Cameras increase revenue, not safety
by Michael Kraft, entertainment editor

    “I’m willing to sacrifice some freedoms if … ”

How many times have we heard this phrase used, usually in the pursuit of increased public safety?

    The newest threat to personal freedoms in the name of safety is actually a very common device that has been used for more than a century: the camera.

    More specifically, red light and speed limit cameras.

    Already, 50 cities in the United States have installed the devices and many more are to follow. The problem is not the cameras themselves. They are, after all, just machines. The problem is the motivations behind them and the slippery slope they put us on.

    Red light cameras are designed to turn a profit for the city first, with increased safety a distant second. The charges may sound very serious, but evidence has come to light that it is true.

    In San Diego, 290 motorists have sued the city and won. About 5,000 documents were released that showed the cameras were not placed at the city’s most dangerous intersections but, instead, at the most affluent areas of the city ensuring higher revenue.

    Another controversy is the shortening of yellow light times. Independent studies in Michigan, Oregon, Arizona and San Diego found that lights without cameras had an average of four to five seconds of yellow light while ones with cameras have only two to three seconds for their yellow sequence.

    This shortened time increases the chance that the motorist is caught in the “red zone,” a zone where it is impossible to stop safely and not be rear-ended, but running the red light is inevitable.
In Mesa, Ariz., one light that had a three-second yellow generated $6.8 million dollars of revenue in 18 months. When motorists complained, the city increased all the times to 4.7 seconds and the incidences of red light running went down 90 percent and stayed down. This is bad for business as the city lost millions of dollars a year in revenue. The cameras became so costly that city officials removed them entirely.

    Recently on Nightline, San Diego Police Chief David Bejarando said, “It’s true in a few intersections we found a few more accidents than prior to red-light photo enforcement. At some intersections, we saw no change at all, but at several intersections we actually saw an increase in traffic accidents.”

    This admission appears to be pretty damning evidence of a scam playing on safety to generate money. Further evidence is that Lockheed-Martin, the maker of the cameras, gets a $70 kickback on every $250 ticket and has been proved to tell the cities about short yellows and camera placement to maximize profits.

    In addition, red light camera tickets do not raise insurance and no points go on a driver’s license. Basically, no meaningful punishment geared toward changing behavior is imposed, merely a fine, which, depending on whom you ask, is a thinly veiled tax.

    Proponents of the cameras love to say, “It’s only a camera, unless you’re speeding, running a red light or otherwise breaking the law; what’s so bad?”

    Right, and what’s wrong with a DEA agent rooting through your sock drawer if you don’t have any drugs? No problem, right?

It’s about privacy and how far we wish to let the government into our lives.

    As Benjamin Franklin said, “Anyone who would sacrifice freedom for the sake of safety deserves neither freedom nor safety.”