have been avoided by using engineering solutions, which are effective in both the short term and the long run.

Because the rigorous and robust studies conclude cameras are associated with increased crashes and costs, any economic analysis of cameras should include these newly generated costs to the public. Indirect costs to the public are usually not considered in the calculation of total revenues and profits generated from red light cameras.

Cities and counties should follow the state’s lead and likewise pursue engineering improvements to enhance intersection safety for all drivers and passengers. Proven engineering practices and counter-measures can reduce crashes and injuries due to red light running, as well as other causes of intersection crashes. A public health approach to improved intersection engineering is particularly needed since 26% of Florida’s traffic fatalities occur at intersections (with and without traffic signals), in contrast to 18% nationally (NHTSA, 2005). This means that more than 22% of traffic fatalities in Florida occur at intersections for reasons other than red light running, as red light constitutes less than 4% of total traffic fatalities.

Further, red light cameras are an inefficient means to raise revenue for local and state governments and can disadvantage the state’s economy. This occurs from the significant amount of funds, paid by local drivers, that ultimately accrues to private in-state and out-of-state special interests from camera use, rather than fully accruing to local and/or state governments. If cameras are used in Florida, a portion of ticket fines (in essence, royalties) can accrue to the camera vendors in perpetuity, which are located in other states and countries. Likewise, the increase in crashes and probable injuries would result in automobile insurance rate increases, which could affect all drivers in a community due to the pricing methods used by insurers. A portion of the insurance increase would be returned to certain business interests in the state; for example, in the form of higher insurance agency commissions and payments to automobile repair shops, hospitals, doctors, and rental car companies. However, a portion of the insurance increase would accrue to out-of-state interests, such as automobile parts manufacturers and, more importantly, to out-of-state insurance corporate accounts. Thus, red light cameras result in fines and insurance increases that would transfer disposable income from Florida drivers to private businesses in and out of the state, in addition to local and/or state governments. It is not surprising that out-of-state special interests, such as camera vendors and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advocate for camera use.

Finally, cities, counties, and the state should be very cautious in using traffic safety information from the automobile insurance industry. Insurance financial goals are to increase their revenues and profits, which do not necessarily include reducing traffic crashes, injuries or fatalities. Also, public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety.

References

Andreassen, D. (1995, February). A long term study of red light cameras and accidents (Research Report ARR 261). Australian Road Research Board Ltd. Victoria, Australia.

Burkey, M., & Obeng, K. A. (2004, July) Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting from Red Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas, Urban Transit Institute. Transportation Institute. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University (prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation).

Council, F. M., Persaud, B., Eccles, K., Lyon, C., & Griffith, M. S. (2005, April). Safety evaluation of red light cameras. Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-05-048.

Crist, C. (2005, July 12) Subject: Traffic, use of unmanned cameras. Advisory Legal Opinion – AGO 2005-41. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://myfloridalegal.com/__85256236006EB5E1.nsf/0/CE01BE293FCEEA208525703C00720344?Open&Highlight=0,ago,2005-41.

Federal Highway Administration. Stop red light running facts and statistics. Retrieved August 29, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/redl_facts.htm.

Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003, March 20) Guidance for using red light cameras. Washington, DC.

Fields, M. (2001, August 28). Statement before the California Legislature Senate Committee on Privacy: Automated enforcement laws. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony_mmf_082801.pdf.

Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. (2006) Florida traffic crash facts. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/crash_facts.html.

Florida House of Representatives. (2005). HB 1439 Red light violations. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=17099&SessionId=38.

Florida House of Representatives. (2006). HB 259 Red light violations. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=31782&SessionId=42.

Florida House of Representatives Staff Analysis. (2007, April 20) Economic Expansion & Infrastructure Council. Bill # CS/HB 1247, Uniform Traffic Control. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=36326&SessionId=54.

Florida Statistical Abstract. (2001). Bureau of Economic and Business Research. University of Florida. (Table 17.72) Gainesville, FL.

Florida Statistical Abstract. (2006). Bureau of Economic and Business Research. University of Florida. (Table 17.72). Gainesville, FL.

