The Oak Ridge City Council will soon decide whether Oak Ridge should start using cameras and electronic devices to enforce traffic laws. It’s a complicated issue — there is a diverse variety of pro and con arguments regarding red-light and speed-enforcement cameras.
At the City Council meeting on Monday, March 17th, we will consider (on first reading) a proposed ordinance to authorize the use of these systems in traffic enforcement. Meanwhile, city staff has been reviewing proposals submitted to the city in response to an RFP on electronic traffic enforcement systems, and intends to bring a recommendation to Council on April 21st.
Arguments for electronic traffic enforcement include improved safety, more consistent enforcement of traffic laws (many citizens yearn for punishment of drivers who whiz through intersections as the light changes from yellow to red), and generation of revenue for the city.
Arguments that I’ve heard and read from the anti-camera-enforcement side are diverse. I’ve probably missed a few, but they include concerns about the accuracy (and possible malfunctions) of the electronic systems, concerns that this is “big brother” infringing on personal freedom, concern about the possibility of entrapment (notably, if the yellow light duration is set too short), misgivings about the involvement of private companies in operating these systems, concern that too many of the violators on our roads would escape penalties (for example, because they are driving unregistered motor vehicles that display invalid license plates), and concern about possible unintended consequences, including increased accidents (more on those below).
Some of the arguments I’ve heard for these cameras seem like “keeping up with Joneses” — joining the other cities, including Knoxville, that have started using cameras. That’s not a good enough reason for me, but it is interesting to see how widespread camera use is. According to the website HowStuffWorks, red-light cameras have existed for more than 40 years, but they have mostly caught on within the past decade. Around the world, support for these systems is high. For example, according to this poll 78% of Canadians surveyed supported the use of cameras to identify vehicles that go through intersections after the traffic light has turned red, 84% of Canadians supported photo radar to catch speeders in school zones, and 66% supported photo radar speed enforcement on the highway. Safety advocates and police particularly like the idea that an automated system can catch every violator and free up patrolmen for other work.
Electronic enforcement systems are not yet deployed as widely in the U.S. as in some other countries, but this list of U.S. Communities using red light and/or speed cameras from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows that camera enforcement is widespread in California. Other states where they have been adopted fairly widely include Texas, Georgia, and Illinois. Tennessee cities reported to be using red-light cameras right now are Gallatin, Germantown, Jackson, Kingsport, Knoxville, Morristown, Red Bank, and Selmer. In addition, Chattanooga, Jackson, Mount Carmel, Red Bank, and Selmer have started using cameras in speed enforcement.
For me, the one truly valid justification for electronic traffic enforcement should be improved safety. As the Canadian Safety Council points out (see “Red Light Cameras“) that the objective of this technology is to prevent violations — ideally, to give no tickets. “If the number of violations is high the program is not working properly.” Unfortunately, the commercial arrangements required to set up and operate a camera system pretty much require that there be a lot of violations. The sophisticated monitoring technology is not something that a city like Oak Ridge could buy and operate on its own, so it’s necessary to contract with a vendor such as Redflex or American Traffic Solutions (just two of the companies offering these systems in the U.S.). Under the contracts established between municipalities and vendors, the vendor gets a share of the fines collected by the camera system, so it’s in everyone’s financial interest to locate cameras in places where they will catch a lot of violators. That’s a paradox: If the program is working properly the number of violations should be low, but in order to maintain the program the number of violations needs to be high.
Contrary to the expectation that red-light cameras bring in revenues, many communities have found that they cost more to operate than they bring in from fines. I think that is likely to be Oak Ridge’s experience. Police Chief David Beams told the City Council budget and finance committee that he expects that one patrolman would need to be assigned to the electronic traffic enforcement program full-time — to view images of violations and write tickets. Beams would like to hire an additional police officer to fill the shoes of the officer who is diverted into writing red-light tickets, at a cost of about $50,000 a year. At $50 per ticket (the amount allowed under state law), it would take a lot of red-light tickets to generate $50,000 in revenue for the city after paying the system contractor its share of the fines. However, Kingsport reports having received an astonishing $512,550 in fines ($50 per violation) and court costs (an additional $50 per violation) in the first 9 months of red-light camera operation. Kingsport pays Redflex 80% of the fines for the first 95 tickets each month and 50% after that, so their net has been only a fraction of the $512,550 (and likely is not enough to cover costs of the four traffic officers who review the cameras and the two full-time and two part-time records clerks who support the program), but maybe Oak Ridge can break even after all.
