Red-light cameras all about money

Regarding the addition of automated traffic cameras to the village of Gurnee around their revenue "hot spots," I would like to offer a few thoughts from the public side of the equation. I will no longer venture to Gurnee Mills, Six Flags or Key Lime Cove sadly because these particular contraptions are the opposite of the familiar money-dispensing machines found outside our local banks. Instead, these devices take our money, and dispense it in massive bundles to voracious local governments (and foreign-owned subcontractors) facing reduced sales tax revenue in this troubling economy. While the cameras certainly cramp the styles of driving enthusiasts, a closer look at their implementation reveals that they also make our roads more dangerous and our legal system less fair. A few independent studies such as one recently published in Texas found accidents more than doubled at the Houston intersections where red light cameras are installed, according to a study released by Rice University and the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). An impartial analysis released this month by the city of Corpus Christi, Texas, has found further evidence of the hollow claim that these cameras are a benefit to safe driving. A review of preliminary collision data supplied by the city shows that the installation of red light cameras has done nothing to improve safety. Overall, the accident situation worsened at photo-enforced intersections at a time when decreased traffic levels have brought accident rates nationwide to an all-time low. The total number of accidents in Corpus Christi increased 14 percent, from 310 incidents to 353, at nine locations where automated ticketing machines were stationed. Contrary to the claim that red light cameras reduce the severity of collisions, the number of accidents involving injuries increased 28 percent from 140 to 179. Rear end collisions also increased by nearly a third from 160 to 208. These machines are incapable of fairness (let alone basic judgment), and they can't be cross-examined. This bothersome reality conflicts with the common-law principle of due process, and so our legal system must adapt to the concept of an unthinking device being the sole witnesses of a victimless crime. Most states such as Illinois sidestep the issue by defining photo enforcement violations as "civil infractions" instead of "crimes." Ironic considering the spokesperson for the village of Gurnee was a "crime prevention technician." Civil infractions were institutionalized as a way to collect parking ticket revenue (now its own multibillion dollar business) while eliminating the pesky, old-fashioned concept of "innocent until proven guilty." These camera enforcement programs take advantage of those who don't want to go to the trouble and expense of a challenge that can end up costing as much as the ticket itself. For all but a handful of drivers, it's much easier to write the check and be done with it. Although traffic cameras frequently enjoy enthusiastic support in public opinion research sponsored by their industry, photo enforcement has never succeeded with voters on Election Day. A red light camera program shouldn't just be a cash cow for cities, and I think that we voters deserve to have input on these controversial cameras. If this is all about safety and not revenue then maybe we should take the village of Gurnee at their word and send the resulting revenue to the school district that the camera is located in... without question, they could use the money for a better purpose.

Brian Larsen

Mundelein