Running red lights is the No. 1 cause of urban crashes, costs $14 billion annually and was responsible for 165,000 injuries, 800 fatalities and 1.8 million crashes in 2005, according to Baton Rouge’s Red Light Safety Program. The program claims most automobile crashes involve drivers who run red lights, and 56 percent of drivers admit to running red lights. Red light cameras have been implemented as a solution. Locations of cameras in Baton Rouge include intersections at Sherwood Forest and Coursey Blvd., Essen Lane and the I-10 eastbound off-ramp, College Drive and the I-10 eastbound off-ramp, Airline Highway, and Old Hammond Highway and La. Highway 19 and Blount Road. But because of technologies such as red light cameras and GPS navigation systems that monitor vehicle, cell phone and computer locations, it’s becoming more difficult to ensure the right to privacy for ordinary American citizens.  In most cases, it’s difficult to tell not only the number of cameras in use, but also the financial benefit or detriment of these cameras. Taxpayers can’t know how much they cost when they don’t know how many cameras are in use. There is no estimate on how many cameras are in use around the country, though they are used in at least 70 cities and a dozen states, according to a Feb. 19, 2005, ABC News article. The usefulness of these cameras is also debatable. They can lead to false convictions because the owner of a vehicle may not be the person who is in violation of the law.   The National Motorists Association cites five independent studies that detail “the failure of red light cameras as a safety measure.” The studies describe a “negative safety impact” that results from red light cameras. In some instances, these red light cameras actually create more hazards – such as an increase in rear-end collisions. As drivers approach intersections with red light cameras, they slam on their brakes to avoid running the light, which increases the likelihood of a collision at the vehicle’s rear. A 2005 Washington Post article claims red light cameras have generated over $30 million in revenue, but don’t reduce injuries or collisions. They also claim cameras increase accidents – and intersections with these cameras don’t produce more successful statistics than areas without cameras.  The cameras’ legality is also in question.                The 4th Amendment protects citizens against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Cameras invade the privacy of drivers by unreasonably searching and seizing the contents of the vehicle.  The 5th Amendment prevents citizens from being “deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” Only the privileged will have the resources to contest their case in court. This discriminates against certain motorists.  Advocates of traffic light cameras argue that it’s not an invasion of privacy because the cameras monitor public spaces, not private areas. Opponents challenge the ethics behind such activities, citing a conflict of interest between government and private contractors.  The debate seems to be moot here, though Baton Rouge has already contracted with American Traffic Solutions Inc., according to Baton Rouge’s Red Light Safety Program. Unsuspecting drivers who are issued tickets as a result of cameras used at intersections bear the burden of paying for their violations, while local government and private contractors reap the rewards. The ABC article explains the cameras only serve to reward local governments with revenues for poor engineering plans. The problem could be avoided altogether if cities implemented longer yellow lights, “properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices,” according to the ABC article. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, but it can do so without controversy and without invading civil liberties.  Our politicians should be more focused on improving public transportation to reduce the amount of cars on the road, thus reducing the amount of traffic violations and automobile accidents. But a March 21, 2008, MSNBC article explains that red light cameras in Dallas are so effective that they no longer generate much revenue.  Because drivers began to pay more attention at intersections with traffic lights, the cameras lost their purpose – producing more government revenue. The cameras were then removed. This story affects all of us. To prevent the necessity of traffic light cameras and any disputable violations of the right to privacy, there are a number of actions ordinary citizens can take to counter the government’s implication of these policies and practices. Quit running red lights. Quit speeding. Buckle up. Don’t drive like a jerk. Then this Big Brother hysteria will become a thing of the past. It’s more than probable the government won’t spy on you for no reason. They’re looking for the big fish. But the populace shouldn’t have to suffer for the sins of a select few.
—-Contact Daniel Lumetta at [email protected]