|
Red light lockheed martin { April 18 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6475881p-7427118c.htmlhttp://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6475881p-7427118c.html
Red-light cameras debated
Proposed legislation could change the driver-ID policy and direction of photographs.
By Ed Fletcher -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Friday, April 18, 2003
In an effort to boost the number of citations issued by cameras at stoplights and make intersections safer, some law-enforcement officials are backing legislation that would remove the requirement that red-light runners be clearly identified in photographs.
While cameras have helped to drive down the number of traffic accidents each year, they argue, thousands of offending drivers evade punishment by shielding their face from cameras or because they don't have a front license plate to photograph.
"We are trying to get people to understand that running red lights can hurt people and kill people," said Sgt. Richard Carlson of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department.
The bill, SB 780, would clear the way for jurisdictions to aim red-light cameras at the back of cars, rather than the front as is now the practice in California. Several other states with camera programs have rear-facing cameras.
Under the current practice, auto collisions due to red-light running are down 22 percent in Sacramento County, said Carlson, who runs the program. The city of Sacramento's more established program has helped drive down auto accidents 44 percent, he said.
Red-light cameras are triggered when a vehicle enters an intersection after the light turns red. Assuming the driver of the vehicle reasonably resembles the registered owner's Department of Motor Vehicles photo, the owner will get photographs of the car in the intersection and a fine within weeks.
While Carlson said the program has been highly effective, 65 percent to 70 percent of violators are not issued a citation. Without the "clear photograph" requirement, Carlson said, citations could be given to as many as 70 percent of violators.
In addition to generating more citations, rear-facing cameras would remove safety and privacy concerns, say advocates.
"What was alarming was the totally unintended consequences of drivers deciding to obscure their faces," said John Lovell, a lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "That creates its own set of safety problems."
But opponents of the bill say it creates more issues than it solves. Written by Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, the bill would make getting caught by a red-light camera a lesser offense than being caught by an officer or a camera now.
Under the proposed law, offenders would be subject to a civil penalty of no more than $200, but their driving record would be unharmed. Violators of the current law are subject to a larger fine and potentially face traffic school, insurance rate hikes or other consequences of a "moving violation."
The new approach would stick it to the registered owner of the vehicle -- much like a parking ticket -- unless the owner can prove he was not the driver.
"Red-light running is a very dangerous thing. You can't equate it to a parking violation," said Paula LaBrie, a lobbyist for the California State Automobile Association, which opposes the bill.
LaBrie acknowledged that some people thwart the current system, but said the proposed law would remove a vital safeguard for drivers.
"We think that it is important to have a photograph of the driver," LaBrie said.
The auto association, the Northern California arm of the American Automobile Association, is backing another bill that, while not radically changing the program, would tighten restrictions on the relationship between camera system vendors and local agencies.
In a 2001 legislative hearing, then-Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon, expressed concern that private vendor Lockheed Martin IMS received nearly 93 percent of the approximately $700,000 generated by Sacramento's red-light camera program each year.
A 2002 state auditor's report found that vendors and companies paid to operate the systems had too much influence on the operation and placement of cameras.
Torlakson's staff said he planned to adopt amendments making it clear that local agencies control all aspects of the automated enforcement systems and mandating that vendors be paid a flat rate, with no incentives for the volume of citations issued.
AB 1022, by Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, takes a similar approach without changing the orientation of the cameras or other aspects of the current camera law. Both bills will be heard in committee meetings next week at the Capitol.
Chad Dornsife, a spokesman for the National Motorist Association, said the group is primarily concerned that intersections have enough yellow-light time to let traffic clear.
And while the bills may remove vendors' incentive to help issue a lot of citations, it does not remove the motivation for local agencies, he said.
"The problem with cameras is that the incentive is all wrong," Dornsife said. "Their entire budgets are now dependent on these cameras."
|
|
