|
Home > Live traffic cameras -- helping or hindering driver safety?
August 17, 2005
By: Alice Osborn
The red light traffic surveillance cameras used at busy
intersections across the nation issue citations to drivers
who run red lights. Sensors buried in the crosswalk trigger
the cameras, which are mounted on traffic signals, to
capture the date, time and speed of the red-light violating
vehicle. Advocates of these live traffic cameras assert that
the system is a cost-effective way to catch red light
runners, make the roads safer, and allow law enforcement
officials to focus on other tasks.
In December 2004, a study by the Virginia Transportation
Research Council showed a reduction in vehicle crashes at
nearly all of the red light surveillance intersections.
Also, in a 2002 California audit of red-light cameras,
accidents caused by drivers running red lights decreased
with the live traffic camera installation. Opponents of the
red light traffic cameras contend that the cameras are
chiefly used as a money-making device, they give too much
control to the live camera company, and they cause rear-end
collisions because a driver may stop too abruptly before a
red light.
Recently in Northern Virginia, the red light traffic
camera program ended after a ten-year run. The state
legislature opted not to renew the live traffic program,
which issued drivers with $50 fines sent through the mail.
Roughly 75% of those drivers paid the fine. State Senator,
Jeannemarie Davis says, "It's impossible to have enough
police officers out to enforce red-light running. It clearly
works. It clearly changes behavior."
Others might not agree. Many lawmakers from rural parts
of Virginia voiced their concerns that the traffic cameras
resembled "Big Brother" and that it was an expensive traffic
program that did not recoup its costs. In fact, three of the
six governments that implemented the surveillance program in
Northern Virginia lots tens of thousands of dollars because
the revenue did not cover the traffic program's costs.
Administrators in California are studying some of the red
light traffic program's pitfalls that occurred in other
Californian cities. For example, in San Diego a judge agreed
that the live traffic company was given too much control, so
a state law went into effect requiring live traffic camera
companies to charge cities a flat rate, instead of a
per-ticket commission. The law also requires that police
officers review and approve the traffic citations. After San
Diego's red-light traffic program was revised, drivers
stopped complaining about the cameras.
In order for the driver citations to be fair and
accurate, a clear photo of the driver must be captured,
along with the license plate. If the photo doesn't match the
owner of the vehicle, the driver should not be responsible
for the ticket. Although most drivers can't argue against a
photo showing them running a light, some drivers will give
valid excuses that may cause the police to reevaluate the
photos. For example, one driver in Montclair, California
told the police officer she couldn't see past a truck that
turned in front of her on a double lane signal. The officer
threw out her ticket.
The debate over the use of red light traffic cameras at
intersections is far from over. Both sides have valid
concerns that should be resolved with more study and
research at cities where driver surveillance cameras are
both showing positive and negative results.
About the Author
Alice Osborn is a successful freelance writer and
contributor to Video-Surveillance-Guide.com. Your
definitive guide to video surveillance equipment, CCTV
cameras and wireless security systems for home and business.
Also See:
[ Biometric Face
Recognition & Identification Technologies ]
[ Benefits of Live Traffic
Surveillance Cameras ]
[ Future Applications of
Biometric Technology ]
[ top of page ]
Related Articles
[ top of page ]
|
