Putting the Brakes on the Red Light Camera Controversy

I must admit that I do some of my best thinking at intersections.

One thing that often enters my mind is are we relying too much on machines and gadgets to dictate our day-to-day operations?

Try calling most businesses these days and you will get a simple “press 1 for this, press 2 for that, etc.” Watch a National Football League game and a machine running instant replay will tell you whether or not a quarterback fumbled or was bringing his arm forward to pass. And these days you can wave a little gadget known as a “speed pass” at a gas station and begin the pumping process.

While recently sitting at an intersection in San Diego, I began to ponder the effectiveness of those red light cameras that have shot up across the nation, especially on both coasts that I get to visit several times a year.

Here in San Diego, the red light camera issue literally snapped a picture that upset many (especially those who received tickets over the last year), and resulted in a court case last fall. Those in and out of the insurance industry have varying views on these machines. Lifesavers or moneymakers? Some will argue both.

According to Judith Lee Stone, president of Advocates for Highway Auto Safety, the cameras do serve their purpose. “All we cared about was that the safety system was in place and it was saving lives,” says Stone. “It does work to deter people from running red lights.”

Talk to Eric Skrum, communications director for the National Motorists Association, and he will give you a slightly different point of view.

“Our view is this is not an enforcement issue, it is an engineering problem,” says Skrum.

“For example, there was an intersection in Fairfax County, Virginia. After several months of having a camera there and no decrease in the amount of violations, the traffic engineers basically increased the yellow light time by 1.5 seconds (4 seconds to 5.5 seconds) and within a month’s time, they had a 96 percent decrease in violations.”

And just where do those in the insurance industry come in on the argument?

Nicole Mahrt, American Insurance Association director of public affairs (western region), says absolutely, when asked if the devices help reduce accidents. But Mahrt also points to the problem in San Diego last year with the cameras, noting “things need to be done responsibly,” adding, “local governments need not to use this as a revenue source.”

When all arguments were said and done last September in San Diego, a Superior Court dismissed approximately 300 traffic tickets, ruling that although the cameras were perfectly legal around the city, San Diego had allowed too much control to be placed in the hands of the private company operating the devices.

The judge added that the agreement between the city and the company was a violation of state law and labeled the photos untrustworthy to be used as evidence. A number of San Diego attorneys even went so far as to file a separate suit searching for reimbursement for everyone who ever paid a red-light-camera citation in the city.

Ah, revenue. As was evidenced in San Diego, the minute talk of impropriety arises, everyone and their mother raises a stink.

David Snyder, assistant general counsel for AIA, says that the association feels that some changes to the relationship between vendors and governments can address these issues without slowing the application of “this important life-saving technology.” Snyder adds that when asked if motorist’s rights are being denied as a result of the cameras, the association responds, “We view as bogus, claims that there is a right to drive aggressively, endangering other people and violating laws, because there is some right to privacy that prevents local government from enforcing their laws on public streets.”

According to Skrum, the number of communities using the red light cameras has risen to some 60 areas across the country.

With more cameras popping up, the lawsuits won’t go away soon. Nor will those who triumph the camera’s benefits in reducing accidents and saving lives.

I haven’t violated one of these cameras to date, so I have not been adversely affected by them. I will admit however that I approach these intersections a little differently than I did a year or two ago.

I understand the intent here of these devices. I’m just left scratching my head sometimes if we’re letting machines take yet a little more day-to-day operation away from us.

I guess just one more thing to ponder while I’m sitting there waiting on the light to change.

Dave Thomas is staff writer for Insurance Journal West. To comment on this article, please send e-mail to dthomas@insurancejournal.com