Oak Ridge has some intersections where residents believe the number of red-light violations is high (mostly vehicles entering the intersection just after the light turns from yellow to red), but it’s not clear that these frequent violations are a serious safety problem. There’s a lot of research (for example, in these 2001 articles from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) that indicates that adjustments in timing of yellow lights, and in the duration of the “all-red” interval after the light changes from yellow to red, can reduce accidents. My personal observations in Oak Ridge indicate that the “all-red” interval on our stoplights is effective in preventing collisions, because the stoplight doesn’t turn to green until after the people who ran through the intersection as the light was changing have cleared the intersection. Thus, while red light cameras at these locations probably could generate a substantial number of tickets, it’s not clear that the cameras would prevent many accidents.
Red-light cameras have had mixed results in reducing accident rates. There’s a widely reported study of red light cameras in Oxnard, California that found 7% fewer crashes overall and 29% fewer injury crashes at intersections after cameras were introduced, and an impressive 20% fewer crashes and 46% fewer injury crashes related to red-light running. However, results often are not that good. For example, in 2005 the Washington Post reported that in Washington, DC, the rates of right-angle crashes had actually increased at intersections with cameras.
Another serious concern is the many reports of unintended consequences from red-light cameras. It should be obvious to experienced drivers that cameras can lead to increases in rear-end collisions (because of more people stopping for yellow lights). These accidents are less serious that the right-angle accidents that occur when people run red lights, but a large increase in rear-end accidents is a poor trade-off if the intersection is one without a history of right-angle accidents. A particular issue for Oak Ridge is that the introduction of red-light cameras at an intersection often causes people to change their route to avoid that intersection. It’s easy to foresee that red-light cameras on, for example, Oak Ridge Turnpike could lead to increased thru traffic on streets like Tennessee Avenue and Outer Drive, and the overall effect might even be reduced traffic safety in the city.
Based on my experience as a driver, passenger, and pedestrian, I think camera-based speed enforcement has greater potential for improving safety in Oak Ridge than camera-based red-light enforcement. Excessive speeds on streets are a concern all over the city. Monitoring speed reliably is technically more challenging than monitoring red-light compliance, but traffic engineers seem to think it can be done reliably on city streets (for example, in this Technical Evaluation of Photo Speed Enforcement for Freeways, Arizona Department of Transportation, 2005). When electronic speed monitoring is used, folks generally are ticketed only for the same clear exceedances of the speed limit (for example, 10 miles over the limit) that a human officer would ticket them for, so it would be hard to argue that the enforcement is unreasonable. On a trip to Australia (a country with widespread use of speed cameras) last year, I was impressed to see that drivers generally obeyed the speed limit in spite of the absence of highway patrols, so I believe that these systems might actually work to improve driver behavior.
Like some Oak Ridgers who’ve talked with me about the matter, I’m bothered by the idea of people’s movement being recorded by a hidden camera. However, I believe that we relinquish some privacy when we drive on public streets and highways, so I think that use of cameras is acceptable as long as their images are used only for traffic enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned against “mission creep” — allowing camera data to be used for other surveillance purposes.
As for the entrapment issue, I’ve been given assurances that stoplight timing would not be altered to increase the rate of violations at red-light camera locations (for one thing, it turns out that state law controls the minimum duration of yellow lights). However, I believe that over time the presence of cameras could reduce the incentive to make other intersection improvements that would enhance safety. One of my biggest concerns about stoplight compliance is the occasional driver who runs a light because they did not see it. The consequences of that kind of mistake can be very serious, and I would hope that the presence of red-light cameras at an intersection would not prevent the city from implementing measures (such as addition of strobe lights) to make stoplights more visible, if visibility is an issue. Another example of a safety measure (one discussed in those IIHS articles) is restrictions on right turns at red lights during specified hours, which can reduce pedestrian accidents — I hope the presence of red-light cameras at an intersection would not prevent the city from considering adding that type of restriction.
If you’ve made it this far, you are probably asking “How does she plan to vote on this?” On first reading, I expect to vote for the ordinance to authorize the use of these systems in traffic enforcement. Before approving any contract to implement electronic traffic enforcement, however, I will want much more detail about its implementation and its potential safety benefits. Additionally, I hope to hear citizens’ perspectives on the topic…
Like you, I have some reservations, but generally think that the red-light cameras would probably decrease accidents over time. After people have gotten used to the cameras and there aren’t enough tickets written to justify the cost, you could just put fake cameras up to maintain the good behavior.
