New Decisions in red light cameras still bad.

Lubbock Traffic Engineer Jere Hart and the Lubbock City Council have been under great pressures from citizens and the media since the announcement of red light camera installation. The scrutiny is well placed, because Hart and the Lubbock City Council have chosen to ignore numerous research findings on the effects of red light cameras from different Departments of Transportations from around the world.

There have been many arguments about why the council has chosen to have these cameras installed, and the real intentions finally surfaced late last month. According to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim Gilbreath commented on the process of deciding between which companies will supply the city of Lubbock with the red light cameras. “When you get down to the point when you're splitting hairs, money has to come into play.” Councilman Floyd Price didn’t necessarily share the same sentiment. “We are so focused on how much money we're going to make. Are we placing those cameras for the sole purpose of making a dollar or are we doing it for public safety?”

The council has narrowed down the manufacturers of the cameras to two companies. ATS of Scottsdale, Arizona and Redflex, based out of Australia. ATS has promised the city $100,000 more over the five year contract in comparison with Redflex. This extra income is in addition to the 3.3 million dollars the city estimates it will gain during the length of the contract. Gilbreath also added that ATS has connections in the area with a local collection company for collecting fines. If the city implements 12 more cameras from the company in the first year, they would likely be collecting an extra $600,000 over a ten year period.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with Gilbreath’s claim that monetary decisions should be a factor, the fact that this money would come out of our pockets is quite bothersome. It’s been very blatant that the council has been acting purely out of budget concerns instead of concern for the wellbeing of the citizens of Lubbock. They may argue the opposite, but had they heeded the warnings of numerous reports of the detriments of red light cameras, the council would not have given the cameras a second thought.

The Australian Study of Red Light Cameras found that cameras increased accidents. “The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC (Red Light Cameras) at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.” The most extensive American study on red light cameras is the “Burkey-Obeng Study” conducted for the North Carolina Urban Transit Institute found that “The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.” They go as far to brand red light cameras as a “detriment to safety”.

The Virginia Department of Transportation found that red light cameras increased wrecks overall in Fairfax county by 8-17%, rear endings increased by 50-71%, and overall injury between 7-24%. These numbers are fairly drastic for objects that are supposedly installed for the motorist’s protection.

Most often, the yellow light times are shortened along with the installation of these devices to increase revenue, but KCBD news in Lubbock did a study on how long our yellow times currently are. According to KCBD, Jere Hart was quoted as saying that “A yellow light time is important because it gives people an adequate amount of time to stop before they get to an intersection and gives them adequate time to drive on through the intersection.” The national standard is one second of yellow per 10 miles per hour as designated by the speed limit. KCBD found that many lights in Lubbock were far under this standard, including eight out of the twelve intersections slated to receive red light cameras.

While our local officials may try to feign concern over their constituents’ safety, it’s our job not to believe them when their budgets are at stake. They can’t care much when they’re instituting things that are proven to increase accidents and injury. At least our wallets might be protected in a wreck caused by their decisions, so they can try and strip more money out of them.