Communities across the country are engaging in an ongoing debate about red light cameras. Proponents argue that red light cameras promote public safety by incentivizing drivers to follow the law and drive cautiously. Opponents claim red light cameras are primarily a source of local revenue masquerading as a safeguard of public welfare. Local governments considering the use of red light cameras may be well-served by monitoring the ways red light cameras affect public safety. By tracking the benefits of red light cameras, communities hoping to utilize the technology will bolster their arguments in favor of their use.
Significant evidence exists that demonstrates photo-enforcement has safety benefits. For example, the New York City Department of Transportation reported a 56 percent decrease in serious injuries, a 44 percent decrease in pedestrian injuries, and a 16 percent decrease in all injuries at New York City intersections with red light cameras. The Department also reported that these intersections experienced a 40-60 percent decrease in red light violations.
California permits the use of red light cameras; however, there are many cities that have decided not to use them. For example, in 2011, Los Angeles removed all 32 of its red light cameras in response to citizen outrage, along with the statistics that the red light program was cost prohibitive with monitoring and operating costs exceeding revenue generated.
The penalties associated with red light violations vary by state. The average citation fee is around $50 to $100. In California, the fine is nearly $500 and results in a point on the offender’s driving record. What fines are appropriate and what fines are excessive? Clearly, a driver who receives a red light camera citation resulting in a $500 fine will protest and object and result in increasing skepticism about the program’s effectiveness on public safety versus a way for the cities to make more money.
The belief that these cameras exist solely as revenue generators can be persuasive, which is why it is important for cities to keep track of how they are using these cameras — and the public benefits that result. In addition to tracking the decrease in injuries, agencies might also monitor how the data collected is used by the agency. For example, last year the California Supreme Court held that evidence generated by red light cameras is admissible in court as nonhearsay, so long as it can be authenticated.
Local governments considering implementing a red light camera program can track and measure the program’s effectiveness by the changes in the number of traffic accidents before and after red light cameras were installed, as well as monitoring the ways they may help in successful prosecutions. Armed with this information, local governments can generate local support that will put the focus back on public safety instead of the notion that cities are simply trying to make a quick buck.
