Baton Rouge’s Red Light Safety Program, which includes the infamous red light camera system, is an invaluable money well that will never run dry as long as humans and not robots operate vehicles.
The Louisiana Regular Legislative Session began Monday, and Rep. Jeff Arnold, D-New Orleans, introduced House Bill 217, which would allow voters to decide whether to keep the traffic cameras through municipal elections, The Advocate reported.
“I think this is the fairest way of handling it for both the citizens and the municipalities who have come to depend on the bankroll coming in,” Arnold said, adding that he has proposed variations of the bill for the past several years. “I think it has very little to do with safety.”
And that’s the issue.
Supporters of red light cameras argue that the cameras dramatically cut down the amount of red light-related traffic accidents, especially fatal ones. Opponents, however, say the cameras exist mostly so local governments can make money without working. They also say the amount of car crashes actually increases in intersections with cameras because rear-end collisions arise due to drivers slamming on their brakes to avoid running red lights.
There is no question the city makes gobs of money through its contract with American Traffic Solutions, Inc., the privately owned company that manages the city’s red light cameras.
Drivers paid more than $13.3 million in fines from 2008-12, The Advocate reported. The ATS kept almost $5 million, leaving the remaining $8 million to the Baton Rouge Police Department.
Talk about easy money. The city simply signed a contract with ATS, and now BRPD rakes in about $2 million a year, on average, in free cash. The only cost the city deals with involves processing claims from drivers who say they’re innocent.
Beyond the money, the waters of this issue become murky, if not opaque.
Making a direct correlation between the cameras and reduced traffic fatalities is nearly impossible. What about improved safety features on cars? Or safer driving in general?
Many studies from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing traffic accident fatalities, claim that the life-saving effects of red light cameras range somewhere between those of oases in deserts and guns in a knife fight.
“A 2011 Institute study comparing large cities with red light cameras to those without found the devices reduced the fatal red light running crash rate by 24 percent and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 17 percent,” according to a post on the IIHS website.
Feel free to judge the statistics presented in that discombobulating sentence yourself.
In cities such as Philadelphia and Los Angeles, news organizations reported that accidents actually increased in intersections with the traffic lights.
Again, attributing the increase in accidents directly to the traffic cameras is nearly impossible. What about the driver scrolling through Twitter on his phone? Or reading a text message? Or staring at a digital map because he has absolutely no idea where the heck he’s going (we’ve all done it)?
A fine for running a red light in Baton Rouge is $117. That’s worth at least 20 late-night meals at McDonald’s. Or 50-something packs of gum. Or one carnivorous date-night at Texas de Brazil.
The fines and the cameras should disappear until a study that would be practically impossible to conduct can prove a definitive and direct correlation between reduced fatalities and red light cameras.
In order for that to happen, though, citizens have to get mad.
To start, I suggest calling up your state representatives and begging them to support Arnold’s bill.
It would at least give voters, not lawmakers, the opportunity to decide for themselves if they think the program provides more safety than annoyance.
Ben Wallace is a 22-year-old mass communication senior from Tyler, Texas.