There is one light in the middle of town where the yellow does seem noticeably shorter than all the others; I was rear-ended there last year when I stopped for the light. It probably should be adjusted a little bit, whether it’s targeted for enforcement or not.
Red light cameras as well as speed cameras have the best potential to increase safety when combined with other measures such as flashing lights in school zones, crossing guards, and increased penalties (discussed here on my blog: House Bill 2653 Goes to Floor This Week). With all such measures in place, you increase awareness and thus influence behavior.
As I discussed here: Red-light cameras in Oak Ridge? on AtomicCityTalk and here: An hour in the life of an intersection, the potential for revenue is significant with the amount for just the intersection I stood at being $182,000 a year. If the cameras successfully deter violators, that number could still prove significantly higher as it was based on just one hour a day.
I like your comment about fake cameras, Netmom. I figure the best plan would be to maintain a couple of cameras and move them around to different intersections, so nobody is sure which locations are active.
Regarding that intersection with the short yellow — have you notified the police and electric departments so they can measure the timing and adjust it, if needed? (If not, please let me know and I’ll follow up.) I’ve never been rear-ended at an Oak Ridge stoplight, but there have been a bunch of occasions when I decided (on what I thought was a close call) to keep going on the yellow light and was amazed to see that the next 3 cars behind me also went through the light.
Trina: In my opinion (which may not be shared by city staff or the prospective red light contractor), that intersection you describe (Illinois and Robertsville) is one of the city’s best candidates for enforcement because of the propensity of drivers to ignore the light. I know of one near-fatal accident there that was caused by a trucker who ran the red light on Illinois.
A camera installed there to monitor red-light compliance and speed probably would not collect nearly as much money as you predict, as few drivers would make the same mistake twice. The deterrent effect is a good thing.
Still, I wonder if more could be done to improve that intersection’s design in order to induce drivers on Illinois Ave. to take the intersection (including the stoplight) more seriously. I don’t think drivers pay as much attention to that intersection as they do to most stoplight-controlled intersections. Having stood there for all those hours, do you have any theories to explain the driver behavior you saw?
The point about relieving an officer for other patrol beats, is that to be because less accidents happen is why an officer would be free? In that case so would the fire department and ambulance be free? I do not find that an officer would become availabe with cameras to be true as Oak Ridge Police does not have a light watching officer.
I understand that our use of cameras will be vehicle picture only, so if someone stole my tag or was borrowing my car, I would still be issued the ticket, comparing California with Tennessee is apples and oranges due to their double license plate and actual photo of the driver. Seems to me that a credible alibi would dismiss tickets, as is the case with an officer. This point of no person to attach the fine to is why I believe it will ticket many people, but how much will be collected? I believe many will pay since not losing in court will keep the fine off their insurance? Yet, many people living outside will not pay the fine, and what is done about that?
The amount of time needed for cameras from an already strapped police force is a steep slope to climb, and the camera doesn’t relieve any officer currently. Our city needs to stop spending for “fake†ideas and put real ones into effect. Establish correspondence with the camera company that many problems they say it will fix we do not have, to present to citizens, and the money is not put into a general fund for more “fake†positions in our city council to use up. Would a fake crossing guard help the situation or be allowed with students traveling to school, and how the school’s budgetary spending seems to be bottomless?
This issue of how much money it will bring in must be clear and go to a usable effort for citizens to get behind any idea of “big brother†taking pictures of insiders and outsiders.
This revenue must be marked before it is collected, or I find this camera effort as another way to hide what Oak Ridge money does for its citizens. The camera company would understand why a clear measure of the revenue must be mapped, for manning the intersection with a real officer would find more in fines when the vehicle is stopped, possibly saving someone’s life by removing a convict and his gun from the streets of our Re-Entry City.
Ellen,
Though I don’t recall a greater number of light runners necessarily coming from Oliver Springs, I would suspect that the momentum from coming over that hill (at the speeds that were typical before the school zones were enforced) played a big part. This would be particularly true of the many large trucks that come through.
Also, though my stats focused specifically on red-light runners, it seemed that the majority of drivers sped up rather than slowed down for yellow lights – so the timing should also be carefully analyzed if a camera is placed there.
It’s all speculative of course, but my predictions were based on a fraction of time before the other measures were put into place. And while behavior modification is the goal, given the high volume of out-of-town traffic we see, I would think that eventually, most revenue would come from those who come through less frequently. When you consider those factors, along with your numbers on Kingsport, and the placement of multiple units throughout the city, I can’t see there being any real problem funding the extra officer Chief Beams would need.