Florida Statutes. (2007). Chapter 316 State Uniform Traffic Control: 316.066 Written reports of crashes. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC066.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0316->Section%20066#0316.066.

Garber, N. C., Miller, J. S., Abel, R.E., Eslambolchi, S., & Korukonda, S. (2007, June). The impact of red light cameras (photo-red enforcement) on crashes in Virginia. Virginia Transportation Research Council Research Report. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/07-r2.pdf.

Hemenway, D. (2001). The public health approach to motor vehicles, tobacco, and alcohol, with applications to firearms policy. Journal of Public Health Policy, 22, 381-402.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2007, June). Q&As: Red light cameras. Retrieved November 17, 2007, from the World Wide Web: www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html.

Kyrychenko, S. Y., & Retting, R. A. (2004, November). Review of “A detailed investigation of crash risk reduction resulting from red light cameras in small urban areas” by M. Burkey and K. Obeng. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). (2004). State average expenditures and average premiums for personal automobile insurance; 2003/2004 Auto Insurance Database Report.

National Motorists Association. Ticket cameras: NMA objections to photo enforcement. Retrieved September 14, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/alternatives-to-red-light-cameras/.

NHTSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis, (2005). Traffic safety facts 2005, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Office of the Majority Leader. U.S. House of Representatives (2001, May). The red light running crisis: Is it intentional?

Persaud B. (2008) Civil Engineering faculty page. Ryerson University. Retrieved November 17, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ryerson.ca/civil/facstaff/Faculty/bhagwant.html.

Persaud, B. N., Hauer, E. J., Retting, R. A., Vallurupalli, R., & Mucsi, K. (1997). Crash reductions related to traffic signal removal in Philadelphia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 803-810.

Persaud, B. N., Retting, R. A., & Lord, D. (2001) Safety effect of roundabout conversions in the United States: Empirical Bayes observational before-after study. Transportation Research Report, 175, 1-8.

Pracht, E. E., Langland-Orban, B., Orban, D., & Flint, L. (2007, June 25). Differentials in triage to trauma centers and survival rates between elderly and non-elderly following motor vehicle crashes in Florida. Presented at Academy Health Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL.

Retting, R. A., & Kyrychenko, S. Y. (2002) Reductions in injury crashes associated with red light camera enforcement in Oxnard, California. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1822-1825.

Stutler, D. J. (2006, March). FDOT: Red-light cameras need more research. Orlando Sentinel, A23. Synectics Transportation Consultants. (2003, December).

Final technical report: Evaluation of red light camera pilot project. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.

TheNewspaper.com. California: Cops reject red light camera sales pitch, (2006. November 11) (excerpt from Photo finish for drivers, San Gabriel Valley Tribune (CA)) Retrieved February 18, 2008, from the World Wide Web: http://thenewspaper.com/news/14/1441.asp.

TRIP: The Road Information Program. (2003, July). Designing roadways to safely accommodate the increasingly mobile older driver: A plan to allow older Americans to maintain their independence. Retrieved February 18, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tripnet.org/OlderDrivers2003Study.PDF.

TRIP: The Road Information Program. (2005, February). Highway safety fact sheet: How road and bridge improvements save lives. Retrieved September 26, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.tripnet.org/hsfactsheet.htm.

About the Authors

Barbara Langland-Orban (.edu) is Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of South Florida College of Public Health, Tampa, FL. Etienne E. Pracht (.edu) is Associate Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of South Florida College of Public Health, Tampa, FL. John T. Large is Assistant Professor, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of South Florida College of Public Health, Tampa, FL. This paper was submitted to the FPHR on February 6, 2008, reviewed and revised, and accepted for publication on March 3, 2008.

About the Florida Public Health Review

The Florida Public Health Review offers an electronic on-line journal of practice and scholarship of interest and relevance to Florida’s public health practitioner and academic communities. Because the Review is presented as an electronic medium, communication can be rapid and immediate upon completion of editorial and refereed approval

The text in this article is copyright 2008 by the Florida Public Health Review.