published Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Save cameras, nail scofflaws

Tennessee's Legislature rarely does anything well, but it often does the wrong thing to an extreme. Consider, for example, the bill proposed Tuesday by the House Transportation Committee that would effectively phase out, in two years, local governments' use of traffic cameras to inhibit reckless drivers from running red lights and to slow speeders on dangerous or congested streets where blatant speeding is a constant problem.

Chattanooga and other municipalities, here and across the state, make valuable use of such cameras. The city's experience on the S-curves on Hixson Pike -- where 10 deaths occurred in a 30-month period -- amply illustrates their value. Since they were installed, the rate of traffic accidents and deaths have been dramatically reduced. Use of the cameras has demonstrably saved lives.

Speeding and running traffic lights have similarly been reduced on a number of other troublesome roads and intersections, across the city and in Red Bank and East Ridge.

Traffic cameras work well to slow speeders and stop traffic violations for very transparent reasons. One is that municipalities generally announce their location, and word then spreads among drivers that they don't need to be seen by a policemen to get a ticket for an obvious traffic violation in those locations. Another reason is that most drivers hate paying a $50 camera-based traffic ticket that arrives as an unwelcome surprise in the mail.

It's as simple as that.

Though lawmakers seem determined to stamp out traffic cameras to calm the complaints of angry scofflaws, here's the core truth: People who follow the law don't have to worry about traffic cameras, or pay fines for photographed offenses. And here's its corollary: Drivers who violate traffic laws get caught more easily and consistently by cameras than by policemen who make just random patrols of traffic hotspots.

No driver, of course, wants to get nailed by a traffic camera. But for the logic of it, we can't figure out what's wrong with their use. Cameras are far more effective, and ultimately far more cost-efficient, than the alternative of poor enforcement and more accidents due to speeding and red-light-running.

Most municipalities can't afford to hire enough roving police officers to effectively monitor traffic hot spots. Conversely, the less often drivers see police officers patrolling, the more they -- that is, we, the driving public -- seem to speed. Witness the raceways that Amnicola Highway, Highway 153 and I-24, I-75 and Corridor J have become. Similarly, the local trunk routes -- MLK Boulevard/Bailey Avenue, Hixson Pike, Brainerd/East Brainerd roads, for example -- also bear traffic that regularly runs 10 miles an hour or more over posted speed limits.

Legislators on the Transportation Committee, however, appear to have totally ignored public traffic safety needs and the value of traffic cameras for calming and regulating traffic.

Their bill would put a two-year moratorium on the placement of new traffic cameras and would prohibit renewals of contracts with companies that install and maintain them in that period. And after the moratorium expires, they would prohibit use of cameras unless local governments could demonstrate that they had exhausted all other reasonable engineering solutions to moderate traffic offenses.

Even then, the use of cameras would be essentially barred through excessive regulation of application processes, fee caps, police inspection of all citations, and bureaucratic obstacles.

Cumulatively, that amounts to an effective phase-out and ban of traffic cameras. Both police and public officials are against this proposed legislation for very good reasons. The Legislature ought to listen to them when this bill comes up for a vote -- and ignore the scofflaws who rail about their perceived intrusions of a government. If we can't hire enough policemen, we need the cameras to keep speeding drivers mindful of the law.

1
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
NewRomeSucks said...

Ugh, the Times Editor is a Camera Hugger. These cameras are placed by a for-profit company. Can anyone think of a bigger gridlock in logic?

So Lasercraft relies on revenue to survive. To get revenue, they must have violations. I thought violations are dangerous.

So if they demonstrate any drop in collisions, the program is a success. Nevermind that you can never trust the numbers coming from Lasercraft or the other camera vendors. Instead of touting cameras, media in LA and Chicago have recently done deep investigations that show the cameras are of no benefit, and in many cases cause an increase in accidents.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/nov/22/travel/chi-red-light-cameras-22-nov22

Are we soon to forget that LaserCraft got caught shortening yellow light times? It's back to needing to increase revenue. One of the best ways is with short yellows...cars slide through .1 second after the light turns red, no real danger...$$$ profit for LaserCraft.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2269.asp

There's so many examples of abuse I can't list them all. 80% of tickets in California...which are over $400 each...are for rolling right on red. It's technically illegal, but almost never results in a serious collision. A human officer wouldn't typically even make a stop on such a "violation", but when these for-profit companies are in charge, every minor offense is profit for them.

And just try and get rid of them... http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_14211450

January 22, 2010 at 9:10 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.