In addition to the Robertsville/Illinois intersection, I’d like to see a speed camera placed on the Turnpike between the HS & Civic Center. It is a main thoroughfare for our city and has heavy pedestrian traffic coming from the HS in the afternoons. Given the frequent speeding that occurs there anyway and the limitations of placing a patrol officer there, it seems ideal for being a priority location. We have a lot of non-drivers (9th & 10th graders) who go to the library and civic center for multiple reasons including to study, to socialize, or to await pick up from parents. I don’t foresee this trend changing, nor would I necessarily want for it to.
I won’t be able to attend this evening’s meeting, but appreciate your engaging the public on this matter. I’ll try to pass along some thoughts to the rest of council if time permits, but you know I support the measure. I’ll monitor for any add’l questions or comments I can contribute.
Thanks Ellen!
Another critical area for consideration would be the turnpike coming into town from the west end. I don’t know the stats, but the accident/death rate has to be pretty high.
And the other obvious choice would be the Turnpike & Illinois intersection. Stats from the ORPD indicate an accident occurs there more than 1 time every other week.
Traffic Accidents for the intersection of Illinois Ave & the OR Turnpike:
2003 – 34 accidents
2004 – 35 accidents
2005 – 30 accidents
2006 – 34 accidents
2007 – 30 accidents
Ray: It’s clear that if Oak Ridge installs traffic cameras, their purpose will be expanded and improved traffic enforcement. This is not a money-making measure, and it won’t free up police officers for other duties. Those are perceived benefits, but they don’t seem to reflect reality. (I wouldn’t go so far as to call them “fake” benefits, but they do seem to be illusory benefits.)
Regarding who gets the tickets, I share your understanding the the ticket goes to the person whose name is on the vehicle registration. I expect that to create touchy situations within families, and even touchier situations when the vehicle is registered to an employer (and was being driven by an employee)… Fortunately for vehicle owners, though, tickets will not be reported to insurance companies and will not result in “points” on a driver’s license. I’m curious to find out how effective the collection of fines has been in other Tennessee cities. I’ve seen reports about problems collecting on tickets in California, but that does seem to be due in large part to issues about California’s requirement for identifying the driver.
Trina: Thanks for your thoughts on driver behavior and locations needing monitoring. This is stuff that deserves a lot of discussion before any electronic monitoring program is put in place.
Not to mention that our government would be planning to “fake out” citizens with false or deceptive attempts of security and safety in any department of our city is outright asking for a lawsuit. Another question is what happens to the city if these cameras were removed or shut down overnight? I do see problems with an outside company staying in Oak Ridge? Finally, what will be done with the money the city does collect from these cameras above what is needed?
I enjoyed reading your original post. It is obvious you have spent a fair amount of time researching this topic and trying to do what is best for the people and city you represent. Unfortunately, I don’t think most public officials put enough time into the decisions they make regarding electronic traffic enforcement
& other important topics. And even worse (as evidence of by the many arrests of TN public officials for taking advantage of their power, accepting bribes, ect. over the past few years) I feel there a many public officials in TN who put their own personal interests (both legal & illegal) ahead of what is best for the people they represent. This issue being no different.
That being said, let me make a few comments as to why I feel the state of Tennessee and many of its municipalities have been too cavalier and irresponsible in there acceptance of this unproven technology at the expense of TN citizens.
1. Safety. We all want improved safety. This is a noble goal. Unfortunately “Safety†is also a buzz word used by the manufactures and lobbyist of this type of equipment to win the opinion for their products. They have successfully brainwashed people to believe that electronic traffic enforcement = safety. There is no convincing scientific evidence supported by unbiased & sound research to support the claim that people are safer when these systems are implemented. In fact there are many studies now showing that there may be the potential for more harm in some situations. Until there are sound, unbiased scientific studies that demonstrate consistently that automated electronic traffic enforcement systems improve the safety of motorists, these devices should not be equated with improved safety.
The theory of improved safety is inflated by the companies. In addition surrogate markers such as fewer red light violations don’t necessarily equate to safety as these companies imply.
2. Influence from Private companies. Red flex and other companies are not in the business of saving lives….. Their purpose is to make money. You can trade stock in Red flex. I am afraid these companies have had too much influence with lawmakers in many states, including TN. It seems that thier lobbying efforts and slick talking have convinced legislators (like R in Knox area who proposed a bill last year to give cities gov the power to use these devices and impose violations as civil penalties ) that there systems improve safety, are accurate, and reasonable alternative to police officers. It is absurd to believe these companies receive 50% or more of the fines they collect. If the city truly thinks it needs one of these systems the system should be bought & maintained by the city. Instead of funneling large amounts of local money to companies around the globe with no interest in the area… keep the money local…. Let traffic fines stay local and create jobs for new officers.
