People who blow through red lights deserve to get caught. So it makes sense for cities across Colorado to install more cameras at problem intersections to snap pictures of those breaking the law.
But unless studies can show that red-light cameras are making our streets safer, the cities hooking them up look as if they’re merely seeking a profit-generator, which could begin to violate the public trust.
As Denver Post reporters Michael Booth and Kevin Simpson detailed in last Sunday’s newspaper, dozens of new cameras soon will police intersections in Denver and across the Front Range that critics are calling a potentially lucrative means to monitor traffic. Upping the ante, some agencies are giving new powers to their camera systems, such as catching motorists rolling though right turns.
We understand why the cameras are proliferating. It can be more cost-effective to take advantage of the technology at problem intersections than to staff them with officers.
But a host of questions needs to be answered before a widespread deployment of cameras.
Yes, running a red light is highly dangerous. We well remember the rule of thumb given by driving instructors and parents that if you can’t stop in time for a red light, you’re driving much too fast.
But are the cameras effective in reducing accidents?
The Federal Highway Administration reviewed studies of the cameras in 2005 and saw mixed results. Due to vagaries in the tests, the administration noted it could not reach any firm conclusions. And Post reporters were equally frustrated in finding clear indications in local statistics that documented whether the cameras are useful in reducing accidents.
Consider, for example, that researchers in Oxnard, Calif., in the 1990s found that while overall accidents decreased by 5.4 percent after red-light cameras were put into service, traffic accidents in Santa Barbara — which lacked cameras — fell more than 10 percent.
Yet it appears that cash-strapped California is going all-in on using the cameras to generate revenue. Though Colorado law limits charges to $75 for running a red light, in Los Angeles the offense costs $446. Further, California lawmakers even considered adding speed sensors to cameras to generate millions of new revenue.
In the absence of conclusive data, we’re still persuaded that cameras for red lights make sense. But also support a simpler fix, such as Denver’s move to lengthen the times for yellow lights to give drivers more time to stop. That should go a long way toward helping avoiding the desire to heavy-foot it through intersections.
Some cities, like Aurora and Fort Collins, are adding rolling right turns to offenses its cameras can ticket, which we find over the top.
Using cameras for clear-cut offenders who run red lights, on the other hand, hardly seems an abuse of “Big Brother” government. Rather, it seems like a cost-effective technology that can help keep us safe. Cities should continue to monitor their effectiveness.
