The Washington Post published a story on Tuesday that supports what The Columbian has maintained in several editorials in recent years: Red-light cameras save lives.
More than 50 intersections in the District of Columbia are equipped with red-light cameras and, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, those intersections saw a 26 percent drop in traffic fatalities over five years. In 13 other cities with the cameras, according to the study, similar declines in traffic deaths were shown.
What’s more, red-light cameras — as with the enforcement of laws against speeding and other traffic violations — have proved to be a significant revenue stream for municipalities. The Post reported that the District netted “almost $7.2 million on 85,678 red-light tickets” from June 2009 through May 2010.
There are no red-light cameras in Clark County, although Vancouver officials discussed a pilot program a few years ago.
The president of the insurance institute sounded more hopeful than we are: “We’re hopeful this will stop some of the backlash against (red-light) cameras,” said Adrian Lund in the Post story. We’re not holding our breath. Red-light critics have been loud in their quadruple denunciation of this enforcement mechanism.
The first complaint: Cities make money from red-light cameras. And that would be wrong because? Speeding tickets feed public coffers, too. Surely there must be some kind of penalty for red-light runners. What other penalty would critics suggest?
The second complaint is that red-light cameras constitute some form of entrapment. That argument is rendered specious by the fact the law is being broken. In most cases — and this is true in Portland — warnings about red-light cameras are clearly posted on streets leading to those intersections. This deterrent effect promotes safety. But even if there were no warnings, you cannot claim entrapment if you’re breaking the law.
The third complaint is that red-light cameras somehow violate one’s privacy. Oh? In the same way a law officer’s radar gun invades a speeder’s privacy, or a video camera invades a trespasser’s privacy?
The fourth complaint: Red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions. This is generally true, but multiple studies have shown the reduction of traffic fatalities makes this by far a net positive. That’s because rear-end collisions are less deadly than the T-bone crashes that are caused by red-light runners.
One of our state’s chief crusaders against red-light cameras is professional initiative kingpin Tim Eyman. He is campaigning to make red-light cameras subject to voter approval. That’s totally unnecessary, and we suspect that virtually every innovation in law enforcement has been assailed by worshippers of the status quo.
We’re equally suspicious that many of these people simply don’t want to be caught breaking the law. The glaring reality is that, if you don’t like red-light cameras, don’t run red lights. If you like reducing traffic fatalities by 26 percent over five years, you should applaud the technological advancement that saves those lives. And if these cameras make money for cash-strapped counties or cities, the fact that the money comes from lawbreakers makes the cameras even more tolerable.
As Lund, the insurance institute president, said to the Post reporter, “Much of the attention to victims of the camera has been paid to people who received tickets. Hopefully, (the new study) will return the focus to the people who have been killed or injured by red-light running.” Well said, sir.
