Spokane7
65°
September 28, 2010 in City
Spokane City Council extends red light camera law
Photos can be used until at least 2013
Spokane’s red light cameras will stay in operation at least three more years.
The Spokane City Council on Monday voted unanimously to extend the law that authorizes the city to catch red light runners with cameras through Nov. 13, 2013. Otherwise it would have expired at the end of next month.
From November 2008 through Sept. 15, the city issued 14,555 tickets from red light cameras. Only 280 of the $124 tickets have been thrown out, said Spokane Police Officer Teresa Fuller, who runs the program.
Councilman Bob Apple said he was concerned about extending the life of the cameras for three more years given mixed results.
“I just don’t want to put the public in Spokane in harm’s way,” Apple said.
But City Council President Joe Shogan said he believes the program likely is making a difference.
“How bad would it have been if we had 14,000 red light runners with impunity not obeying the law?” he said.
A Spokesman-Review analysis of crash data at three intersections with cameras showed that collisions and injuries increased at intersections with cameras from 2008 to 2009.
Fuller said, however, that preliminary data indicates that crashes and injuries were down in the first half of 2010. She said tickets also have fallen – a possible sign that motorists are adapting more lawful behavior.
After the meeting, Apple said he agreed to vote in favor of an extension because doing so wouldn’t prevent the council from terminating the camera contract early.
The new date corresponds with the end of the city’s five-year contract with camera operator, Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions.
So far this year, the city has generated more than $600,000 from camera tickets. After expenses were subtracted, the city has made more than $270,000 in profit.
Worried that the cameras would be criticized as a cash cow, the City Council mandated that camera profits be spent only on traffic safety measures. Street officials are working with neighborhood councils to select the first $350,000 worth of projects paid for through cameras.
“It’s not some sort of gravy train for the city budget,” Shogan said.
MAC faces angry crowd 
ChefGus/ John Olsen on September 28 at 5:07 a.m.
Did i understand that collisions and injuries Increased at the three intersections with cameras? Was that a misprint ?? If so what were the types and severity of the accidents that occurred? john
Bullshapitsca on September 28 at 7:06 a.m.
“Collisions and injuries increased at intersections with cameras from 2008 to 2009.” Can somebody explain how a three year extention of a law that causes more accidents is anything but a revenue generator. All the talk about how it was enacted for “My Saftey” always was a crock. What am I missing here? How are 14,000 additional traffic tickets along with increased injury accidents a good thing for Spokane?
misjustice on September 28 at 8:06 a.m.
I avoid camera red intersections, not because I’m a red light runner but because I don’t want to be involved in an accident.
I think the accident rates demonstrate that these devices are more effective at generating revenue for the city, and freeing up traffic cops, than keeping drivers/pedestrians safe.
CommonSenseJoe on September 28 at 8:10 a.m.
These cameras also have apparently demonstrated how prevalent tailgating is in the city. I’m presuming that cars are stopping for the red light cameras - perhaps even prematurely - and cars are running into the backs of them. From what I can remember from drivers’ education, a car is supposed to remain a safe distance from the car in front of it. But, given that Spokane also has a very high percentage of unlicensed/uninsured drivers, their lack of driving knowledge doesn’t surprise me.
PlanB on September 28 at 9:11 a.m.
I’m not surprised the council again ignored the data (not just from Spokane but other cities) and kept this stupid and dangerous program alive. Once they began suckling off the money teet it was a sure bet they would say to hell with safety.
The reason all these citations haven’t increased safety is because there was not a problem in the first place. All things considered, people make the correct and proper driving decisions.
jonathanb on September 28 at 9:31 a.m.
ChiefGus,
Here is the article from January that describes the first year’s worth of data related to the first three intersections with cameras. It also explains the police department’s stance that at least three years worth of data is needed before deciding if the cameras are effective.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jan/06/red-light-cameras-yet-to-signal-safety/
underdeveloped on September 28 at 11:32 a.m.
The article wasn’t exactly specific. I would like to see the data from installation to present day and be able to compare to real numbers before the cameras were in place. How much did it increase and what type of accidents are happening now as compared to before. What other changes have occurred at these intersections. I think you can see a difference on the streets since these things went up and I am glad the council voted to continue the program. But lets make sure we are making decisions on facts - whether you are in favor or opposed to the cameras the facts that drive safety on the streets should drive decisions from the council.
madscientist on September 28 at 1:12 p.m.
$. that is the bottom line, here is a way to keep money coming in, a large profit, why not extend the use of the cameras. It does not deal with safety at all, it is for $.
dont be surprised to see more and more of these things all over.
madscientist on September 28 at 1:12 p.m.
$. that is the bottom line, here is a way to keep money coming in, a large profit, why not extend the use of the cameras. It does not deal with safety at all, it is for $.
dont be surprised to see more and more of these things all over.
spokanecougar on September 28 at 1:14 p.m.
I like this decision, increased accidents and all. Stupid idiots in this city need to stop running red lights and need to stop freakin tailgating.
Teseract on September 28 at 2:55 p.m.
The money is to be spent “only on traffic safety measures”, making this “ok” to some people. What they never say is how much money was in this fund from sources other than the red light cameras, and more importantly, if the same amount of funds were drawn from those sources after the influx of money from the red light cameras.
If, for example, the budget for traffic safety prior to the cameras was $100,000, with the profit from the red light cameras the budget would be $370,000. If the city council removes the $100,000 normally allotted to traffic safety from the budget, the general fund just increased by $100,000 while the politicians still get to say “hey, we’re not getting extra play money in the general fund because of the red light cameras”, even though indirectly they are.
It’s entirely possible that the above scenario has not happened. However, knowing how government and “creative accounting” works, I’d be shocked if it hasn’t.
cubuffalo on September 28 at 5:00 p.m.
I think this is a very wise move. Technology, along with better engineered cars, seat belt usage, and tougher dui enforcement all lead to the lowest number of traffic fatalities last year since 1950.
lillybuggy2 on September 29 at 7:26 p.m.
Red light cameras ARE very effective in reducing traffic accidents.