Despite national reports casting doubt on the effectiveness of red-light cameras, the Shasta County grand jury recommends that Redding add them to intersections "at every opportunity."
In a report released Thursday, the grand jury touted the use of the cameras as a "phenomenal law enforcement tool" that reduced collisions by 48 percent in the first half of 2008 at the intersections at which they were installed.
Wrecks citywide were down by 21 percent over the same period, the jurors wrote.
"Redding Police Department traffic experts postulate that a primary cause of the dramatic improvements of traffic safety is the presence of red light cameras," the jurors wrote.
Despite concerns to the contrary, there's also been no evidence the cameras increased rear-end collisions at camera-equipped intersections, the jurors wrote.
But the jurors also noted that the cameras didn't seem to reduce collisions citywide during 2007, the cameras' first year of operation.
The jury also found that costs to taxpayers are negligible, but the cameras so far have generated no revenue for the city.
Taxpayers pay less than $30,000 each year for part-time officers who review the cameras' videos and photos, shot when a motorist triggers the camera's in-ground motion sensors.
The $325 fine generated each time a motorist is caught running a light pays for the rest of the program.
In 2007 and 2008, all of the $116,000 the city collected in fines went to Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Redflex Traffic Systems, the company that operates and installs the cameras, the jury found.
Under the city's contract with Redflex, the city will pay the company up to $200,516 in fees before the city can collect any cash. The agreement dictates that the city doesn't have to make up the difference if fines generate less than $200,516.
Even with the largely positive remarks from the grand jury, some in Redding still aren't convinced the cameras are a good idea.
"Leave it to Redding to promote the use of a questionable device that not only doesn't work effectively but extracts money from its citizens to benefit a company from a different state," said Gary Tull, 55, of Redding.
The complaints aren't limited to Redding residents.
In recent months, the cameras have drawn national attention as studies have cast doubt on the cameras' effectiveness while the companies that operate them rake in cash.
Although national studies show fewer T-bone crashes at lights with cameras and fewer drivers running red lights, the number of rear-end crashes increased.
Meanwhile, companies like Redflex expect increased revenue for years to come, while cities around the nation install them to bolster their revenue streams.
Redflex alone saw after-tax profits of $10.6 million in fiscal year 2008, up from $7.3 million the year before.
Aaron Quinn, spokesman for the Wisconsin-based National Motorists Association, said that there are cheaper safety alternatives to red-light cameras, including lengthening yellow-light times.
"We say, the red-light camera wouldn't have stopped anyone from getting hit," Quinn told The Associated Press. "Once (a city) sees one city getting it miles away, and that first city makes a bunch of money, they want to do it, too. It's like a virus."
Reporter Ryan Sabalow can be reached at 225-8344 or rsabalow@redding.com.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/mar/20/grand-jury-lauds-reddings-traffic-cameras/
No comments:
Post a Comment