FOCUS: RED-LIGHT CAMERAS
Red-light cameras are coming despite protests
ALBANY — Some area motorists think cameras at Buffalo intersections are not only welcome but long overdue to crack down on drivers running red lights.
“I’m hoping they will make people realize they need to slow down, that yellow means caution,” said Monica Cichon, who can see from her house cars regularly running red lights on Parkside Avenue.
But not everyone believes cameras are the solution.
“I think it’s just a money grab,” said Jan Bernas, a Town of Tonawanda resident. “It’s Big Brother — and it’s not going to make anything safer.”
Passions are high on both sides. But with Gov. David A. Paterson almost certain to sign legislation permitting Buffalo and several other cities to place cameras at intersections, Buffalo police officials already are starting to think about where to place the devices.
“This isn’t looking to be an ‘I gotcha’ program. It will be based on what other cities are doing successfully with the whole point being public safety and reducing accidents,” Deputy Police Commissioner Daniel Derenda said. “But we can’t ignore the revenue it will bring.”
State officials believe the cameras could be worth close to $3 million a year in additional revenue for the city, which Derenda said could go to public safety efforts, such as hiring more police.
But critics question the safety claims of the camera programs. One federal government study shows an increase in rear-end collisions caused by drivers slamming on their brakes to avoid getting caught by the camera, these critics note.
They also fear municipalities, increasingly turning to the cameras, will play with yellow signal times — shortening them — to help catch more red light runners and raise more money from fines.
But proponents say nearly every study has concluded a reduction in dangerous front-to-side impact accidents, also known as T-boning. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found cameras cut down on red-light running by 40 percent and Tboning accidents by 32 percent.
In Chicago, the number of cameras has risen from 40 in 2003 to 280 today, with 45,000 summons issued last month, said Derenda, who is leading Buffalo’s effort to study other localities to help craft the city’s proposal for contracts with one of a handful of firms in the business.
“If it works in Chicago, it will work in Buffalo,” he said.
There is much confusion among drivers about how the program will work, in part because the state has largely left it to Buffalo and the other communities — Nassau and Suffolk counties, Yonkers, Rochester and Syracuse — to develop their own redlight camera systems. Other communities, like the local suburbs, weren’t pushing for the cameras, lawmakers say.
Buffalo will be able to put cameras in as many as 50 intersections and can charge a maximum fine of $50, with a $25 surcharge for late or ignored ticket payments.
No additional state surcharge is allowed. No points will be added to a violator’s license because the infraction will be treated like a parking ticket.
Critics say the violations could cause insurance rates to rise even though the infractions are not moving violations.
Backers say privacy concerns are addressed by a provision that bans cameras from taking photographs of people inside the vehicles. But that leads to a separate issue: It is the owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the person driving, who is slapped with the fine.
The New York Civil Liberties Union is especially concerned about “mission creep,” in which police could use the cameras for more than just catching red-light runners. One lawmaker said, for instance, it could help catch those involved in drive-by shootings.
The NYCLU wanted the legislation to ensure camera images are destroyed after a ticket is paid and for signs to be erected notifying drivers that they are in an area with cameras.
“Beyond capturing images of individuals, electronic surveillance technology can be used to collect and store information that indicates an individual’s location and travel patterns; what’s more, once in the possession of state officials, a car’s license-plate number can provide access to highly sensitive personal information that appears in car registration and driver’s license documents,” Robert Perry, NYCLU’s legislative director, wrote to a lawmaker in a failed bid to add more privacy protections.
What is a violation?
It depends how the system is set up, but in many states, an image is taken when a sensor detects a car that is unlikely to stop in time during a yellow signal before the light turns red. Then a second image — the violation shot — is taken of the vehicle past the stop line with the red light showing. The cameras also produce a close-up of the vehicle’s license plate. One firm’s cameras take a five-second video that a driver can view online of the infraction incident.
A violation occurs when a moving car crosses the stop line while the light is red. A car can stop before the stop line and then make a legal right turn on red and not get ticketed, though critics say drivers making such turns have gotten fined.
A car sitting in an intersection and waiting to turn when the light turns red would not be a violation, officials said.
Only vehicles breaking the red-light law are photographed, and there are exceptions, such as cars in a funeral procession.
In most municipalities — 419 in 25 states — governments contract with vendors to handle almost all aspects of the system. In most cases, though, local police inspect the photographs before a ticket is sent. Drivers can appeal the charges in court, though they rarely win.
“A picture is worth a thousand words,” said James Tuton, president of Advanced Traffic Solutions, a Scottsdale, Ariz., firm whose camera contracts with 155 communities include New York City.
Tuton said the systems are accurate and foolproof.
“Most people don’t want to be killed by somebody who doesn’t stop for red lights,” he said.
Buffalo has not decided exactly where the cameras will go, although high-accident intersections will be the priority, police say. Nor has the city decided when the cameras will be placed at the intersections or whether it will buy the devices or sign up with a vendor that will supply the cameras and run the program.
While some officials say the cameras can be moved to other intersections, Tuton said most cities don’t do that because of the expense, planning and engineering involved.
Supporters say studies have shown redlight running is reduced at all intersections, not just those with cameras.
“We know that urban intersections can be very dangerous places,” said Wally Smith, a spokesman for AAA of Western and Central New York, which backs the cameras.
Smith said 45 percent of crashes caused by running a red light result in injuries, compared with 30 percent for all other crashes.
The cameras have enemies. Some states have banned them outright, while others have pulled back after starting, in part, because they did not generate enough money to pay the expenses.
Studies have shown increases in crashes in intersections with cameras, said Barbara Langland-Orban, chairwoman of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of South Florida.
Although she said the camera programs “should work,” she insists they don’t improve safety.
In the end, she said those pushing the cameras have a chief motivator: money.
“They can all benefit together. You can have the auto insurers, vendors and municipalities all making money simultaneously, and we know who is paying,” Langland-Orban said.
Log into MyBuffalo to post a comment
MyBuffalo is the new social network from Buffalo.com. Your MyBuffalo account lets you comment on and rate stories at buffalonews.com. You can also head over to mybuffalo.com to share your blog posts, stories, photos, and videos with the community. Join now or learn more.
Reader comments