Ever wonder how this camera works? According to Hamilton (2001), it works as such; first, once the light turns red, a camera 60ft. from the intersection is activated. Next, metal detectors, which are under the concrete, detect moving cars and calculate their speed. Then, cars moving too fast to stop are snapped from behind, both before and after the intersection, close ups are taken of the license plate. Lastly, images are reviewed by a police officer and citations are mailed within five days.
A common misconception is that the cameras were set up by the police force, but this not to be true. In fact, these cameras are set up by private law firms who get a cut on each ticket issued. These stats were compiled by Hamilton (2001), a standard ticket for running a red light cost about $90, with these cameras set up the company that set it up gets up to $70 per ticket they issue. With companies getting this money from each ticket San Diego has led the way, making $15.9 million since October of 1998, and Washington D.C. follows in right behind them with $12.8 million since August 1999, these figures are from their respective dates indicated before and compiled as of September of 2001. Therefore, San Diego law firms that installed these cameras were raking roughly $5.3 million a year. Although some people view these cameras as an invasion of their privacy, it is not true; though only few cameras take pictures of the front of the car, the majority of the cameras just take a picture from the back then a picture of the license plate.
According to a Federal Highway Administration study done in 2000, since the installment of these cameras at red lights, front and side crashes were reduced by 25%, while rear end crashes were up 15% (Parker 2006). These rear end crashes have increased because people do not want to get the ticket for running the red light, so they hit their brakes, but the people behind them cannot stop as fast and hit the back of the car in front of them. A police officer should be present in order someone to get a ticket; the officer on duty should also get a cut of the millions of dollars that these private law firms are making.
With cameras at red lights the world would have more police men for other tasks, such as robberies or murders. But while doing this research we must question this argument, there are many pros and cons to each side, but which one is better for the society? Perhaps a better alternative to this problem would be a live video shot that records everything that happens. Now instead of a picture, there would be a video to prove someone ran a red light. This would work the same way as hidden camera use for surveillance in a store.
We must stop the use of cameras, if for nothing else, the mere fact that these private firms are making millions of dollars off of it, and we do not know what the companies are doing the information and money. Terrance Gainer, Washington’s executive assistant chief of police, had argued, “We have reduced fatalities. If some company is making money off that, that is the American way” (Hamilton 2001). Maybe that is part of the problem; these cameras should not be installed to make a profit. A recent study showed that by lengthening a yellow light at two intersections infractions were cut down by 36%, and with the addition of a red light camera infractions were further reduced by 96% (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). Safety is a good thing, but for now using cameras is not the solution.
The police department has stated their case saying, as studies also indicate, that these cameras, also known as robocams have deterred people from speeding and running red lights. A Louis Harris poll conducted in September of 2001 showed that 69% of the American people supported the use of cameras (Hamilton 2001). Seven states have already decided to block any proposal in which would install these “robocams”. People against this issue range from House majority leader Dick Armey to the American Civil Liberties Union, which argue that these cameras violate privacy and place profit above public safety.
On another side of the issue State Rep. for Atlanta, Barry Loudermilk who is introducing a bill to ban red light cameras in Georgia suggested, “With a red-light camera, it’s like convicting a gun for murder. You have to prove your innocence instead of the government proving your guilt” (Copeland 2007). A way we can interpret this issue, is that the owner of the car gets the ticket regardless of who is actually driving it. Each infraction going against the car holder’s record, it could mean bad news for them when they haven’t done anything wrong. Technology is not perfect.
These robocams are no different, in San Diego faulty sensors made drivers appear to be going faster than they really were. In response, the city suspended the system in July, pending an independent audit the fall of 2001, the court judge also took away 300 tickets ruling that the so called pictures were unreliable and therefore inadmissible (Hamilton 2001). The judge found out that the intersection that these tickets were given at had faulty sensors. Technology can only go as far as the humans that make it. Technology will always have its bugs, and while technology is a good thing the society as a whole is not ready for it.
