Traffic Cameras

I did some research this morning in the persuasiveness of and use of traffic crime cameras. First some facts:
-According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in 2007, almost 900 were killed and nearly 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.
- The IIHS has reported huge decreases in red light running in several cities in which the cameras were used.
- Exactly half the U.S states have traffic cameras installed. Trained law enforcement officers review the photos before issuing tickets to make sure that a traffic violation did indeed occur. The idea is to catch motorists who intentionally run red lights, not people who get stuck in traffic and are caught in the intersection when the light changes, or people who cross the line while the light is still yellow.
-Some red light cameras photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate, while others record the driver's face as well as the front plate. In some states (In Louisiana I know they can, but do not know about here in Oregon), the driver can dispute the citation if someone else was driving the car at the time of the infraction, in which case the photo itself comes in as handy evidence.

But are those cameras fair and accurate. Many people claim it is unconstitutional to have a mechanical device issues traffic tickets. They say humans (police officers) are more adept at knowing when driver is a caught apparently running a light but was really avoiding a crash in doing so. Cameras lack discretionary ability. Then there is the cost of installing a camera and sensors ( supposedly about $100,000 per traffic signal) that causes some sates (Louisiana is one) to contract with private businesses to furnish the cameras and service them. As a result, many instances have been found in which the yellow caution traffic light is a shorter times one at camera intersections in order to catch more red light runners. Those businesses get a percentage of each ticket and that makes for incentives for them to cheat and try to up the number of violations by tampering with the system.

Here's an example of why people have this negative perception of the cameras. According to an article appearing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the city of Lilburn, GA issued about 1,500 citations in January 2008. The citations dropped by 80 percent to around 300 in January 2009, after a new Georgia law mandated a longer yellow light duration. The extra second on the yellow light may have reduced the problem of red light running for the driver, but it almost worked too well for the city. Red light cameras were no longer issuing enough citations to keep them "profitable" and as a result, Lilburn and four other cities in the same county suspended their red light programs.

Red light cameras have also been known to cause some rear-end collisions, as drivers may slam on their brakes well short of the intersection when they notice a camera. Also, are those cameras really there for safety or to raise money for the government jurisdictions using them? The fact that so many of them are rigged to give the driver less time to make it through a yellow light indicates that revenue is the main reason for it.

In my former parish in Louisiana, Jefferson Parish, abuse of the cameras caused such an outrage that local politicians there suspended their use and it remains that way more than a year after the decision to "reevaluate the effectiveness of the traffic cameras". In such apolitically correct and more passive place like Oregon I doubt that will ever happen. I don't like traffic cameras and think they are unfair intrusions on drivers. No doubt my first traffic camera ticket will soon be in the mail.