Join our Listener Club  Featured Listener Comments Section:   Contents List   Listener Comment

Lubbock's Spears works to help other Texans with Red Light Cam debate

Listener: David Spears
Category: Law Enforcement by Camera
Date: 27 Mar 2008
Time: 11:44:34 -0700
Remote Name: 66.140.100.171

Comments

Keep up with Law Enforcement by Camera issues here.

Robert,

I hope we're making a difference in the great state of Texas.

This is interesting, because I happened to meet a lady on the Beaumont City Council in my store about a month ago, and the subject of cameras came up. I shared my thoughts with her at the time and I wonder what her vote was - can't remember her name. She and her husband were with Dr. Jerry Hudson from the Mass Comm. department at Tech. Maybe another example of what happens when intelligent people talk and think.

Here's my letter I sent today to the Beaumont Enterprise:

Dear Editor and Fellow Texans,

Much confusion swirls around the issue of Red Light Cameras, and I want to explain what happened in Lubbock. I was the (volunteer) Chairman of the Red Light Camera Committee appointed by the City Council to review the results of the cameras. Our committee had no vested interest in the cameras, but we are all for SAFETY. That is why we voted 4-2 to recommend the cameras be taken down - based on the FACTS - the cameras caused a negative change in driver behavior resulting in a huge increase in collisions.

The big picture presented by the statistics is:

1. Collisions went up by 52% !!
2. The longer the cameras were up, the more collisions there were - First three months collisions were up 41%, Second three months collisions were up 64%
3. The number of injuries was exactly the same, although due to the nature of rear-end collisions (which skyrocketed), injuries were almost certainly UP (Injuries from rear-ends often aren't reported at the scene of the collision, causing an undercount).

The statistics are what caused the City Staff and the City Council to ask our committee to look at taking the cameras down early. These are alarming statistics that cried out to take the cameras down.

Remember that the camera provider is a "for-profit" company, trying to sell their product. They tell cities the cameras will make for safer streets (and, by the way, raise revenue)!

However, I urge Beaumont to:

1. Look at the results in Lubbock. More collisions, plus a HUGE CONTROVERSY.
2. Seek a simpler solution, such as lengthening the yellow light times and the all-stop times.
3. Don't get hooked on the allure of "easy money" - the state law change of September '07 takes half the money, anyway. The camera provider makes the real money, while the citizens pay an even higher price in the form of property damage and increased insurance premiums from the collisions.

Why don't cameras work? This is a complex issue, but I believe it's because they confuse the vast majority of drivers who are basically "good, reasonably careful" drivers, and the confusion results in them rear-ending each other as they make different decisions about whether to proceed at a changing light. Meanwhile, the small percentage of "bad, careless" drivers (who are the real problem) just don't care about cameras either.

Learn from Lubbock's experience and Just Say No to Red Light Cameras.

David Spears