Spokane7
50°
January 31, 2010 in Opinion
Editorial: Legislators need caution on red light camera bills
Perception isn’t reality, but it’s good enough for two Washington state lawmakers who want to curtail the fines for motorists who are caught on camera running red lights.
Sen. John Kastama, D-Puyallup, and Rep. Christopher Hurst, D-Enumclaw, have introduced the bills. The House version states that the fine can be no more than $25. The Senate bill reduces the fine to the level of local parking violations. The purpose of the bills is to dissuade the use of red light cameras, because some people view them as “cash cows” instead of tools to enforce safety.
Well, are they? The legislators provide no evidence, except to offer vague allusions to “reports” that the purpose has changed. Hurst alleges that municipalities are shortening the length of yellow lights to catch more speeders to pad law enforcement budgets. He has no evidence, just highly charged rhetoric: “This is not Tijuana. This is Washington state.”
He also likened cities to junkies and red light cameras to crack cocaine.
There is no evidence that cities are raising huge sums, but the lower fines would ensure that the costs of installation and operation would exceed the amount collected. From Nov. 1, 2008, through Oct. 31, 2009, the city of Spokane netted $103,000 from Photo Red. The “profit” went into an account for traffic safety.
It’s too soon to tell if public safety has been improved. We believe greater publicity and promotion would help deter drivers. Certainly something needs to be done. A total of 5,690 tickets have been mailed to red light runners. That’s an alarming number of dangerous acts, and it’s absurd to equate them with something as benign as a parking violation.
If the program does not meet the goal of improving public safety, then the city can decide to discontinue the program. Cities can also act if the “cash cow” charge is proved to be true. But legislators shouldn’t be dictating the future of red light cameras based on suspicions.
Cities can handle it. Kastama and Hurst ought to yield.
To respond online, click on Opinion under the Topics menu at www.spokesman.com.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
Obie1 on January 31 at 5:45 a.m.
As the old saying goes, “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.”
ChefGus/ John Olsen on January 31 at 7:45 a.m.
100 K on two traffic lights… and you don’t think it is a cash cow waiting to be bred and spred?? come on.. and there does not seem to be any improvement in accident statistics… but surely does seem to be more reticence among already reticent drivers… It behooves anyone entering an intersection near the time of a light having just changed to merely look left ( first because that is the first danger) and the right ( second because that is the second danger) with your foot off the gas and your brake covered.. ANY motorcycle rider will tell you that it takes two people to make an accident happen.. drive as if you are invisible to the other folks and you might avoid accidents..
Oh and one does wonder if the corporation who is servicing the lights is doing well… think they made 300K in the same time period… wonder if they contributed to the city council members who voted it in… seems clear to some of us…john
Hank Greer on January 31 at 10:46 a.m.
Funny how the editorial board’s belief in greater publicity doesn’t require the same level of evidence they demand of legislators. But let’s set that aside and read the bills instead. Doing so will show there’s much more to them than lowering the fines.
Under current law the registered vehicle owner must pay the fine regardless who was driving the vehicle unless it was stolen, sold, or it was rented/leased as a part of your business. The house bill would let registered vehicle owners file a statement or testify that the vehicle was under the control of another person which relieves them from the requirement of paying the fine. The bill requires a minimum duration of four seconds for the yellow light at intersections using photo red enforcement. It changes the fine from not exceeding “the amount of a fine issued for other parking violations within the jurisdiction” to not exceeding $25.00.
By the way, this remark by Officer Theresa Fuller is disingenuous at best.
The Spokane program is about safety, not revenue, Fuller said, although she questioned the comparison to a parking fine: “You’re not going to kill somebody not paying your parking meter. You can kill somebody running a red light.”
True, but the photo red fine is based on the maximum parking fine in the jurisdiction and we’re getting off easy. More on that down below.
The senate bill would restrict the use of automated traffic safety systems to two-arterial intersections, railroad crossings, and school speed zones. Photos taken by the systems are restricted to showing only the vehicle and license plate. They must not reveal the faces of vehicle occupants. The senate bill does not modify the vehicle owner’s responsibility that can only be overcome if the vehicle is stolen, sold or rented. And the fine for automated traffic safety camera systems is changed to “… not exceed the average amount of fines issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction.” The problem I have here is that the method for determining the average is not spelled out.
The maximum parking violation is $250 for parking in a designated handicapped parking spot. Under the current law, this is the amount vehicle owners could be fined for photo red violations. The fine in Spokane is $124. A normal parking violation is $15. Just taking the two fines of $250 and $15 and the average is $132.50. In that case, the senate bill could raise the fine in Spokane. Granted, my figures are based on the only two parking fines I’m aware of and I would appreciate it if anyone has more to add. However, since the senate version doesn’t state a method for determining the average, cities would be allowed to come up with the most creative—and lucrative—means for doing so.