No immediate plans in Batavia to take advantage of new red light camera rules

Several cities in New York have lobbied the Legislature to allow them to install traffic enforcement  cameras to help catch drivers who run red lights.

Red light cameras are controversial because many citizens view the devices as a get-quick-rich scheme for municipalities, while often times law enforcement officials defend the automated cops as a legitimate traffic control measure.

So the natural question is, if Batavia had the chance, would officials like to install such cameras at any intersections in the city?

City Council President Charlie Mallow said the subject has come up in informal discussions around City Hall, but there is no immediate plans to pursue the option.

"The city has a huge problem with out-of-town truck traffic and speeders bypassing the Thruway," Mallow said. "Traffic is the number one complaint I hear from residents."

Even so, Chief of Police Randy Baker said he hasn't looked into the issue at all. He's aware there is talk of installing the cameras in other cities, but no such proposal has been floated in Batavia as far as he knows.

"I'm not sure even what's involved," Baker said. "I'm not sure how expensive the cameras are or what kind of support is needed."

Council member Rosy Mary Christian said she hasn't given the issue any thought because none of her constituents have raised the issue.

But Mallow doesn't think the idea is off the boards.

"The city already has a plate reader on a (police) car that I’m told has been very effective," Mallow said.  "I guess I have yet to make up my mind about these cameras. If the police department believed it would be effective, I would be open to discussing it."

Both Buffalo and Rochester have long sought permission from the Legislature to install the cameras. The Buffalo City Council voted this week to ask Albany again if it could install 50 cameras. Rochester is expected to seek permission in a City Council vote today, according to an article in the Democrat and Chronicle.

Cities, including New York City, have been clamoring for years to install the cameras, but had been rebuffed by Assembly Transportation Committee Chairman David Gantt, D-Rochester.

However, Gantt said Wednesday he will no longer object to the measure and sponsored legislation this week to let Rochester have the cameras, which take snapshots of vehicles that run red lights.

Gantt said he still has reservations about whether the cameras invade privacy and increase safety. But he said legislative leaders and Gov. David Paterson have been pushing for the measure, so Rochester should be included.

Cities see the cameras as a way to cut down on drivers speeding through red lights and to generate new revenue; each offense would bring a $50 fine.

Citizen advocates, however, charge that municipal red light cameras are nothing more than a revenue grab. A site that tracks red light camera issues, TheNewspaper.com, claims Suffolk County transparently admits its desire for red light cameras is partly driven by a need to make-up revenue short falls.

In a four-hundred-page review of the county's financial situation released earlier this month, officials mentioned only one purpose for the automated traffic enforcement devices.

"At this point the County needs to make hard decisions," the 2009 county budget review states. "Do we raise property taxes? Do we seek state approval to raise the overall sales tax rate? ... Do we raise revenue from traffic tickets by instituting red light cameras? ... These are some of the choices, none of which are attractive. Nevertheless, we must face reality and begin serious discussions on what direction to take."

Suffolk County believes it could generate $3.5 million in new revenue from red light cameras.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety takes a different view of red light cameras, however, claiming that the cameras do help to reduce traffic accidents.

A nationwide study of fatal crashes at traffic signals in 1999 and 2000 estimated that 20 percent of the drivers involved failed to obey the signals. In 2007, almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths in red light running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.

Motorists are more likely to be injured in urban crashes involving red light running than in other types of urban crashes. Institute researchers studied police reports of crashes on public roads in four urban areas during 1990-91. Occupant injuries occurred in 45 percent of red light running crashes, compared with 30 percent of other crash types.

...

A study conducted during several months at five busy intersections in Fairfax, Virginia, prior to the use of red light cameras found that, on average, a motorist ran a red light every 20 minutes at each intersection. During peak travel times, red light running was more frequent. Analysis of red light violation data from 19 intersections (without red light cameras) in four states found that 1,775 violations occurred over 554 hours, for a violation rate of 3.2 per hour per intersection

What these statistics do not reveal, however, is what these drivers were doing before running a red light. There is a huge difference between blatantly speeding through a red light and being caught by a short or unexpected red light and not having adequate time to safely stop. I've always wondered how many of the cited accidents, used to justify red light cameras, where caused by drivers who just happened to be the last car through the intersection with no real intention to run the red light?

Charlie Mallow said one reason he's ambivalent about the cameras is he's received a red light camera ticket before.

"I’ve also been on the short end of a traffic camera myself in California. So I understand the frustration of being caught by a big brother spy camera."

And I've gotten such a ticket. My ticket came while I tried to make a left turn at a Ventura, Calif. intersection. I was stopped at the red light and third car in line.  As I accelerated for my turn as the number two car, the light changed to yellow and just as I reached the limit line, it changed to red. Caught.  Three days later I received a letter from the city with three pictures of me in the intersection.  My frustration was that while I technically committed an infraction, there was no way I posed any threat to any other drivers.  With traffic stopped in all directions, there was no chance of anybody moving into the intersection at that point.

Running red lights is dangerous, but I don't believe red light cameras are really intended to stop the such reckless drivers. They are really designed to trap people like you and me so that the government can reach one more time into our wallets and extract a little cash.

At least there is this much though: If New York's fine is only $50, that's a hell of a lot better than the $260 of my California fine.