This really is disgusting.  It's the kind of story that makes me feel
like I'm a sucker for obeying the law, because the system is just a
goddamn racket.

Charlie

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/

Last week, Dallas officials reviewed the numbers and decided that a
quarter of the cameras they had installed to catch motorists running red
lights were too effective. So they shut them down.

They are not alone. Faced with data showing that drivers pay attention to
cameras at intersections — resulting in fewer ticketable violations and
ever-shrinking revenue from fines — municipalities across the country are
reconsidering red light cameras, which often work too well.

At the heart of the discussions taking place in city councils and county
commissions is tension between the twin benefits that were touted when
local governments began installing cameras about a decade and a half ago.
Officials were promised that the cameras — which take snapshots of busy
intersections, capturing the license plates of any cars that are running
the light — would simultaneously save lives and generate millions of
dollars in extra fines.

The first half of that equation is arguably true: A federal study found a
small but measurable reduction in injuries nationwide in accidents at
intersections monitored by cameras, though there was an increase in some
kinds of collisions.

It is the second half of the equation that may be beginning to collapse.
As drivers learn where the cameras are, they are more careful. Fewer of
them run red lights. Local governments collect fewer fines.

Fewer violations = less revenue
Sometimes, as in Dallas, cameras generate so little revenue that they
can’t even pay for themselves.

Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red
light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.

But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent
from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections. On the
face of it, that, too, is a good thing — but not, necessarily, if you
rely on traffic fines to make up a healthy chunk of your budget.

Dallas lawmakers originally estimated gross revenue of $15 million from
their 62 cameras this fiscal year, which ends June 30. But City Manager
Mary Suhm estimated last week that the city would fall short by more than
$4 million.

So last week, the city turned off about a quarter of the least profitable
cameras, saying it couldn’t justify the cost of running them.

Safety benefits questioned
Dallas was just following the lead of several other cities that have shut
down red light cameras.

City officials in Charlotte and Fayetteville, N.C., recently turned off
all of their red light cameras, concluding that a state law diverting
much of the revenue they generate in fines to schools meant their general
funds were actually losing money, NBC affiliate WNCN of Raleigh reported.

In Bolingbrook, Ill., meanwhile, officials ended their red light camera
program after statistics showed a 40 percent drop in ticketable offenses.

Nor is money the only reason cameras have been removed. In Lubbock,
Texas, the City Council shut down all its cameras last month, citing a
report that showed statistically significant increases in rear-end
collisions at intersections, including those with cameras.

Rear-end collisions, in fact, have been cited in numerous reports and
lawsuits questioning the benefits of red light cameras. Opponents claim
that the cameras actually create more hazardous conditions.

“When people know there’s a red light camera, they change their driving
behavior, and they slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket,” said
Tom McCarey, an activist for the National Motorists Association. The
association, which is based in Waunakee, Wis., calls itself a 6,000-
member group “dedicated to representing and protecting the rights and
interests of North American motorists.”

Federal study largely inconclusive
Research by the Federal Highway Administration bears out McCarey’s
argument — at least, as far as it goes.

In 2005, the agency released the first systematic national study of
accident rates at intersections where cameras monitor red lights,
compiling projections and hard data from seven cities from Maryland to
California. The report tabulated 14.9 percent more rear-end crashes than
would have been expected if the intersections had no cameras, resulting
in 24 percent more injuries.

“Red light cameras don’t make intersections safer. They make them more
dangerous,” McCarey said. Which is true — if all you’re worried about is
rear-end crashes.

But the FHA study compiled numbers on all accidents at the relevant
intersections, and it found that right-angle collisions — also known as
“T-bone crashes,” when a car comes across the intersection and whacks you
from the side — came in 24.6 percent below projections, with 15.7 percent
fewer injuries.

This is where both sides acknowledge that you can make statistics say
anything you want.

Opponents of cameras highlight rear-end crashes, noting that they make up
more than 71 percent of accidents at intersections. Removing the cameras
would lessen the most common kind of accidents.

But advocates point out that right-angle crashes are far more dangerous,
causing 64 percent of the injuries at those intersections.

“We would prefer to have minor rear-end collisions, rather than broadside
collisions, which lead to serious and fatal injuries,” said Art Acevedo,
chief of the Austin, Texas, police.

Small reduction in injuries cited
What is clear in the study, when it is taken overall, is that red light
cameras led to no real change in the number of accidents (4,059 with
versus 4,063 without). But they did reduce the number of people hurt in
those accidents, by just less than 5 percent (459 versus 482).

The FHA concluded that cameras provide, at best, a “modest aggregate
crash-cost benefit.”

That benefit is so modest that the National Motorists Association has a
standing offer of $10,000 to any community that can empirically prove
that red light cameras can prevent violations and accidents better than a
schedule of traffic engineering steps it recommends, which include proper
signal timing, better signal design and improved intersection design.

Other opponents say that even if the cameras made driving far safer, that
still doesn't justify what they call the systematic violation of drivers’
constitutional rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union joined a lawsuit brought by an Iowa
man who received a ticket in the mail after his vehicle was photographed
doing 49 mph in a 35-mph zone in Davenport in March 2006.

The man, Thomas Seymour, argued that he was denied due process because he
couldn’t confront his accuser — an inanimate camera. The Iowa Supreme
Court agreed to hear the case last week.

As early as 2001, a California Superior Court judge dismissed 250 tickets
issued under San Diego’s camera program, which is administered by
Lockheed Martin Corp. under a private contract. Because the evidence is
not gathered by an official police agency, it is “unreliable” and
“untrustworthy” and therefore inadmissible in court, the judge ruled.

But opponents contend that what is really at the heart of debates over
red light cameras is profits. Some government officials, like those in
Dallas, don’t dispute that.

In Springfield, Mo., officials wanted to begin ticketing motorists caught
on red light cameras last June 1. But the state Legislature was
considering a law that would have diverted some of the revenue to state
programs.

So Springfield officials postponed issuing the tickets. Only after it
became clear a few weeks later that the Legislature would not act on the
bill did Springfield start sending out tickets, NBC affiliate KYTV
reported. The cameras began breaking even in January.

“It’s all about the money, and it’s not just about the $100 fine,” said
McCarey of the National Motorists Association. “It’s millions for the
city and billions for insurers.”