|
Government
is increasingly turning to a
new weapon in the fight to protect motorists from
dangerous roads and
highways. Fifty cities across the country have, with the
help of the
federal government, deployed red light cameras to
monitor the streets
in the name of safety. After all, it is the duty and
responsibility of
government to ensure the security of its citizens.
The more closely one examines the safety promise of red
light cameras,
however, the more one finds they may actually diminish
safety.
From the federal government on down, sound engineering
practices have
been scrapped in favor of camera-friendly regulations.
One wonders if
the concern for safety has given way to a greater
concern for profit.
As long as this is allowed to continue, we're all at
risk.
It all started a little over fifteen years ago, about
the time New York
City first began experimenting with red light cameras.
Officials
responsible for writing national transportation
guidelines decided to
tell cities that they should shorten yellow signal times
at
intersections. That's right, they told cities to reduce
yellow times.
And the cities that followed these guidelines quickly
discovered that
they could catch more motorists entering intersections
on red. In other
words, it is no accident that this weakening of the
signal timing rules
coincided with the so-called "red light running crisis."
That's because the duration of yellow signal time is one
of the most
important factors for intersection safety.
Simply put, shorter yellow lights mean more people enter
on red. When
yellow time is inadequate, a condition develops where
individuals
approaching an intersection are unable either to come to
a safe stop or
proceed safely through the intersection before the light
turns red.
Engineers call this condition the "dilemma zone" and
it's something
that the old formula for calculating yellow times was
specifically
designed to avoid.
That has all changed. The new formula produces much
shorter yellow
times-as much as 30 percent shorter, depending on the
particular
intersection involved. You can compare for yourself the
differences
between the 1976 Institute
of Transportation Engineers formula and the current
formula. [See
section V. of Armey's May 2001 report, "The Red Light
Running Crisis -
Is It Intentional?"]
Of course, these changes were made in the name of
safety. But even if
you grant that they were made with the best of
intentions, the policy
of shortening yellows has been a complete failure.
Intersections are
less safe as a result. Nonetheless, many within the
transportation
bureaucracy cling to reduced yellow times because it
is extremely
profitable.
Each time a red light camera snaps a photo of a license
plate,
government hits the jackpot. The District's budget
assumes its camera
program will collect $16 million in fines. Montgomery
County wants to
triple its camera revenue by increasing the red light
ticket fine to
$250. It's no wonder that cities are finding
camera-based enforcement
attractive.
But there is another way out of the so-called red light
running crisis.
Consider this example. The city of Mesa, Arizona added
about a second
of yellow time to several intersections. The result was
a 73 percent
reduction in red light entries and a corresponding
reduction in
accidents. The safety effect was so dramatic that the
red light cameras
became money losers and the city recently decided to
retire the
devices.
Another intersection in Fairfax, Virginia experienced an
average of one
red light entry every 12 minutes until the Virginia
Department of
Transportation decided to extend its yellow time about a
second-and-a-half. Once the yellow time was extended,
the problem
virtually disappeared.
The evidence is clear. Almost no one disagrees that
longer yellows are
safer. That's why I offer the following challenge to
cities across this
nation that currently employ red light cameras: increase
the amount of
yellow time you provide motorists and see what happens.
Another second or two of yellow would have very little
impact on the
smooth flow of traffic, but it has a demonstrated impact
on safety. The
jurisdictions that say they are only concerned about
safety should find
the potential loss of millions in revenue acceptable.
I suspect, however, that over time those who accept the
challenge will,
in fact, go the way of Mesa and begin dropping cameras
once they become
money-losers. And that's the right option.
Red light cameras are judge, jury and executioner all in
one box. And
once we start down the road of letting machines do work
that should be
done by human law enforcement officers, it will be very
hard to turn
back. Europe started using ticket cameras almost a
decade before we
did. Already in downtown London, there's a camera on
every intersection
that tracks who enters the city and when, and where
they're going. You
can't go anywhere without Big Brother watching.
Let's try a proven solution to intersection problems
instead of
resorting to machines that are unfair, unsafe, and
un-American.
|