I am going to make a request of the individuals running for Amarillo mayor and the four City Council seats.
It is this: Do not mess with the city’s red-light cameras, presuming the Texas Legislature allows you to make that call.
I looked through mayoral candidate Ginger Nelson’s detailed platform statement this afternoon after the thought occurred to me that I’ve heard nothing from the candidates about what they intend to do with the cameras. I pored through Nelson’s platform and didn’t see a single mention of the cameras.
Does that mean she intends to leave ’em alone? Or does she want to pull the plug on them without warning us in advance? I doubt it’s the latter, so I’ll just proceed with my request of her and the others who are running for mayor and council member.
The cameras have been in operation for nearly a decade now, thanks to some foresight shown by a previous city commission/council, led by then-Mayor Debra McCartt. The police department had expressed concern about motorists running red lights, in some cases ignoring them completely while zooming through them from a dead stop when there was no other traffic.
The cameras were installed to photograph the license plates of the offending vehicle, with the citation sent to the vehicle owner’s residence.
I get all the griping from offending owners who would say that someone else was driving their vehicle. Of course, they have recourse; they can take their complaint to the Municipal Court and argue their case before the judge.
The Legislature allowed cities to deploy the cameras a few sessions ago, but placed some restrictions on how to spend the money collected. The city must dedicate the revenue to traffic improvement methods. There can be spending of that revenue on city manager frills, or new drapes for the traffic engineer’s office.
This technology has its foes. Some of them are in Legislature. They have threatened to rescind the cities’ authority to deploy the devices, which I find ironic, given some legislators’ insistence that they — not mayors, city council members or senior city administrators — understand the local concerns better than those on the ground in the affected cities.
If the 2017 Legislature does the right thing and allows cities to make that determination for themselves, then my hopes is that Amarillo decides to keep the cameras on the job.
They are doing what they are supposed to do. They are deterring motorists from breaking … the … law.
Aside from the question of the constitutionality of having surveillance equipment enforce traffic laws by giving a vehicle a citation, there are issues which need to be addressed. Not the least of which is the deliberate shortening of the caution light time lapse. When private companies collude with community officials to deliberately shorten the caution time for the obvious intent of increasing revenue, the argument for public safety loses it’s legitimacy. It then becomes evident that it’s not about safety at all, in fact they can make the intersection more dangerous by forcing vehicles to stop too fast and increase the likelihood of rear end collisions. Of course if the caution light time is an adequate time lapse to allow vehicles to clear the intersection, revenue suffers! Unfortunately the first option prevails all too often, after all someone has to pay for this equipment, making it a revenue issue which is
hell and gone from anything resembling a safety issue.
Constitutionality? Really? Which amendment does this law violate?
I’m not an authority on the constitutionality question, but it’s my understanding the primary reason there have been courts declare red light cameras unconstitutional , hinges upon privacy issues and the right to question your accuser in court. Forgive me if this isn’t precisely the reason but it’s the general upshot. There have been numerous instances where the operators of these cameras manipulated the equipment to increase the numbers by intentionally causing vehicles to be in violation.
Red light cameras are government-run money-grab rackets that should be illegal in every state, as they are in some already. They cannot survive financially unless most tickets go to safe drivers 1) using yellow intervals set or left too short for the ACTUAL perception/reaction times and ACTUAL approach speeds of at least 85% of the drivers (safest timing method) and/or 2) ticketing safe slow rolling right on red turns that federal research shows are involved in only six one-hundredths of one percent (0.06% or 0.0006) of crashes with injuries or fatalities. Red light cameras exist only by essentially robbing safe drivers for the crime of driving safely. NO ONE should support them.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
Well, that’s your view. It ain’t mine. Thanks for your comment. And thanks for reading my blog.
Thanks for the quick response. Here is the research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showing that right on red turns (including those with or without a full stop) are involved in only 0.06% of crashes with injuries or fatalities. In my view, that tiny % does not justify right on red camera tickets, because most such turns are just as safe at 5 or 7 mph as they are from a full stop.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/The+Safety+Impact+of+Right+Turn+on+Red:+Report+to+Congress
If tickets were issued only to right on red turn drivers where the video showed a failure to yield the right of way – that would be proper.
Then, what most people do not know, is neither federal nor state laws in most states require yellow intervals long enough for about 85% of the drivers. California now does and so does Virginia – so their rules exclude ticketing most safe drivers for through lane violations. Texas and most other states depend on the for-profit cameras to issue a lot of split second violations for less than one second into the red – caused by the deliberately short yellows. Note that drivers who violate the red by less than one second have zero crash risks. They clear the intersections during the all-red phase plus the short delay before cross traffic moves on their green light.
If red light cameras ticketed only unsafe drivers, no one would object. But then there would be no red light cameras in most cities because the total fines would not cover the typical costs of $4,000 to $5,000 per month per camera.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association
When the prospects of revenue become involved the noble causes of safety and justice can often take a backseat to economics, yet still be touted to the public the sole and supreme issues of concern. When a policeman on a motorcycle can give a seatbelt ticket to a driver of an 8000 lb. truck, the argument of concern for public safety loses it’s credibility with me.
Correct, gbagwell.
I believe that involving for-profit ticket cameras companies in any part of traffic enforcement guarantees that profits – not safety – will be the principal goal.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association