Red-light cameras must be justified

If you run a red light, you risk getting a ticket from someone in uniform. What you might not expect is for that person to be the mail carrier.

Yet tickets for blowing red lights are landing in mailboxes more frequently these days as more communities enlist cameras as cops. The cameras, installed at intersections, record red-light runners, who are in turn notified of their alleged violation via postal delivery.

There is something eerily Big Brother-ish about this. We'd just as soon be pulled over by a cop than be accused of a traffic violation by an electronic eye. There is always the suspicion, too, that communities are installing these cameras because it is an easy way to raise money from ticket revenue.

Still, we have noted, in this space, that a case can be made for use of red-light cameras. In 2003 nearly 1,000 people were killed, and 176,000 injured, by someone running a red light, according to the Federal Highway Administration. We have seen our share of these tragic crashes in the suburbs.

Cameras can work to deter this dangerous traffic violation. New York City, for example, has seen a 34 percent reduction in red-light violations since cameras were put in place in 1994, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Red-light running has gone down by as much as 60 percent in other cities where cameras are in use.

Still, it behooves communities to be persuasive and above-board in making a case for red-light cameras. They shouldn't be sprung on citizens. The reasons for using this traffic law enforcement system should be presented in public meetings.

First and foremost, it has to be established that red-light running is posing a genuine threat to public safety. And that stepped up patrols have not been effective in controlling the problem.

Communities should also explore the value of alternatives to red-light cameras before proceeding to install them.

This would include looking at using pavement markings that warn of a traffic signal ahead. This could heighten readiness to apply brakes upon a signal change.

Other alternatives include advance flashing lights that alert motorists of signaled intersections ahead or even warn of impending traffic light changes; increasing the size of traffic lamps so they're more visible; improving timing of traffic signals; longer yellow caution lights; and looking at whether speed limits in the vicinity of traffic signals need to be adjusted to allow for more braking time.

Before giving the green light to red-light cameras, they should be justified by the facts, and alternatives need to be convincingly ruled out as impractical or ineffective. Without such, citizens just might take the view that the cameras are out there to raise cash, not decrease deadly accidents.