3 Due Process of Law. If you receive one of these citations in the mail expect to have your constitutional rights blatantly disregarded. Example…. TN cities have the power to designate Photo enforced speeding tickets as “non moving civil violation..†This empowers the city (and the cam$cam company) to essentially extort money from people who are accused of a violation. The burden of proof is now on the accused. This is probably the biggest problem with the whole electronic enforcement issue. It undermines the whole basis of our legal system and the rights of the accused. Consider this… If a police were to issue the same citation for speeding in the same place it would be classified as a “moving violationâ€â€¦. This is better for the accused if they felt they were not guilty… at least your constitutional rights are not disregarded and they could appear in court and have there case heard and even question there accuser if they felt it were necessary. I’m not sure who figured this out… but it is brilliant for the municipalities who are using this kind of technology to produce $$$$$
3. Error / Calibration – these systems are not perfect. who ensures calibration…. The company????
4. Corruption….. with potential for easy revenue there is room for corruption. Examples… NC fines were being misappropriated. Many cities have been caught with shortened yellow light times 3/2008, Chattanooga TN had to refund 8800 tickets because someone discovered that the yellow light times were shorted that legally allowed at the intersections with theses type devices…… at least 5 other cities have been accused of the same. There are many more problems in this area
In closing I ask that your continue to research this topic closely. This is a very important topic that has wide spread implications for public safety, constitutional rights, corruption, and other issues.
I have yet to see anywhere what the actual accident rate statistics are in Oak Ridge. With the multi-page crash reports required by the State to be completed for all accidents, there is a plethora of information relating to the circumstances of these accidents. How many intersections crashes are caused by someone running a red light? How many are rear end crashes that are generally related to someone stopping (not running) a red light? As for speed cameras, how many crash reports indicate speed as factor in crashes? I am all for safety on our roads, but lets look at the statistics to make sure the behavior that automated enforcement seeks to alter is the behavior that causes accidents.
Timothy, you have it correct. We need to be looking at the safety through OUR statistics and not Knoxville.
This smells of the O’Connor businees grap for revenue. He is really hurting us.
I have read a paper presented at a National health and safety association that there are cities that do not follow the traffic association formula on timing of the amber or yellow light time before it goes red. It seems at least 3 or more seconds, depending on width of pavement. What public interest group is measuring and double checking for red light communities or for that matter due to safety, all communities, that amber lights are timed in correct manner per formula calculations? If you ask a city law enforcement group or city traffic staff, or city manager, or traffic committee, all of them are likely to say they have it accurate and its the unsafe drivers running lights in careless manner, but who is actually oversighting these light times, in the interest of both safety or fines and public abuse of improper systems? cityjimmy 7-30-08
I have just placed a call to the Clerk to find out the names of those who voted FOR the cameras and will vote against them when they come up for election. It is such a shame that the “leaders” of our town (which has so much amazing potential!) consistantly impose their ill conceived decisions on the community that only seem to add to the growing list of reasons why viable good businesses, and quality potential residents find this an undesirable place to live, work and shop.
You probably have your answer by now, but I’ll repeat the information. Voting in favor were Beehan, Hayes, Hensley, and Miller. Opposed were Golden, Mosby, and Smith.
I under this was to be brought up at the March 17, meeting yo determine if they were going to use this for enforcement and a recommendation would be made April 21. If this is the case why was I given a notice of traffic violation by The Oak Ridge Photo Enforcement Program on February 26? I am 73 years old and have never had a speeding ticket of any kind and people riding with with me say I am usually going to slow. I was taking my daughter to the doctor that day and she says there is no way I could have been speeding. Best regards. You seem like a nice lady trying to do do what is right.
There was no City Council action taken (or scheduled) on this topic in March. Fred Childress told Council that he had signed petitions from a large number of people asking for a change. Petitions like those don’t actually force any action to be taken (the city charter and state laws identify only a few very specific things that citizens can do by petition). As far as I know, a majority of the City Council is in support of these cameras, so there’s no value in re-arguing the topic…
As for your ticket, it’s possible that it was a mistake. If I were you I’d ask to see the video of the alleged violation. If there was a mistake, that’s the first step in getting it corrected. Also, it’s possible to ask the city judge to throw out a ticket if you have good reasons — although there could be additional costs if you contest the ticket, but lose.